Philosophy 304: Philosophy of Art
Introduction
I am posting this essay here because The Listology's original and prevailing subject matter is the arts, particularly cinema, literature, and music.
Philosophy is about basic concepts, and so philosophy of art is about the simple or basic concepts involved in the complex concept 'art'. This subject is part of the larger study called aesthetics, which is about the nature and sources of aesthetic pleasure. This is the pleasure produced by things that may be termed beautiful, sublime, awesome, etc. There are two main sources of such pleasure; one is the natural world, the other is art.
Note: My use of G1, G2 and G3 refers to my thesis that most philosophical concepts fall naturally into three groups (see Philosophy 103a, 103b and 103c).
Section 1: Three Theories of the Nature of Art:
G1. Art as Representation
This is the theory that a work of art represents an object or event. The literal meaning of 're-present' is to return an object to present experience - in other words, to re-mind. The represented object or event might be real or imaginary, but in this theory there is a bias towards reality. Those who support this theory tend to suggest that art ought to represent the real.
Note that the focus of this theory is on something other than the work of art and the artist, it is on the thing that is represented.
The beauty valued in this theory is the beauty of qualities (colors, sounds, textures, etc.)
Plato held this view of art, and on this basis gave art a lowly place in his account of the ideal society. His reasoning was that, just as works of art are imperfect copies of physical objects in this world, the copied objects themselves are merely imperfect copies of perfect objects, called Ideas or Forms, that exist in a world we cannot access with our physical senses. We are used to calling the world we can sense 'the real world', but Plato held that the world of Ideas or Forms is the ultimately real world and that it is only accessible to the properly educated intellect. So, for Plato, a work of art was merely a copy of a copy of reality.
Sub-section: Three sorts of representation:
G1. Analog representation. This sort represents by imitating the qualities of an object, usually its visual qualities. Realistic paintings and drawings produced in the traditional way (by brush and pencil) are analog representations. Also, this is representation of an object as an undivided whole. If you look at an analog representation through a magnifying lens it remains continuous and unbroken.
Analog representation can also be regarded as a recording technique, e.g., recording in paint (chemical recording) or the chemical-magnetic recording of sounds and images on tape. But as a recording technique it is subject to both acute disruption and chronic degradation. All paintings will gradually decay, magnetic tape is subject to both chemical decay and magnetic disruption, and the copying of an analog recording is subject to cumulative loss of information.
G2. Abstract representation. This sort represents by using the internal relations of an object. An object's internal relations are its structure and shape. To abstract means to separate out. An abstract representation of an object separates out its basic structure and shape. A 'stick figure' is an abstract representation of a human body. A 'smiley face' :-) is also an abstract representation.
G3. Digital representation. This sort represents by converting the qualities of an object into quantities. Quantities, numbers, are more easily transmitted than qualities. This is how photographs taken by robot spaceprobes are transmitted back to Earth. The on-board computer converts the camera's image into a series of numbers, each of which stands for (rather than represents) a dot of a certain shade of colour along with its position in the image. These numbers are then radioed back to Earth where a computer reconverts them into images. Digital images are made up of dots, which can be seen when the image is magnified.
The wonderful thing about digital recording is that, as long as the set of numbers it consists of retains its integrity, it is not subject to disruption nor decay. A digital representation can exist as long as its set of numbers (and the matrix for interpreting those numbers) exists. Numbers never decay, so a digital recording need never decay. Dorian Gray should have recorded his portrait digitally :-)
The theory of art as representation applies well to the depicting arts, such as painting, sculpture, prose and cinema; but it applies less well to such arts as music and dance. However, even in music there is sometimes representation (it is called programmatic music). An example is Beethoven's 6th Symphony, the 'Pastorale', which was composed to represent the countryside and a storm.
G2. Art as Significant Form
The word 'form' in this theory doesn't refer to Plato's other-worldly Forms, but to shapes, structures and arrangements of colors. What makes such shapes, structures and arrangements 'significant' is that, in the sufficiently sensitive observer, they produce aesthetic pleasure. According to this theory, representation is only important if it is representing something that already has significant form. But most significant form is not a representation, it is created by the artist's imagination.
Note that the focus of this theory is not reality or the artist but the work of art itself.
The beauty valued in this theory is the beauty of relations (shapes, structures, arrangements).
This theory applies well to pictorial art, particularly abstract pictorial art, and to music (if you include the arrangement of sounds under the heading of 'form' - as well you may). It also applies well to the art of architecture.
G3. Art as the Expression of Feeling or Emotion
According to this theory art is a behavior caused by the impact of the artist's surroundings upon what might be described as his/her feelings or emotions.
Note that the focus of this theory is not the work of art but the artist's feelings or emotions, or, more exactly, the things in the artist's environment that cause his/her feelings or emotions.
This theory tends to place less value on the beautiful and more on the sublime or the awesome. The sublime is that which excites respectful, even fearful, wonder.
This theory applies plausibly to most arts, exceptions being architecture and the realistic depiction of ordinary inoffensive objects.
A Note on the Three Theories of Art:
What I have presented as three distinct theories of the nature art might better be considered to be three aspects of art. While many works of art do represent real or imaginary objects, not all do. Many works are not representations at all but are explorations of the possibilities of combinations of form and content. And both art that represents and art that does not can also be expressive of the feelings of the artist.
Three Sorts of Artworks:
G1. Autographic Artworks
The prime examples of this sort of artwork are sculptures and paintings. They are called autographic (made graphic by self) because the artist and the performer are necessarily one and the same person. The artwork consists of both concept and performance, and it exists in a material medium (e.g. stone, or paint on canvas). Also, the artist/performer is distinct from the audience. The concept of forgery applies to this sort of artwork; the concept of plagiarism (theft of idea) is less important.
G2. Formally Allographic Artworks
The prime example of this sort of artwork is music. They are called allographic (made graphic by another) because the artist and the performer are not necessarily the same person. And they are called formally allographic because they consist of a set of formal instructions for the performer to follow. Both artist and performer are distinct from the audience. The concept of forgery does not apply to such artworks, but the concept of plagiarism applies quite strongly.
G3. Contextually Allographic Artworks
This sort of artwork is performed on an instrument by the instrument's environment. An auditory example is the music produced by wind chimes. The role of the artist in this sort of art is to design the instrument (e.g. wind chimes) on which the environment performs. And to the extent that the audience is part of the instrument's environment, the audience is a factor in the performance.
NOTE: The next three lines are headings for intended additions to this article.
Why do we like art?
The levels of abstraction, re-visited.
What is the art-religion connection?
Summary:
Three theories of (or aspects of) art:
G1. Art as representation.
Focus on the things represented (reality).
Aesthetic pleasure from beauty of (mainly
visual) qualities.
G1. Analog representation (qualities).
G2. Abstract representation (internal relations).
G3. Digital representation (quantities).
G2. Art as significant form.
Focus on the work of art.
Aesthetic pleasure from the beauty of shapes,
structures, spatial arrangements.
G3. Art as the expression of feeling or emotion.
Focus on emotional stimulants in the artist's
environment.
Aesthetic pleasure from the sublime or awesome.
Three Sorts of Artworks:
G1. Autographic (artist must be performer)
G2. Formally Allographic (artist need not be performer)
G3. Contextually Allographic (environment is performer).
Note: the distinction between autographic and allographic, which I have expanded upon, is borrowed from Nelson Goodman.
Internet citations of this article
Welcome back bertie! I sure hope we see more of you now that you're back online! The place hasn't been the same without ya.
Well, thanks. But I sure would like some feedback on this article. (Note to self: bertie, to get feedback you have to give feedback. Reply to self: okay, fair enough, I'll make more of an effort to make new friends and look up old ones.)
Okay, I've tried to come up with something pithy, and have failed. I do think this is an interesting article though, and I have two questions:
1. Are the three theories of art mutually exclusive?
2. Are analog and abstract representation really distinct, or are they just two ill-defined stops on a continuum. ALL art is abstract, it seems to me, it's just a question of degree.
Two good questions.
Re.1: Philosophical theories tend to be based on single concepts, but the nature of art is probably such that no single-concept theory (representation, form, emotion) can plausibly claim to account for the whole shebang. Probably not even those three together can account for it. That said, the representation theory is now looked upon as a bit naive, or even crass (especially, I would guess, since the advent of photography). The significant form theory is also obsolescent, having given way to the emotion theory. Note that the emphasis has changed from the represented (or real) to the artwork itself, and from the artwork to what might be termed the artist's emotional environment. These emphases are relevant to answering your second question.
Re.2: Analog and abstract representation are quite distinct. While our perception of the world no doubt abstracts from a much richer whole, it is that perception that we try to represent in full in a 'realistic' painting. Such representation is termed analog because of this attempt to make the image as similar as possible to the perceived reality. An abstract representation, on the other hand, is simpler, shows less detail, emphasises the basic structure of the thing it represents, and thus also emphasises the fact that it is an artwork.
Cool, thanks bertie! A follow-up question regarding the "emotion theory", which you indicate is currently prominent: from your writing it sounds like it concerns itself with the artist's emotional environment rather than the viewer's. Does the viewer factor into it at all? If not (or if minimally), why is that? It seems like the viewer's emotional response should be paramount (even if it varys wildly from viewer to viewer).
The three theories of art are attempts to answer the question, What, fundamentally, are artists doing when they produce art? Are they making representations of their perceptions of the real or even of the imaginary? Are they inventing and displaying new and wonderful 'significant forms' that explore the seemingly endless possibilities of what might be termed 'aesthetic species' (an analogy with biological species). Or are they simply expressing the feelings and emotions that are stimulated in them by the circumstances of their lives? The question is not, or has not been, What is the role of the audience in art? But it is a relevant question. The answer that immediately springs to mind is that it is the role of the audience to evaluate the artwork. We do plenty of that here at TL, don't we. But other answers are possible. Can you suggest any?
I can't really think of any. Actually, the whole reason I raised the question is because I've never considered art as being defined by the emotional state of the artist, but rather as the viewer. I see now, of course, that this means if somebody paints a masterpiece and never shows it to anybody it's not art, which is rather absurd (or Zen).
The audience might have several roles. Apart from the obvious one of evaluation, there's the practical one of paying the artist to be an artist. We all directly buy some sorts of art, but also, if we pay taxes and the government grants money to artists then we are indirectly paying those artists to produce art (art which most of us may never see). Another possible role, if art is indeed emotive expression, is to empathetically receive that expression. There's a memorable scene in the movie NIGHT OF THE GENERALS in which an insane nazi general, played by Peter O'Toole, stands rapt before a self-portrait (sans ear) of Vincent vanGogh, clearly empathising with the insanity expressed in the picture. Okay, this is an extreme and negative example, but you see what I'm getting at. This role is distinct from evaluation, I think. Generally (no pun intended) we may say that the main role of the audience is to receive whatever aesthetic value, positive or negative, is to be had from an artwork. I would argue that there are three (big surprise) main sorts of such value: (1) qualitative beauty (the beauty of colors, textures, sounds, etc., (2) formal beauty (the beauty of shape, symmetry, perspective, etc., (3) quantitative beauty or sublimity, the intensity of feeling that mother nature (and human insanity) can stimulate.
This is a very interesting article.
I have several comments.
As an artist, I do not feel close to my work after I have produced it. The closest thing I would feel would be nostalghia for the idea. I have heard people describe the emotions felt during spontanious Stigmata (excuse the blasphemous pun) as a spiritual pleasure. I would say that I feel much the same way.
The problem I have with Plato's argument (probably because I am and artist and he partially negates me as functional. Bite me Plato.)is his time-frame. His perspective is limited to a point in time.I would always love to hear a old Plato comment on Andy Warhol, Van Gogh, Louise Nevelson and others.
Another group not being represented is the viewer. I have shown at galleries and experienced conversions to certain pieces over the space of 3 hours. The person who hated it, will talk in a group, drink a little bit, then take another turn ,look at that same piece, and love it. The viewer takes the piece and conforms it to their experience. The viewers interpretation negates most standard views of art, or all people would see the same thing, experience the same emotion.
I have read that art is an artists response to his environment. I have read that the artist is a historian. I have read that art is meant to make sense of the universe. My explanation of art is connection. I do all of the things you have listed above, just as a person eats, sleeps and poops to go on living. My product is the product of these simple, mechanical processes. The viewer in turn, turns this art into something much more interesting than I could have intended.
Interesting that you describe the pleasure you feel in producing your art as 'spiritual' pleasure. Historically art and religion have been closely linked, and the link is no mere coincidence. Religion and art are both fundamentally about stasis, the denial of universal change; the assertion that there can and do exist things that are everlasting and unchanging, such as spirits, and such as the concepts behind artistic representations. Plato's Forms, if they exist, have stasis in common with spirits (if they exist) and with artisitic concepts.
You raise the subject of evaluation of works of art. Evaluation of art is an important part of philosophy of art, but I have not yet included a section on it in my essay. I plan to. Interesting that you term a change in someone's evaluation of a work of art as a 'conversion'. Your comments are peppered with religious terminology.
I would like to read more about your explanation of art as connection. What you have said so far is a bit thin. (Yes, you could justly make the same complaint about my essay, I admit).
The idea that a work of art can contain more than its creator intended or realised is also an interesting one. I'm sure there is much more to be said about this phenomenon in a general account of art, and I'll have to give it some thought.
Thanks for your comments.
Thanks for replying.
Forgive the thinness, I tend to not want to ramble on and on and bore the reader to death. Me, I'm a get to the point type of guy, I prefer The Martian Chronicles To Lady In White any day (woof Lady In White was boring). I will give your response some serious thought and get back to you on your inquiries. Are you by any chance majoring in psychology?
I also try to be a get-to-the-point kind of guy. Life's too short to be spent wading through waffle. I prefer short stories to multi-volume epics. "Keep it simple, stupid" isn't a bad motto.
No, I majored in philosophy. Psych 101 was pretty educational, but my heart belongs to Sophia.
I'm consumed right now in my insane 500 list. *(arf). But, I've thought about what you've said, i've said, a couple of other people said and I have come up with a way of communicating the idea of art as connection. It may or may not work, I've never actually done anything like this before but I'm an adventurer at heart. Okay, first of all I'll choose a painting, a short story, a movie and a album. hmmmmmmmm...
Henri Matisse The Red Room, 1908, Guy de Maupassant The Necklace, Ridley Scott's Blade Runner and Elliot Smith Either/Or. There we are.
Okay, take the time to peruse these four pieces of art and then write what you feel and think and even hate about them. I'll do the same on my end. If you cand wrangle a few other people that'd be fun too.
I figure this might not work but why the heck not do it anyway, "damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead." :?)
I have seen the Scott several times, but I'll borrow my brother's dvd copy and give it a special viewing. Also I've located the Matisse and the Maupassant on the web. The only problem might be with locating the Smith, that might take a while. I will get back to you, eventually.
Okay, if you wanna replace the Elliot Smith with something feel free (I've probably got it stooky's gigantic head hits the wall and he says ouch). Nice to hear from you B. I'm waiting with anticipation. :?)
Nah, I've already ordered the Elliot Smith. If you can wait another week I'll porbably be able to give you my thoughts about it.
Meanwhile, I can start on the other works. But I'll start a new thread to give us more spouting space.
I'll start with Harmony in Red (The Red Room) by Matisse , which I hope is the picture you meant. The title is fitting, since the red wall and tablecloth are the only things in harmony. The rest of the picture is full of strong contrasts, from the black and white of the servant's clothes to the almost childish clash of colors in the scene outside the window. What really grabs the eye is the blue-black pattern of branches and flowers on the red, crossed by the mainly yellow food and drink. The picture is quite colorful, but it conveys a general impression of disharmony rather than harmony. The draftsmanship is crude (and I know its probably naive of me to mention that), but the color effects are striking. I would rate it as moderately interesting.
To start with, thanks for the link.
The window sill echoes the outer edge of the painting to almost perfect proportions, probably to create a visual flow to the main character at the other side of the painting. Dynamic tension is created by using green and blue exterior against the brilliant red of the interior. It creates a depth that communicates a sense of whimsy that is echoed in the cloud-like trees. The bush creates focus on the orange sill and helps to break the painting into two seperate planes. The billowing shapes of the trees and fields are recreated inside with simple blue filegree that creeps off the table cloth onto the walls like a living organism. My favorite part is the still life that is at the centre of the painting, laid out so that the character that interacts with the fruit becomes frozen as well. The entire painting is cut into various shapes that creates a complicated, even puzzle-like view. It is a brilliant conceit that turns the entire painting into a still life on a grand scale. Each group of details representing a focal area. My eyes are delighted by the interaction of the color and shapes. They bring out new hidden areas in the painting, new hidden relationships. The fruit stand in the centre seems simple enough. But on further inspection, it has a brown base that mimics the chair beside it. flowers rise up out of the plume and disperse into small flecks of yellow that are mimicked again in the exterior. The fruit also seems to creap out the tray and onto the table. Sending my eyes out and around the painting again. The ode to Van Gogh in the chair at the bottom left. Above all the visual rhythms created by the undulating blue shapes and the brilliant red. Each time I look I notice new and interesting details to focus on. I feel rejuvinated by viewing this painting, I love the conceit that is the simplicity of style vs. the complexity of design.
Thanks for sharing your insights into the picture. For me, the most significant part of your reaction to this picture is your use of the term 'still life'. This is a term that captures the static nature of pictorial art (especially). Art, and pictorial art above all, expresses our longing for permanence and essential changelessness. It is a longing also expressed in the resistance to change that is characteristic of religion; hence the strong connection between art and religion.
I have read the Maupassant story a couple of times. [Spoiler warning for those who haven't read it!] I interpret it as a swipe at the dishonesty of the lower-middle-class values of the the time: the vanity of social climbing (leading to the borrowing of the necklace), the overriding fear of losing one's 'respectability' (leading to the years of needless effort to repay the debt incurred by replacing the lost necklace), and above all the simple dishonest failure to admit the loss of the necklace. This dishonesty is underlined, with very harsh irony, by the dishonest nature of the necklace itself; its diamonds are fake. A very effective story, compactly structured, and the sting in the tail is expertly placed.
I agree with you in almost every respect.
I thought "The Necklace" had a subtext about the way people interpret other people and their reactions to go along with the main theme of dishonesty. Her friend lends her the necklace and does not seem extremely worried, yet the main character creates a preconceived value to the object. But if it had been so expensive a trinket and worth that ammount of money would the lender have even said yes? The main character also makes an assumption that the necklace is real based on a societal situation and the admiration other people put on the object. It is understandable that a person would be redisent to admit you had lost the necklace but to go to such lengths to replace it seems like martyrdom. She loses all the things she wants to satiate the need carry on the appearance that she had taken good care of the necklace. Her dishonesty and lack of moral gumption leads to the family's fall from grace. It reminds me of a fable in that respect. I enjoyed the simple way it was written, as you said "The Compact Structure", and the ending is wonderfully sly.
How's things going Bertie? have ya thought of a CD yet?
Tallyho
:?)
I'm back Bertie and I'll post about the Necklace on Wednesday.
tallyho
:?)
Matter of fact, I was about to apologise to you for seemingly abandoning this thread. I'm having some health problems and haven't been to work or on the net much for about three weeks. The Eliot Smith cd is no longer available new where I am, so I'll either have to find a used copy or choose something else.
Hope it's not anything serious and a simple "Get well soon!" will suffice.
Choose something else Bert. It's probably easier to hit something I've got (and i'm not trying to toot my own horn either).
Tallyho
:?)
We've discussed a painting and a short story; now to the movie. How good is BLADE RUNNER? - better than most sf movies - which really isn't saying a lot, but - I would place it in the top twenty. The version without Dekard's narration is generally agreed to be preferred. The style can be described as 'future noir', with reference to the great film noir movement of the forties. Philosophically it poses the question of the moral responsibilities of designers and creators of artificial life, and, beyond that, the question of the ultimate value of any life. The final scenes are deeply moving and unforgetable. Another notable, and rare, feature of the movie is that it has no dud characters - all have their own fascination.
I'll be gone for a month. I'll be back in July to continue with this discussion.
Tallyho
:?)
We'll miss ya! Hope it's a pleasure departure and not business.
Actually business it was. And as that goes it was a bust, but life goes on. I got sad stories up to my eye-balls. Anyway.
I'm back, baby!
And where the heck did my smiley face go in the member directory? I was just gettin' used to the weird little guy.
Tallyho
:?)
Welcome back! Sorry business was a bust. I'm not sure what happened to your photo, but there doesn't seem to be anything in the DB (which I didn't touch, honest!). Can you go to "My Menu --> Profile --> Photo URL" and reenter it?
Of course, that won't bring the smiley back, since those are dead for everybody, but it will put a checkmark under the "photo" column for you.
Okay, it was probably me in full brain-fart mode.
Thanks.
Tallyho
:?)
Fair enough.
Blade Runner: I read the short story by P.K.D. a while ago and I have to say that was a good thing to do. The movie which I had alway liked as a groundbreaking effort in sci-fi actually starts to make sense. The problem with the basic formatting of the film is that it's so darn episodic. Scenes are lumped together with no connective faberic. Which brings me to the voice-over vs. no-voice-over. I used to prefer the voice-over and it's obvious links to film noir of the 40's and 50's (Beginning with the wonderful line at the beginning of Detour). But after reading said story I understood certain subtle plot developements and the voice-over became very annoying, hence I have changed my mind. (Be aware that the short story is quite a bit different that the movie.)
The movie itself is a dark, depressing masterpiece of visual flair. Every single scene is so packed with evocative visual information that I get awe-struck. Particularily the chase scene through the bustling red-light section of the city (Amazing sound editing too). The script is efficient and seldom boring although it does have a large dose of pulp to it. With-out the voice-over the film attains an vaguely silent film effect that I suppose was being strove for, considering the set design. Each character is excellent and it contains scenes that are among the best in cinema (the interrogation, Dekard's pursuit of stripper, the love scene, the final chase through a detereorating mansion).
I actually find the film to be largely about two things, racism and the value of life. What Roy does in the last sequense sums up what the film seeks to communicate (in my estimation anyway), he saves the life of a person who not only wants to kill him, but an opponant he has defeated. He ellicits a great ammount of humanity, which frees Dekard's mind as well. He says "I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die." A line that is as silly as it is poignant. The very fact that Roy is not supposed to understand that difference is why he must die. Asking the question: Because Roy understands the difference between a genetically authored past and the memories he has experienced first-hand is he human? And is the society that seeks to kill him in turn less than human?
Tallyho
:?)
I'm not sure I can agree that racism is a theme of the movie. Need to hear your argument for this.
And while I'm being picky, I think you'll find the movie was based upon a novel by P.K.D., not a short story, titled Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? (Silly title, on the face of it; but when you consider the role of artificial animals in the story it makes much better sense.)
But your comments, as usual, are interesting. Yes, the sound editing is great. I'm haunted by the talking pedestrian crossings: "Don't walk, don't walk, don't walk...Walk now, walk now, walk now..."
I always took it for granted that it was about racism. Here's how my thinking got there: There are several noticeable indications- The fact that androids inhabit slave ships as well as outer colony posts and are forced to do demeaning and dangerous jobs. The fact that main characters call them skin-jobs as a description, an obvious slur that is pointed out more fully the novel (yes you're right, crossing brain cells with original story for The Thing for some reason). Also made obvious in the voice-over version with a line that goes something like In the last century he would have been the type of person who calls black people.... and some subtle ones: The fact that androids are not allowed on earth unless supervised by a human and in a subserviant position. Rachel is set to be eliminated because she chooses to run. The fact that they are seen as disposable if they begin to ellicit human emotions or any kind of desires. And a few that I think interesting: Because they do not real memories (as well as a few vague mental ticks) is the difference seperating them from humans. The fact that with implanted memories give androids vibrant emotions makes them even more frightening to the society they live in.
Tallyho
:?)
Yes, you've convinced me that racism is indeed a theme of the movie. Interesting that a covert approach to racism was no longer necessary when the movie was made, though it may have been necessary when the novel was written. These days it is a theme that can be addressed quite openly in movies (e.g. Do The Right Thing, and other Spike Jones 'joints').
I think this may be the first time I've convinced anybody of anything in my entire life. I feel so proud.
Thanks Bertie, you've made my day.
Have you read the novel?
Tallyho
:?)
Yes I have read the novel, but it was long ago, I think before the movie was made. It occurs to me, of course, that it might be interesting to re-read it in the light of the movie which I have seen several times. Dick was (and is) a cult author within the genre of sf, and so wasn't what you'd call widely read, not during his life, but more so after. He is perhaps the most obscure author to have so many hit movies based on his work. I remember reading that he had some formal training in philosophy, which immediately raised him in my esteem :-)
Do you have one of the following?
The Shins- Chutes too Narrow
Miles Davis- Nefertiti
Michael Jackson- Thriller
Jennifer Warnes- Famous Blue Raincoat
Led Zeppelin- IV
Pink Floyd- Dark Side Of The Moon
Joni Mitchell- Blue
The Beatles- The White Album
The Rolling Stones- Let It Bleed
Sonny Rollins- Saxaphone Collosus
Tallyho
:?)
Yes, I have one of them :-} I have The Beatles - The White Album, on vinyl, numbered. Bought it when it was first released. I can still remember the thrill of playing it for the first time. Excuse me now, nurse says it's my nap time :-D
Okay stooky, what I've done regarding The White Album is go through the list of songs relying on my memory to revisit and rate them. It's been many years since I last played the album, but most of them I find I can still access on my internal turntable.
Six favorite tracks: "Dear Prudence", "Happiness is a Warm Gun", "Rocky Racoon", "Don't Pass me By", "Birthday", "Helter Skelter".
George Harrison's contributions strike me as pretentious, and a couple of Paul McCartney's are twee or sugary. Paul and John ruled as a team, and John alone was better than Paul alone.
A great album, surpassed, perhaps, only by Sgt Pepper's...
Your comments about the pretentiousness of G.H.'s songs had me thinking "What the heck's he talking about." But I looked again...and you're right(except for maybe Savoy Truffle). I'm with you on the John vs. Paul argument that people have been having ever since the Beatles broke up. Kryce, a new lister, would say Paul was definately the better.
A sad tidbit: Paul is trying to change the wording of the songwriting credits to say McCartney/Lennon for any future re-releases.
The White Album aka The Beatles
Not my favorite Beatles record but probably the most rewarding listen because of the experimentation.
The seperation of song-writing styles becomes pretty obvious on this record. I can hear each member seeking their own voice. Definately a band breaking apart.
Fave songs:
Back In The U.S.S.R. - A in-joke pointed at The Beach Boys that has an endless summer glow.
Dear Prudence - Just a great pop-rock song.
The Continuing Adventures Of Bungalow Bill - Silly satirical fun.
While My Guitar Gently Weeps - A big warbling weeper that contains some of the most beautiful guitar in music history.
Happiness Is A Warm Gun - A three tiered song whose soft beginning breaks into a classic guitar break-down and then spreads out into a wonderful doo-wop evoking pop outtro. It's like a bite-size symphony.
Blackbird - An absolutely beautiful song.
Rocky Racoon - A wacky old-timey song that has a georgeous melody and brilliant lyrics (that rhyme in fascinating ways). I adore the instrumentation.
Helter Skelter - My favorite song. A thrashing masterpiece of pre-punk madness. Probably the finest rock song ever recorded (even over Satisfaction). It's sad it will be forever tainted by an association with Charlie Manson.
Disc one is better than disc two. Revolution #9 is a awful dub experiment.
Overall The White Album has a very modern sensibility to it. An invigorating album that is a musical milestone of every growing boy...along with Pink Floyd's The Wall.
Tallyho
:?)
Neat that we agree so much on our faves.
Now, you owe me an explanation of what you meant by saying art is connection. Does it have anything to do with E.M.Forster's dictum "Only connect"? But first, I'd like to reconsider each of the works we looked at in the light of my essay on philosophy of art. I'll try very hard to at least make a start on that tomorrow.
What the heck, I'll do the Matisse picture now.
Okay, does the picture represent reality? I'd say it does, somewhat, but it is not purely analog representation, there's a sizeable degree of abstraction there too. Which is why I'd say it fits the theory of 'significant form' better. The shapes and colors are what it's about, more so than merely a picture of a servant in a dining room. Does it call up a particular emotion in the viewer? Well, it didn't in me, so I would not cite it as supportive of the 'emotional' theory of art.
Being as it is a painting, the sort of artwork it is is autographic - the artist was necessarily the performer.
Matisse- Harmony in Red
I would say like most of his peers Matisse was experimenting with abstraction to represent and analog world. I think they were trying to represent how the spiritual (emotional inner life) connects to the physical world. definately analog and abstraction at work.
Obviously autographic.
This painting, along with most of it's counterparts, were probably more significant during their time that now (when abstraction is as available as a box of Cheerios). It's importance now is that of a historical artifact of a time when abstraction was an innovation.
The emotional impact on me was and is...the distortion of the image I appreciate because I seek to generify and reinterpret my influences (this being one of them) into my own artwork. So I probably am connecting on a purely selfish level to this painting.
More on how this conversation connects to the theory after I manage to waste enough time to remember what the heck I was talking about. ;?)
Tallyho
:?)
Stooky, what sort of art are works of literary fiction? - our example being the de Maupassant short story "The Necklace". The author is the artist, but is the artist also the performer? Does literature even have a performer? If it does, I think it must be the audience - the reader, who performs by interpreting the author's words. So the reader may be both the performer and the audience.
I'll have to read this article and its discussion later. But for now: Your Listology profile notes that "[bertie's] avocation is philosophy, in which he has made important but as yet unrecognised discoveries." What do you believe are your important but unrecognized discoveries in philosophy?
Yes, by all means read this; but then have a look at this one, which is the outline of an intented expansion of the present article. All, or most, of the concepts are there, I just have to explain what I mean by them.
My important but as yet unrecognised discovery is the Three Groups. They might have been discovered by Kant (look up Kant's categories), but weren't. They might even have been discovered by Plato (look up Plato's tripartite soul and his account of the virtue 'justice' and his account of the three classes of citizens in the ideal polis), but weren't. They are, in their developed form, my discovery and one day their importance will be recognised.
"this one" is not properly linked. What did you want me to see? Also, please link to your "Three Groups" explanation if you've explained it online.
Oops, just read the article and saw your notes on where to read about your Three Groups.
Sorry about the dud link. I prepared it all and then forgot to insert the URL between the ""s.
Here it is again: Philosophy of Art - Revisited. As I say, it's still only an outline, but most of the concepts are there.
Here's the gist of what I claim about the Three Groups:
I claim the following:
1. The central concepts in each of the various subject matters of philosophy can be placed, non-arbitrarily, into three groups - which I give the deliberately non-descriptive labels G1, G2 and G3.
2. Because claim 1 is a meta-philosophical claim - a claim about the whole of philosophy - its plausibility can only be made evident by showing the Three Groups in each of the subject matters of philosophy. Hence my series of articles about the subject matters of philosophy.
3. The non-arbitrary nature of the Three Groups can be shown by pointing out what I call 'commonalities' shared by many (but not all) of the items in a Group.
4. The items in each Group are linked by 'family resemblance' - which means there is no one commonality shared by all items in a Group.
5. Because the theories or doctrines in each subject area of philosophy are usually centered upon a single concept, most philosophical theories and doctrines also fall into the Three Groups.
5. In the history of philosophy, few if any of the sets of doctrines offered by individual philosophers fall into just one Group, so the Three Groups are not three 'philosophies' nor even three classes of philosophies.
5. The Three Groups thesis shows that many of the dichotomies worshipped in what I call philosophy's Dichotomy Fetish are better conceived as trichotomies. (Notice that one of my articles is on the Dichotomy Fetish).
Thanks, that was helpful. I really should take an Intro to Philosophy course as one of my summer classes because you've made Philosophy interesting to me but reading scattered outlines of philosophical principles on Listology is not the best way to understand the field of study!
I've just realised I posted a not-quite-finished version of my 'claims'. While I was writing it I kept adding new claims up and down the list and somehow the last three ended up being number 5. A minor matter but embarrassing.
If I still have your interest I'd like to add a few examples of what I've called 'commonalities' in that list.
Now, suppose you went to my list of Core Concepts and you picked out these two triples:
The three sorts of philosophy:
G1: Metaphilosophy (subject matter: philosophy itself)
G2: Pure philosophy (subject matters: meaning, reasoning, knowing, the real the true, the effective, the mind, values, ethics)
G3: Applied philosophy (subject matters: religion, science, politics, commerce, art, environment, etc, etc.)
The three main sorts of argument:
G1: Analogy
G2: Deduction
G3: Induction
And suppose you asked me what two G1 items, analogy and metaphilosophy could possibly have in common. I would answer you as follows:
First, it is important to understand that 'family relationship' means that there is (probably) no one thing that all members of a Group have in common. But there are commonalities that extend widely throughout the Groups. One of these commonalities is quantitative.
The G1 quantity, so to speak, is singularity. Or, to be more exact, it is singularity from duality. That last expression will strike you as being in danger of self-contradiction, I expect. But you will come to see what I mean by it.
To specifics. You ask what metaphilosophy has in common with analogy. The answer, in part, is singularity. Metaphilosophy has just one subject matter - philosophy itself. And analogy is argument from observed similarities beween two single things (or between two groups being *counted* as single things) to a conclusion about a possible unobserved similarity between them.
Your question now becomes, what do pure philosophy and deduction have in common?
The G2 quantitative concept is grouped plurality. Deduction is argument from what is true about a group to what is true about an individual (or what is *counted* as an individual) that is in some way related to that group. Pure philosophy is about several groups of related topics - e.g., the several topics of epistemolgy (knowledge theory), the several topics of metaphysics (the real, the true, the effective), the several topics of ethics, etc.
Now your question becomes, what do induction and applied philosophy have in common?
The G3 quantitative concept is totality. Induction is argument from what is true about particular things (or groups *counted* as particualr things) to what may be true about all (about the totality) of such things. Applied philosophy is (in principle) about all things - except those treated in meta- and pure philosophy.
The quantitative commonaliity is very pervasive, but it does not quite account for all items in all three Groups.
For further evidence of this, just go through the list of triples in either my Core or Uninhibited list, and as you compare concepts think "one, several, all - or singularity, grouping, totality.