I pen this short note in response to the
many misleading answers that I found when reading this node
I have to say that at first several of your answers were impressive,
but after reflecting on them a bit I saw that there were
flaws. Several of you have allowed yourselves to be distracted
and mislead by the obvious. As they say "you're on the
As for the definition
of art, I think that PureDoxyk gave an acceptable answer
I would just like to elaborate a little. Yes...art is all
that surrounds us and yes...it is all that we create and hang on walls,
place on pedestals, and display in the corridors of museums.
Art is subjective and can not, I repeat, can not be objective;
the viewer defines art. I use the word viewer but I should use
the word participant. This is a much more appropriate word.
A piece of art's purpose is to inspire a person, to stir emotions,
and to communicate with the viewer; thus, the piece and the person
interact, there is a discussion. I feel that PureDoxyk's use of the
word "dialogue" is very fitting for what happens inbetween a piece of art
and the person examining it. A painting actually being "a piece
of art" is dependent on each person that examines it.
A person sketching a child playing, painting a
landscape, or sculpting...well anything, and a person examining a
piece of art in museum; both the creative process and the finished product
are both a process and a cause-and-effect. Art is both a process
and a cause-and-effect. Art as a process has already been demonstrated
I would like to discuss art as a cause-and-effect. Well, I guess I
should say that art is an effect, it is a reaction. What is the stimulus
that causes such an odd act to take place? This stimulus is a feeling, a sense
that is...is found throughout humankind. This stimulus is the innate sense
of self expression that is found in all men and women in all cultures around
the world. We all see the world in different ways; we create our own reality;
like a piece of art the world can only be seen subjectively.
All of our views of the world are blurred and distorted by characteristics of the
"self"; characteristics such as: male/female, white/black/asian/hispanic, American/German/Chinese, and even human. Our view of the world
is personalized even further by personal beliefs and personal experiences.
This being said, it is fair to say that it is difficult to be understood by others and
to understand others. No one likes to be misunderstood. By painting, drawing,
writing, playing music, sculpting, etc. we can help people understand;
we can make it easier to be understood. As for self expression, art is only one
way to do this; although art is a major one.
I only have
one thing to say to Alex.tan you do not understand art at all. To say
"the purpose of art is a distraction" is like saying thatlove is nothing more than
a chemical reaction.
Art does build on priori findings, discoveries,
ideas, in a sense. You have to think of art as being organic. Art matures and it
grows with new developments. In the realm of art the birth of the new idea erases/replaces the
idea that gave birth to it. The previous idea can no longer be seen as it develops.
One way to think of it is to picture art as a snake. As the snake grows it sheds its skin only when
this snake sheds a completely different one is found. The snake may have shed its skin and look different
but ofcourse it is the same snake.
Art and science. The juxtaposition of
these two can, initially, seem a bit contrived but after a period of review and reflection you will find
that it isn't. Before I offer up my meager arguement I would like to advise everyone who reads
this node to take the time to read a book called Art and Physics by Leonard Schlain. This
book will shed some very bright light onto the subject. Inverse Halo you're on the right track
but you're missing something. It is not that art and science are the same thing it is that tey are a
means to the same end. Physics, probably the most important and prominent field of science today,
attempts to interpret our world. With the coming of Einstein and the new physics we have realized that
we have to define and study our world subjectively, we can not escape our cell of subjectivity.
Doesn't this sound a little familiar? This is also art's goal! Yes, art is first a form of self expression
but by expressing ourselves we are providing a visual interpretation of reality, our interpretation!
Art interprets the world through paintings, sculptures, and various other mediums while physics(science) interprets
reality through mathematics and complicated scientific theories. Inverse Halo, you use the example of the right
and left hemispheres of the human brain to demonstrate this unity of art and science. This dependency or unity
that you speak of is not so. There have been experiments when the two hemispheres have been seperated
and they both functioned. If they were one wouldn't they have problems functioning with the absence of the other?
For this I site a book by the name of The Dancing Wu Li Masters as my source. This is another piece of
literature that I would like to suggest everyone to read.