Art.

[Audley Strange]

I've been humming and hawing about creating this thread for a while now however recent threads and conversations within them have given me hope that our skepticism towards religion and "gods" has not thrown the baby out with the bath water.

It was Hades talking about how to her the theatre was much like a church in some ways that finally hit the nail on the head. I had mentioned in another thread that "what we need are better wizards" and so here goes nothing.

To me art is indistinguishable from magic (as in sorcery and as in stage magic, there is no difference really). The basic definition of which would be "manifesting in reality that which is a creation of the imagination." Shaman magicians and sorcerors were artists who's job it was, seemingly (from all the shit I read on it) to be like a folk psychologist. They created a cosmology and symbolism that was apart from the mundane physical world in order to guide and advise their community. It was never about explaining the real world, but about explaining and dealing with the internal universe. They personified concepts like jealousy and lust and rage, created ritual dramas to contact "the ancients" or "spirit guides". They would play music and choreograph dance, they would paint images on walls. In short their job was to heal and inspire, to motivate and to bind. I think it was and is necessary for human flourishing.

Somewhere along the line this got co-opted and codified into religion which is in many cases a totalitarian art movement. One only has to look at the Western Canon to see that. The religious art, Shakespeare's and other playwright's obsession with the supernatural, the poets attempts to project us into virtual realities unlike our own, or romanticised versions of it.

Science is the analysis and reportage of the objective physical world. Art is the analysis and reportage of the subjective interior worlds, the maps of these latitudes change constantly and thus so must the art. Religion made the mistake of trying to fuse both together and while that act of black magic was successful (it often is), it is less and less relevant to our societal needs.

I suggest we need better wizards than the clergy.

I could say much more, but I'll leave it there for discussion and leave you with what I think personally is a great example of what I mean, you may disagree.

[orpheus]

Well, I think the fact that the word "art" is closely related to "artifice" and "artificial" is a fact not well-enough appreciated.

And that says nothing derogatory about art.

[hadespussercats]

I'm rapt.

Lots of ideas. Not sure which ones to pick out and put down yet.

What a great opening post.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

When I hear the word culture I reach for my calliope.

[FBM]

In the early Church, people started painting scenes from the Babble as a way of instructing the illiterate (masses were held in Latin, anyway) as to the contents of the myths. Someone, I forget who, pointed out to a pope, I forget which one, that people were worshipping in front of idols and the Babble forbade that. The pope said that as long as the paintings were educational, it was OK. If he'd been of a different flavor, I wonder what sort of art would have been handed down to us.

[Jason]

John Cage had come to feel that art in our time was far less important than our daily lives to which so many had become more or less inclined. The purpose of it's not unique. Not to build masterpieces for a delectative elite. But simply to wake to your life.

John Cage had come to feel art in our time was much less important than our daily life. If there's a perpetual plan for discovery days where everyone can take part in what he called purposeless play. There's a sign of life in this play, not to get order from chaos or tell you how to create, but simply to wake to your life



Interesting thoughts Audley.

[macdoc]

Hubble is not art but it is awe inspiring the way some good art can be.



Generally art is subjective but all human societies have music of some sort so there is something inherent in our genetics that appeals across cultures.

Arthur Koestler and others deal well with the interplay between science and art - solving a maths puzzle and laughing at a joke and admiring the conceit of a poem all share aspects in relation to our biology.

[Audley Strange]

Well, I think the fact that the word "art" is closely related to "artifice" and "artificial" is a fact not well-enough appreciated.

And that says nothing derogatory about art.

Precisely.This is why I have such a hard time with high and low brow concepts in art and the various snobbery and anti-snobbery that people have about art. Certainly if you want to express say a communication about human ennui, there are media that are better than others for that, I mean, if you decided to design a fridge freezer to encapsulate the concept it might well be a bit too abstruse for the entirety of the planet.

I'm rapt.

Lots of ideas. Not sure which ones to pick out and put down yet.

What a great opening post.

Looking forward to hearing them.

[Audley Strange]

In the early Church, people started painting scenes from the Babble as a way of instructing the illiterate (masses were held in Latin, anyway) as to the contents of the myths. Someone, I forget who, pointed out to a pope, I forget which one, that people were worshipping in front of idols and the Babble forbade that. The pope said that as long as the paintings were educational, it was OK. If he'd been of a different flavor, I wonder what sort of art would have been handed down to us.

Ever seen Islamic art? Some of those rugs are mind-blowing complex, some of written quotes from the Koran, made into beautiful swirls and lines until the context of them is secondary to the elegance of the inkwork? Something like that perhaps.

[JacksSmirkingRevenge]

Interesting thread.


Probably beside the point, but:-
The thought occurred to me some time ago that art is more or less unavoidable in any man-made product. I challenged myself to think of or find some item that showed no evidence of some sort of aesthetic process and failed.

[hadespussercats]

I don't know how this ties in.

I used to design and build costumes for a living. Maybe I still do. It's been a while.

I decided to make a Halloween costume for my boyo-- sort of last-minute for what I had in mind.

His favorite bedtime story-- our favorite story to read him-- has this watercolor bear character, who wants his red party hat back. ( When he realizes a rabbit stole it, he eats the rabbit. And gets his hat back. All very simple and fun and a little wicked. Anyway...)

I'm planning on doing a little photo series of the build process, so I won't get into that too much, except to say that the process of making that costume come into being was very satisfying-- planning, choosing materials, drafting up patterns, budgeting, finding supplies (science and economics), paint treatments, stitching, sculpting (art.)

And, yeah-- not a highbrow endeavor at all-- a Halloween costume. And while I certainly put more effort into it than if I'd just bought a costume in a bag, it's certainly not high-faluting in its construction, either-- if only because I don't have the budget or the space or the equipment (or the time!) to make that happen.

But...

A little background:
The moments when J and I started to realize Sprog really did like that particular story as much as we did-- when he'd start to jump up and down in anticipation of the next page, and shake his head when the snake says "no," and look astonished and check our faces to see if we too were astonished when the bear remembers where he saw his hat-- those were some of the most magical moments of watching his development that either of us have experienced yet. I don't know how well I'm getting these ideas down, but-- he's just turned fourteen months. And it didn't even take that long for him to start to understand a pretend story, and to see the painted blobs on the pages as characters-- characters with spirit, anime, impetus-- these animals were real to him, even though they're pretend.

If you think about all the layers of thought that have to happen for those sorts of connections to be made-- it's astounding.

Earlier today, I finished up his little bear suit and got him ready. At first, he was a little fussy about the suit. But J set him on his lap, and showed him the book. Then he lifted him up, so he could see his reflection in the mirror on the opposite wall.

And he got it. You could see it-- the grin, the pointing at the mirror, the looking at the book-- he knew who he was. And he liked it.

Isn't that amazing? So, so little, and yet he understands what it means to put on a character.

In many (most. all?) parts of the world, costumes are holy-- sacred masks, dance costumes, sacred jewelry and makeup and vestments are the material means for transformation, for allowing the person (actor, priest, dancer) wearing them to transcend their mortal selves, to connect with spirits or to become them.

This was a quotidian example. But if you loved him, and you were there today, you would have seen my baby boy become aware for a moment of his own big bear-ness. It was a magic moment.

[FBM]

In the early Church, people started painting scenes from the Babble as a way of instructing the illiterate (masses were held in Latin, anyway) as to the contents of the myths. Someone, I forget who, pointed out to a pope, I forget which one, that people were worshipping in front of idols and the Babble forbade that. The pope said that as long as the paintings were educational, it was OK. If he'd been of a different flavor, I wonder what sort of art would have been handed down to us.

Ever seen Islamic art? Some of those rugs are mind-blowing complex, some of written quotes from the Koran, made into beautiful swirls and lines until the context of them is secondary to the elegance of the inkwork? Something like that perhaps.

Yeah, I've seen it. "mind-blowing" is right. But I guess I was specifically wondering what western European art would've been like if the Church hadn't sanctioned religious artworks, paintings, statues, etc. I wonder which more indigenous - secular or sacred - themes would've prevailed and in which medium.

[Audley Strange]

In the early Church, people started painting scenes from the Babble as a way of instructing the illiterate (masses were held in Latin, anyway) as to the contents of the myths. Someone, I forget who, pointed out to a pope, I forget which one, that people were worshipping in front of idols and the Babble forbade that. The pope said that as long as the paintings were educational, it was OK. If he'd been of a different flavor, I wonder what sort of art would have been handed down to us.

Ever seen Islamic art? Some of those rugs are mind-blowing complex, some of written quotes from the Koran, made into beautiful swirls and lines until the context of them is secondary to the elegance of the inkwork? Something like that perhaps.

Yeah, I've seen it. "mind-blowing" is right. But I guess I was specifically wondering what western European art would've been like if the Church hadn't sanctioned religious artworks, paintings, statues, etc. I wonder which more indigenous - secular or sacred - themes would've prevailed and in which medium.

Interesting. I suppose it would depend. If they forbade it completely then I think we'd have more like Islamic art, if they didn't sanction it but didn't mind it, I think we'd have a mix of both dependent on what the artist wished to convey, however I suspect there would generally be a lot more portraits of rich people, novels however and music and poetry, well one could only drool at the possibilities we've lost.

[Gallstones]

;

[Audley Strange]

I don't know how this ties in.

I used to design and build costumes for a living. Maybe I still do. It's been a while.

I decided to make a Halloween costume for my boyo-- sort of last-minute for what I had in mind.

His favorite bedtime story-- our favorite story to read him-- has this watercolor bear character, who wants his red party hat back. ( When he realizes a rabbit stole it, he eats the rabbit. And gets his hat back. All very simple and fun and a little wicked. Anyway...)

I'm planning on doing a little photo series of the build process, so I won't get into that too much, except to say that the process of making that costume come into being was very satisfying-- planning, choosing materials, drafting up patterns, budgeting, finding supplies (science and economics), paint treatments, stitching, sculpting (art.)

And, yeah-- not a highbrow endeavor at all-- a Halloween costume. And while I certainly put more effort into it than if I'd just bought a costume in a bag, it's certainly not high-faluting in its construction, either-- if only because I don't have the budget or the space or the equipment (or the time!) to make that happen.

But...

A little background:
The moments when J and I started to realize Sprog really did like that particular story as much as we did-- when he'd start to jump up and down in anticipation of the next page, and shake his head when the snake says "no," and look astonished and check our faces to see if we too were astonished when the bear remembers where he saw his hat-- those were some of the most magical moments of watching his development that either of us have experienced yet. I don't know how well I'm getting these ideas down, but-- he's just turned fourteen months. And it didn't even take that long for him to start to understand a pretend story, and to see the painted blobs on the pages as characters-- characters with spirit, anime, impetus-- these animals were real to him, even though they're pretend.

If you think about all the layers of thought that have to happen for those sorts of connections to be made-- it's astounding.

Earlier today, I finished up his little bear suit and got him ready. At first, he was a little fussy about the suit. But J set him on his lap, and showed him the book. Then he lifted him up, so he could see his reflection in the mirror on the opposite wall.

And he got it. You could see it-- the grin, the pointing at the mirror, the looking at the book-- he knew who he was. And he liked it.

Isn't that amazing? So, so little, and yet he understands what it means to put on a character.

In many (most. all?) parts of the world, costumes are holy-- sacred masks, dance costumes, sacred jewelry and makeup and vestments are the material means for transformation, for allowing the person (actor, priest, dancer) wearing them to transcend their mortal selves, to connect with spirits or to become them.

This was a quotidian example. But if you loved him, and you were there today, you would have seen my baby boy become aware for a moment of his own big bear-ness. It was a magic moment.

I had, for the fourth time, tried to respond to this. Each time something has happened midway through that has caused me to lose my train of thought. The story is great, pertinent and "the means for transformation" might well be exactly why we create art.

I will attempt a fifth time, when it's quiet here.