The truth about literature

[lordofduct]

I like that Duct, I like that. Here I am talking about social construction and I left out perhaps the most interesting second half of that concept--"of reality." I'm just going to refer one more time to Plato, who makes an interesting argument that art is an image of an image of reality, so basically it's the depiction of something that has been defined based on subjective observation.

On a somewhat related note there's an interesting event in a book I'm currently reading (Stephenson's Quick Silver) in which Isaac Newton manipulates his ocular membrane to distort his vision, telling his classmate that he's testing his hypothesis that all scientific observations rely on the subjective interpretation of the instrument they are collected with. Thus, visual observations made with the eye only reflect one of presumably infinite interpretations of the world around us.

Quicksilver! Awesome book dude... go cyberpunk!

Have you checked out "The Diamond Age" yet?

Surprisingly it was my mom who turned me onto him.

[General Chaos]

Have you checked out "The Diamond Age" yet?

Surprisingly it was my mom who turned me onto him.

I haven't. My backlog right now is, well it's a backlog. I'm going to add that to it though.

Thankfully I've got a friend (the artist I mentioned in fact) who is my intellectual superior many times over. He manages to keep me on my toes with ceaselessly good book recommendations.

[Xonticus]

I am pleased to see the many things people said in this topic. It makes me feel happy and humbled to see people as passionate as you guys are.

[Original_Name]

Why... because it's a word, describing an invention of man. Art doesn't truly exist... art depends soully on the human factor.

Wow. You just went so beast mode on this that I'm gonna have trouble doing anything with it. Hm... where to start... I think that while art is a very abstract concept, that does not mean that we cannot give it a more specific definition so as to better understand why it is human nature to create this thing we call art. The subjectivity argument - "Beauty is in the Eye of the Beholder" - holds alot of weight for judging art after it's already been determined to be, by any reasonable criteria, art; I don't know if it's logical to hold that level of subjectivity to what constitutes art itself.

Okay, let's see... I'm gonna try and speak to both lordofduct and General Chaos simultaneously here...

General, you asked me if a person may create art without intent, but instead merely by creating. I feel as though so long as there was even a deliberate attempt to create a physical thing for any pre-determined purpose, it is art. If you build a house, with the intent for it to be shelter, it is highly utilitarian art, for instance. If you were to, say, trip and drop a bucket of paint entirely by accident, even if you were to look beautiful to you, that would not be art - that would be aesthetically pleasing (by my reasoning... I'm a proponent of Socratic wisdom by the way, so this reasoning is subject to change if I feel that it is logical to do so). That's not to say that a thing that is not art, but rather is "simply" aesthetically pleasing cannot have a profound effect on a person. Say you were having a shitty day before you dropped that bucket of paint, and as you scrape the dirt off yourself as you get up, totally PISSED that you just dropped your fresh bucket of paint, you look up and you realize that the result of your trip was something beautiful. A beautiful splash of shiny green paint, erratically sprayed and glopped upon the surface of the sidewalk, and you think, "Y'know, if things that beautiful can come to be entirely by accident, just think of what we could do with real intent and determination". Another person might have had the same experience and said, "GODDAMMIT, NOW THERE'S FUCKING PAINT EVERYWHERE!!". Just because their reactions were different doesn't mean that what just happened should be considered art.

lordofduct, you say that one definition for art is "beautiful"... since language is an abstract concept (the keyboard I'm typing at for instance is not a "keyboard", it simply is what it is and we've given it that name to differentiate it in conversation) calling anything by its accepted name is as correct as if I were to call my neighbor's cat a plate of spaghetti - nothing's technically right and nothing's technically wrong. The concept we are describing here, however, is a defined concept... that of beings (from what we've seen, we can only objectively prove that humans are capable of this action) transferring ideas from their minds into the physical world in a way which can be preserved in a manner which transcends individual moments of communication - preserved in a manner in which an audience can come and access it as long as it is available whether he who created it is there or not. I believe that that standard is the most logical criteria for what we have created the word "art" for.

I know that you specifically said that your girlfriend is beautiful to you, not art specifically, lordofduct, but I want to take that a little bit further. I believe the argument of whether or not people can be ART is one of the few instances where it can be seen as subjective whether or not something IS or IS NOT art. If one believes in intelligent design, I would believe that all people are, in fact, art. If one believes in the creation of the universe being spawned by the random course of events following the big bang, then we are not art. I'm not a theist, but if I was I would say that your 4'7" Italian girlfriend is just as much art as my 5'6" Dominican girlfriend is or anyone else's girlfriend for that matter - due to subjectivity, my girlfriend appeals to me more than yours does, but that wouldn't make yours any less a piece of art... if we are theists. Me being an apathetic agnostic ("Can't ever know in this plane of existence, so why bother convincing myself I do?") I can't specifically view human beings as being art or not being art, although an atheist could, if he were to use my definition of art, say that no, human beings are not art.

To clear up any confusion though, looking at things through the atheist lens, an exotic dancer is NOT art; the set dance that she may dance is art. If one exotic dancer makes up a dance one time and never does it again it is not art, but if another dancer were to come and start doing that same dance over and over it would be art. It would become a set piece that could be passed down which communicates an idea (arousal, and possibly an homage to the original dancer), whereas the original was simply an isolated occurence of communication.

Although I must admit, because of lordofduct's comment I feel a bit silly arguing for the meaning of ANY word now.

And General Chaos, I am currently a Freshman at Belmont University. I'm majoring in English Composition and Education, and I'm gonna get in as many Philosophy credits as I can muster, but I haven't actually gotten any yet.

[Original_Name]

I am pleased to see the many things people said in this topic. It makes me feel happy and humbled to see people as passionate as you guys are.

I know, isn't it great!? I've been very impressed by my peers in this thread! We ARE capable of more than just writing lists of our favorite video games, we are, we are!!

[General Chaos]

I am pleased to see the many things people said in this topic. It makes me feel happy and humbled to see people as passionate as you guys are.

I know, isn't it great!? I've been very impressed by my peers in this thread! We ARE capable of more than just writing lists of our favorite video games, we are, we are!!

Starting at 14,000:

14,000: Captain Novolin

...wait, sorry. I thought we are doing another one of those.

[lordofduct]

You're missing my point about the abstractness of the word.

Words in general are abstract of course. It's a tree because we say it's a tree. But a tree can be pointed out... it's concrete. Human is human, cat is cat, paper is paper. These are concrete nouns.

Verbs, adjectives and the sort can hold a concreteness to them as they usually describe a specific thing about a concrete object. Run is an object moving its legs and moving swiftly.

But we get these words that are used to describe abstract things with no direct or even indirect attachment to concrete objects or even concrete concepts.

Happy is abstract as it describes an abstract emotion which is not tangible, but it is concrete as it stand distinctly different from sad or angry. There can be different kinds of happiness, but there can be different kinds of trees... that's just category and nothing to do with abstract vs concrete.

But words like beauty, art, love... these are subjectively abstract. Not only are they abstract in definition, they describe abstract models. Love is a word describing an abstract feeling. There is NO concrete model to attach this word to.

Art is the same way. Yes there are concrete objects that are called art, but the concept of art is completely subjective. A canvas is not art, paint is not art, paint on a canvas is not art... art is when someone calls it art. It's when we abstractly decide it is art.

And there is a definition to it, but that very definition is unholy abstract and just supports my point of how abstract the word is. No one group has ever been able to specifically and directly define it.

Look at http://www.dictionary.com's definition of art:

art
1  /ɑrt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ahrt] Show IPA
Use art in a Sentence
See web results for art
See images of art
–noun
1. the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.
2. the class of objects subject to aesthetic criteria; works of art collectively, as paintings, sculptures, or drawings: a museum of art; an art collection.
3. a field, genre, or category of art: Dance is an art.
4. the fine arts collectively, often excluding architecture: art and architecture.
5. any field using the skills or techniques of art: advertising art; industrial art.
6. (in printed matter) illustrative or decorative material: Is there any art with the copy for this story?
7. the principles or methods governing any craft or branch of learning: the art of baking; the art of selling.
8. the craft or trade using these principles or methods.
9. skill in conducting any human activity: a master at the art of conversation.
10. a branch of learning or university study, esp. one of the fine arts or the humanities, as music, philosophy, or literature.
11. arts,
a. (used with a singular verb) the humanities: a college of arts and sciences.
b. (used with a plural verb) liberal arts.
12. skilled workmanship, execution, or agency, as distinguished from nature.
13. trickery; cunning: glib and devious art.
14. studied action; artificiality in behavior.
15. an artifice or artful device: the innumerable arts and wiles of politics.
16. Archaic. science, learning, or scholarship.

and even then that isn't all the known definitions... and they reach 16 distinct versions of it. With no real common ground accept the common theme of it being a descriptor for inventions of man.

Compare this to the subjectively abstract word love:

love
  /lʌv/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [luhv] Show IPA noun, verb, loved, lov⋅ing.
Use love in a Sentence
See web results for love
See images of love
–noun
1. a profoundly tender, passionate affection for another person.
2. a feeling of warm personal attachment or deep affection, as for a parent, child, or friend.
3. sexual passion or desire.
4. a person toward whom love is felt; beloved person; sweetheart.
5. (used in direct address as a term of endearment, affection, or the like): Would you like to see a movie, love?
6. a love affair; an intensely amorous incident; amour.
7. sexual intercourse; copulation.
8. (initial capital letter) a personification of sexual affection, as Eros or Cupid.
9. affectionate concern for the well-being of others: the love of one's neighbor.
10. strong predilection, enthusiasm, or liking for anything: her love of books.
11. the object or thing so liked: The theater was her great love.
12. the benevolent affection of God for His creatures, or the reverent affection due from them to God.
13. Chiefly Tennis. a score of zero; nothing.
14. a word formerly used in communications to represent the letter L.
–verb (used with object)
15. to have love or affection for: All her pupils love her.
16. to have a profoundly tender, passionate affection for (another person).
17. to have a strong liking for; take great pleasure in: to love music.
18. to need or require; benefit greatly from: Plants love sunlight.
19. to embrace and kiss (someone), as a lover.
20. to have sexual intercourse with.
–verb (used without object)
21. to have love or affection for another person; be in love.
—Verb phrase
22. love up, to hug and cuddle: She loves him up every chance she gets.
—Idioms
23. for love,
a. out of affection or liking; for pleasure.
b. without compensation; gratuitously: He took care of the poor for love.
24. for the love of, in consideration of; for the sake of: For the love of mercy, stop that noise.
25. in love, infused with or feeling deep affection or passion: a youth always in love.
26. in love with, feeling deep affection or passion for (a person, idea, occupation, etc.); enamored of: in love with the girl next door; in love with one's work.
27. make love,
a. to embrace and kiss as lovers.
b. to engage in sexual activity.
28. no love lost, dislike; animosity: There was no love lost between the two brothers.

then compare this to the specific and concrete word (and related to both beauty, love and art in that it is a form of all 3):

paint⋅ing
  /ˈpeɪntɪŋ/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [peyn-ting] Show IPA
Use painting in a Sentence
See web results for painting
See images of painting
–noun
1. a picture or design executed in paints.
2. the act, art, or work of a person who paints.
3. the works of art painted in a particular manner, place, or period: a book on Flemish painting.
4. an instance of covering a surface with paint.

concrete models can be described simply and easily.

Abstract subjective models can not... because they're just that, subjective. They were inventions of man to describe certain things in certain cultures... and over time the similarities mold together and evolve with time. And each culture, group, or social belief will strip certain models from their own personal concept of art, love, or beauty... but in the end it does not remove any validity from my decision to call literature art, or a perverts to call the exotice dancer art.

Even a single instance of art is art, it doesn't have to be recorded or recreated to be art. Take Jazz as someone once brought up, Jazz is an artform, a musician improvisin his piece that night will never be recreated accurately ever again. The common string each night is that it is Jazz, Jazz being the artform. And thusly that unique piece the musician played one night and will never play again is art in and of itself. It was the artist expression and message however vague or not it is.



In the end art, beauty and love do not stand concretely apart from anything else. Happy stands apart from sad and angry in the concrete model of emotion. (not concrete object, but concrete model)

but what does art stand apart from? Non-art? Beauty stands apart from non-beauty? And Love from non-Love? And yes I bet someone will quickly throw in that Love is apart from hate, and beauty from ugly.

But ugly is just as abstract as beauty... and is just as subjective in corrolation. That and hate is not apart from love... truly on the most primal of urges, one usually can not love unless they hate. What is that phrase?

"Hate is not the opposite of love, it is apathy."

Best example of which is the loathing hatred my parents had for each other was only a result of their unbridaled passion towards each other. It was the mere fact they loved each other so much that they could hate with such aggression.

[lordofduct]

And in all those 3 words I used as an example... it is the whole example of my point in the post you were responding.

They are inventions of man... pure and simple. The word tree is an invention man, to describe something not of man... the thing growing outside with bark on it.

But love, beauty, art... they are completely dependent not just as a word, but as a concept, on man. With out the human factor none of these would exist. It requires a human being to be present and evoke such meaning upon the object they attribute these words to.




And to not create any confusion about emotion. Emotion is not a construct of man... it is something human's posess true... but that is a product of the brain. Just as many an animal has emotion. These can be concrete models in that it's a method in which the brain processes specific senses. Art, love, and beauty do not... they are a result of emotion, logics, and the sort... but are completely subjective to the person who imagined it. Emotion is not subjective, the emotion one feels at a specific moment is subjective, but the act of emoting is not subjective.


The only line to be drawn with these words is where as a mass we've all agreed upon some choice that certain things just aren't beautiful.

Hitler is ugly
genocide is awful
murder is not love

but even then still, it can be debated. So easily debated. The only thing stopping people from accepting it is the fact that en masse we are so emotionally attached to the idea these are ugly, awful and horrible. And the mere act of not thinking so makes you different and feared. Which is yet a completely different and terrifying concept to me... and proof of why and how prejudice boils so deep in our bodies and will never be irradicated.

[Limewater]

Hm... good question. I would contend that since the overall composition and meaning does not change because of their improvisations that it is essentially an altercation of the same piece - details are spontaneously altered, but the song itself is still discernably the same song. An artist could leave a certain part of a song up to spontanaiety each time it is performed in order to make a comment about say, the randomness of the world we live in, or simply to commuicate to the audience "Hey, I can do lots of stuff!", but since there's still a general composition and meaning that is still being abided to, I feel as though it is still a set, deliberate piece. Feel free to retort though, this stuff is great fun to talk about.

But, often, the structure of the tune (technically, vocals have to be included for something to be a song) is very, very basic, and only really intended to provide a platform for improvisation. I mean, sure, there are jazz standards that include small bits of improvisation within a well-established framework, but not all improvisation follows this standard.

In the cases I am talking about, there is only minimal structure that is simply a "canvas" for solo improvisation. Where is the general composition there? Where is the art in the general composition?

[lordofduct]

We as a species we love to categorize. We put things down into orders, and then label that order. But from this categorization anomalies are bound to appear. It's a given, it's not even human error that these anomalies appear. Hydro-carbons bound together in random chains creating proteins and over time the awkward anomaly we call life comes screaming out of the mixture.

Is any one object of a completely abstract concept going to follow the rules of its order specifically? How could it... there are bound to be examples which will fail to fit the model 100%. And when the model is something that isn't concrete, does not require a set of strict rules that can't be bent like say physics or chemistry... these anomalies are there to enrich the experience. Our concept of physics evolves to match the reality of physics as physics is not our construct... our model of art evolves to fit our choice of what it is. Two completely different directions in thought. It's really a separating line between the arts and the sciences.

Anyone who is trying to put a strict label on it that is ever static is merely missing the entire point of it. It's not there to describe something in the world for us to understand. It's something we've invented, we are changing, we have control over it... art is ours, and if we as a people want it to mean something, we let it mean that.