Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
Surely everyone read fairy tales as a child.
So, in every fairy tale there is a moment when the conditional protagonist, who has been traveling around the world for a long time, randomly comes across the hut of some old introvert who keeps the secret of how to defeat the famously six-winged, who has been wreaking havoc in the area for years, and for whose murder half the kingdom and a politically profitable marriage are promised.
And this old introvert gives the conditional protagonist a quest to get some rare overseas hi-grass or asks him to find out three once-forgotten words — in general, he sends him for something that the oldest introvert probably doesn't need, because he has completed all his quests long ago, and now he mocks the crooks for one innocent lulz.
And the conditional protagonist goes, rushing through swamps and distances, rips the vest on the conditional protagonist's chest on a dead thorn tree, sells the last boots for a ticket to a dog sled, fights off cannibals, bears, and mosquitoes the size of a club at night, and still gets a quest item, and brings it to the old introvert, and the old introvert says thank you to him, and is already preparing to close the door.
But what about the secret, the conditional protagonist asks?
Traditional fairy tales in this place simplify everything, but we know that the essence of the quest was in the quest itself. So that the conditional protagonist finally grows a ridge and overcomes the serpent's spawn on pure enthusiasm.
So many things are understood by experience alone. I mean, your personal stuff. They will not be understood by you from the biographies of millionaires, instructions, self-help, reviews on Kinopoisk, the precepts of the great Lenin or the rumors of your great-grandmother. Even your own ideology, no matter how well developed, is formed more from your experience than from purely theoretical constructions (that is, people most often believe simply in what happened to them).�
The hero's journey implies that the hero is still traveling, and in the process of traveling, he understands something that he would not have discovered for himself with anything more than direct action.
So what is art, the dear reader may ask?
Art creates what can be called a position. A certain statement about the world. Model. Arch. Just like the plot above.
All interactions with propositions of this kind are always an experience of direct action by the one who produces it, and then by the one who perceives and works through it. It's just that bad art can't add anything to your existing experience, but real art can.�
Real art is a sparrow that flew into the theater, a maze that corresponds to the life of the person who got into it, a UFO that landed. It asks questions that you didn't know existed, and solves those questions in a way that would never have occurred to you. Because your world is limited by your understanding, your understanding is limited by your language, and your language is limited by your experience. They look at the pictures for the same reason that they go to the mountains, sing psalms, eat mescaline and go around the world.
Because that's literally the first thing it tries to tell you — that the journey is there. Its got to go.
This works precisely because interaction with art requires consistent direct action, methodicality, patience, and interpretation. You will never know how to begin to understand pictures in any other way than by looking at so many pictures. You won't learn to understand books without reading books. In addition, what the artist did when he worked — this is exactly what he did on his personal, perhaps main journey. Not in someone else's retelling, but by myself, alone, with these very canvases. This is the best, most direct and most valuable breed that is available to you, and it is available to you right now, for free, and no one will leave offended. It's not her problem that you don't take her.
When you hit the road, art will be your friend and guide, your wolf that you ride, and your old introvert that tells you where to go, what to do, and where to look for the missing experience.
And then, of course, you will ask, and then what?
I won't tell you what's next. Bring me a white tuft from the moon boar's tail, and then we'll talk.”
Although Emmanuel Kant said that art does not have a big goal, but only a specific and small task — to influence people here and now, during the performance, I will allow myself to argue with this. Art, it seems to me, has two important functions.
First, it serves the spiritual or evolutionary development of man. Theater, for example, can connect people with Knowledge about all of us. There are plays that contain this Knowledge. Well, art also reveals in a person his divine potential, helps him to feel something that escapes a person in his ordinary life. Art is the entrance.
And the second goal is that art can be therapeutic in nature. It seems to relax the person, helps him to clear himself and release blocks, clamps, think about what he was afraid of or avoided before. The spectator comes to the hall, in the dark, and can survive all this in safety.
A performance is a way of communication, it is a conversation. You are sitting in the Moscow Art Theater, and Bogomolov is telling you something. He doesn't think you're bad and doesn't want to offend you, he just tells you something about himself, about what he thinks about politics, about culture. If you don't like what he says and the language he uses, then you don't have to go to a conversation with him, to his performances. But you can see full rooms, so someone wants to listen to it. And it is not up to the Ministry of Culture to decide who will speak with whom and in what language. This is not a matter for the ministry, the ministry is a necessary bureaucracy, it is a service staff. And there's nothing humiliating about it. We are all, in a sense, service personnel. We serve this universe. And Bogomolov with Serebrennikov and Zvyagintsev in the first place.
Every person under the word “art” means absolutely different things, art,in turn, pursues a variety of goals. The most common , perhaps, are expressions of yourself, an attempt to show your own world, educate people, express your problems, concerns, and express your point of view. Art can also act as a sign of protest. This list can be continued indefinitely , and there is no way to answer this question unequivocally. To sum up, the most common and basic goals are: an attempt to change the existing world and the expression of the thoughts, ideas and feelings of the author himself.
Make the world brighter)Art can be different and not everything is one. Real art is like first love , it leaves an indelible warm light in the heart for the rest of your life.
A person needs beauty to recharge their vital batteries and move on. And art is a good way to get that portion of beauty.
Also, through art, we can express and learn about ourselves and our feelings about the world around us. After all, many young people write poetry as a tool for developing thoughts and judgments, a tool for finding their own principles of existence.
And, of course, in art we get the experience of people who lived long before we were born. Even before we are faced with a situation, we already know roughly how to behave in it, due to the fact that we have already experienced a similar situation in a work of art.
Art is what makes us human.
Humans differ from other animals in their ability to think. Thinking drives creativity. You can identify an emotion not only with a menacing growl or purr, but also through music, an image, or a word. Art appeared together with man and goes hand in hand with him. As long as humanity has a craving for creativity, people will remain people. By the way, Bradbury spoke well about this in “Smile”.
(This is just my opinion, but you can hardly write more here, IMHO – the question is that how many people, so many answers)
In the materialization of the author's worldview, which proceeds with varying degrees of awareness, depending on the skills and experience of a particular person in a particular art form.�
I also think that the goals of different kinds of arts may differ a little. For example, books are more suitable for transmitting life experiences and philosophical ideas, and more abstract types(such as music or painting) to convey unconscious experiences that are difficult to form into words.
It allows you to live, to see the truth. With the help of art, we learn to feel, ” to separate the wheat from the chaff.” This is for the individual in particular. Art, creativity, allows a person to be better than he really is. It allows them to experience things that they may not get anywhere else.
Here's a great quote from Ayn Rand.
“Since human ambition knows no bounds, and the search for and achievement of values goes on for a lifetime, and the higher the values, the stronger the struggle, a person needs a moment, an hour or a period when he can experience the feeling of a task completed, the feeling of living in a universe in which he has successfully achieved his values. It's like a moment of rest; you could say that he's found the fuel he needs to move on. Art gives it that fuel.”
Art is the knowledge of oneself and the world.
The obvious function of speech is to transmit information. But this evidence obscures an important part of the role of speech-expressing one's feelings, communicating, making connections, and forming a culture. This is also the transmission of information, but a little different from what is usually understood-where the prey is, how to get it.
Art is also a means of self-expression, of expressing one's feelings. And speech is also partly related to art.
Another function (often overlooked) of both speech and art is to know the world, to make sense of the world through images.�
First you just feel the Sun, then you try to express these feelings. And that's when you discover the meanings. You are aware of them and share them with others. You try to draw and communicate that the Sun is light, it is heat, it is a circle or maybe even a ball, that it moves, that it goes and comes, that it warms differently as the time of day passes, that it gives life.�
Imagine that you feel warm, but don't know this word or its synonyms. That's when you try to express that feeling, that's art, knowing the world.
More:
What is the “meaning” of modern art?
What is the “meaning” of poetry? Why is a set of rhyming words called art?
Why do I need literature? And art in general?
As a tech geek who finds it difficult to learn art, I will answer this way : it is a way of expressing thoughts, feelings and emotions, but in a non-verbal way, as a rule. Its main purpose is to evoke various emotions after getting acquainted with something unusual, sometimes even incomprehensible or frightening.�
Take Aivazovsky's painting as an example, you look at the power, deep and relict, at the Ocean, which does not care about small people who challenged it and built ships to plow it, you feel some kind of insignificance before nature.�
I think that each genre, style and direction in art has its own meaning and purpose, depending on the observer.�
For some, Malevich's “Black Square” is just a daub, and he can do it, but any well – known art critic can explain why this picture was created, what is embedded in it, and so on.
Learn to feel. Learn to understand beauty. Learn to love the beautiful. In general…art is necessary for learning…yourself and the world around you. And for a fairly deep knowledge…internal…emotional. Also for the formation of the spiritual world, values, and concepts.
Art is a way of self-expression, namely the expression of one's feelings, thoughts, emotions and state of mind through the creation of a material or non-material object.
The roots of art lie in the peculiarities of human thinking, the emotional sublimation of the surrounding world, the mystical component, etc.�
For the individual , this is a psychological discharge, a secondary evocation of emotions when it is impossible to evoke them through the mechanisms of intuition or logic.
For society, it is the emotional consolidation of effective or ineffective social structures. A defining part of culture and idiology.
Art (not only visual, but also all other forms) is a means of communication (sharing knowledge and emotions, learning, storing information…).
Man is a highly organized intelligent and social being. The role of information in his life is many times greater than the needs of even the closest relatives in the person of higher primates.
From the point of view of atheism, Art is a material expression of human imagination and abstract thinking.�
From the point of view of faith, Art is an attempt to create a portrait of God and the universe.
I will try to answer objectively, not subjectively, that is, through sociology. Or rather, through the thoughts of one of the most prominent sociologists of the 20th century, T. Parsons.
Art is one of the elements of the cultural subsystem that regulates and supports values in society. Otherwise, culture provides internal control over people's life activities in accordance with the norms and values accepted in society.
Maximian Victor, who answered before me, who thought correctly-philosophically. � �
Ray Bradbury's quote immediately came to mind:�
Accurate and fair. But we can also say that art is just a form of human life activity on a par with others.
We are all creators, art plays a role of personal character for everyone, the ability to express ourselves, vision. Art as painting-combinations of warm-cold colors. Genre Game Of Epochs. Part of our culture and history. It's like a moment of passion that everyone can experience with you.
Art is a part of culture that is a “common place” for people and unites them. Also, art is an experience enclosed in one form or another. With the help of art, people communicate with each other, transfer both knowledge and empirical experience to each other.
The history of art shows the development of man in a general sense, allows us to better understand the processes of each epoch from the point of view of history as a science.
If we talk about the role of the individual in this matter, then art helps a person to express their feelings and views. It helps you feel connected to the world. Reduce the severity of loneliness, thereby neutralizing the fear of death. And, in fact, “leaving something behind” is also a reference to the fear of death.
Because art is self-expression. And since man is not an animal (in spiritual terms, so we are mammals), this very expression is necessary for the “search for oneself”. Philosophy, art are all connected together. If a person does not express himself, then the meaning of his entire existence disappears, because then he does not live, but exists as an animal that is stuffed only with instincts, and a robot that performs its program.
Some of the old masters, it seems to J. S. Bach, are credited with this idea about the purpose of music: Music should serve for the glorification of the Lord God and for the healing of the human soul and body.” I believe that such a formula could be adopted for all kinds of arts. And then all disputes would disappear, whether a shark in formalin is a work of art…:) And the millions of dollars paid for it would be better to use for charity…
In order not to be deceived once again and not to support common mistakes, the “necessity” set in the question should be brought under the category of value. For there is one irremediable ambiguity in the argument about “necessity” : this concept can be thought of both in the categories of necessity and in the categories of axiology. If the former, for the general context of the answer, undoubtedly seems to us an unfortunate choice – if only because it requires a preliminary thorough discussion of the definition of necessity – then we should make a small reservation about the latter, since the content boundaries of the present axiology are defined in subject-object terms; however,this will be expanded further.
Therefore, we must put the question as follows:”What is the value of art?». This and only this form guarantees us that the subject of the following argument is chosen correctly and, therefore, obliges us to strictly adhere to the concept of value and not to confuse it with others.
First of all, it is necessary to understand that art, like many other things, is devoid of a single meaning and statement: art is both what it is in itself and for itself, but also what it is by virtue of which it is for others. Concerning the first, I will say a few words: first, for legitimate reasoning, the question must be raised in terms of intrinsic value (for example, “What is the intrinsic value of art?”; and then I will add that there is no answer to this question yet better and more elegant, more indubitable and self-evident than the answer of German idealism in the person of Georg Hegel), and, secondly, it is still necessary to begin the argument precisely with a basic (universal, immediate, one-with-itself) understanding of the nature of art that is, we must touch upon the essence of art as such. Thus, it is obvious that the answer will be given regarding the latter (art in the name of something beyond).
But again, if we refer to the fact that we cannot find a single meaning even within the division of entities, even if we divide it down to homogeneous atoms and other elusive transitions, we will inevitably meet with the tendency to give art a specific or, if we want, universal meaning. This is exactly what I will try to do-give an answer at the level of forms (leaving the content for other questions), on the one hand, as a semiologist, and, on the other hand, as a phenomenologist, combining these two principles into one synthetic explanation.
So far, then, as we openly identify intuitive or expressive knowledge with aesthetic or artistic fact, considering works of art as examples of intuitive knowledge, and ascribing to intuitive knowledge the characteristic features of the former-so far as we stand firmly on this identification-art is first of all a special kind of this intuitive knowledge; it is a form free from feelings and psychic matter; in other words, it is Thus, art is, on the one hand, a perfect intuition of expression, the expression of impressions, the self-affirmation of human activity (in principle, it is already possible to start a legitimate argument about the value of art in the framework of, for example, classical art criticism); buton the other hand, it is a pure idealization of nature, an idealizing imitation of nature; it is a semiosis of aesthetic monuments and ideals; a mimesis based not on mechanical reproduction, not on the duplication and simulation of natural objects, and not even on the analogy between the substances of the abstract and the concrete, but on the religious experience of the primordial.
With the above statement, I have saved the reader from the need to study the preliminary word to each of the explanations. Thus, on well-founded grounds, I can now begin to discuss the value of art from the point of view of semiotics and phenomenology, since this very position opens the way to both the one and the other.
To an untrained reader, the rest of the text will seem incomprehensible and polysyllabic without at least some introductory part, so I will start by saying that modern artistic semiotic knowledge, as well as phenomenological knowledge, is differentiated into many schools and concepts, each of which speaks about art in its own way. Despite the seeming formal methodology of semiotics, not all schools place the sign directly in the center of the familiar art system (as, for example, it is pleasant in the traditional school of Peirce), there are also those who place the subject, that is, an active person (for example, one of the leaders of Russian symbolism, Andrey Bely). Let us agree that there are no centers or supports in my answer, since I am not expressing my own theory – and if I do, it is undoubtedly partially and indirectly-but only recounting my experience in the study of semiotics and phenomenology.
Because of the interaction with the general semiotic space, the categories of the language of art (I think it is superfluous to prove the thesis that art is a language) are everywhere graspable cultural units that only create art itself, which has itself in itself as long as it is itself for us. By this very statement, the existence of art as such is only the existence of art for us; in other words, art is nothing else than all that is perceived and called art.
The category of sign in art is dual (but not dichotomous) and is brought under the categories of created and creative. If the first one does not cause us any problems with understanding, we should give the author's (my own) definition of the second one: the creator corresponds to the form of intuition described in the beginning (roughly speaking, the subject of the creator). Consequently, the exposure of the sign in art manifests a special triadic communication between the creator, the created and the creative: from the other-being of the creator, the communication of the form of the creator through the form of the created is reflected in the general semiotic space. In a cultural context, this manifestation connects the creator with other cultural subjects through certain forms of experience. In this aesthetic communication, the sign of art is revealed – the underlying force, or, as I may justly call it, the envέργεια. Even at this stage, the first prerequisites for the value definition of art are clearly visible.
Further developing the last statement, we come to the universality of the language of art. In fact, by creating life in its multi-factorial and non-linear nature, art reveals not the immanence of real objects, but, as already mentioned, the otherness of the creator, which is perceived by others through experience; to put it more precisely, through a pure comparison of what is created with the prototypes of the otherness of others. This very revelation (by virtue of its intuitiveness) defines the pragmatics of art – we are still thinking in a cultural context – as the pragmatics of comparability. In the latter lies the meaning of the language of art, which is known and imagined in its universality. Here we find the first explanation of the value of art.
I call the signal-image relation the unit of comparability language. This term is very specific for semiotics, so, omitting the explanation of the choice of such a term and other minor details, I will clarify that here we understand the pure perception of what is being created as an object of information-a message. But then we discover the well-known problem of the semiotics of art. If in traditional semiotic systems a sign is a certain sign and it is always assigned to it (even if it is arbitrary) In art, however, the sign, due to its own duality, as well as due to the heterogeneity of intuitions, has a fundamentally different character: here the sign loses its definiteness and becomes an analogy between the signal (evoked for perception) and the image (prototype). This leads to an extremely significant conclusion: art is a model (a secondary modeling system, if we adhere to strict terminology). With this thesis, we come to the second explanation of the value of art.
Thus, as a model, art acts as the” primary source ” of reality, or non-art, of non-semiotic human existence, since the apprehension (that from which the creative takes its power) of reality itself is possible only because of the difference between real and unreal images-by translating the language of nature into the language of intuition (and then into the specific contextual language of art itself). The semantic equivalence of such a relation does not require any special rules of construction, except, perhaps, that the transcoding of reality is not in itself, but in general is contained in the model language.
However, this definition, generally speaking, is not so much wrong as it does not present us with what it actually expresses. For it would be more correct to call not art a model of reality, but reality a model for art, or a “model” of what is being created. But this is a purely semantic question, so even though if we try to get a good understanding of this even if purely terminological question, we can radically come to a completely different conclusion, we will not dwell on it.
When I speak of the “original source” of reality, I mean that what is created, before it can become an essence and find its being, must be grasped, that is, understood transcendentally; therefore, the task of art in this respect is not just to establish an analogy, but also to supplement it, to leave its imprint on nature itself. So, art corrects the boundaries of reality, revealing new features of what is being created. Reverse translation already means an analytical act that objectifies what is being created and introduces its changed image into the structure of reality, thereby not destroying or contrasting, but multiplying the prototypes of this created thing. This process of multiplying prototypes, thanks to the bonding function of culture, corresponds to the concept of semiosis of art described in the beginning. Here we find a second explanation of the value of art.
Of course, this is not all, we could speculate about many other things: about identity and analogy, about the relationship between the creator's models and reality, about auto-communication, etc. However, I believe that these explanations almost completely exhaust the entire semiotic and phenomenological value of art.
Example 1)
A couple of years ago, I was sitting in the studio with a friend and listening to the new album A$AP Rocky. One of the tracks had a verse from Pimp. I said, ” Look, we're listening to a dude's verse, and he's already dead,” to which my friend replied: “As you can see, he's not dead.”
Example 2)
At a class in mechanics, the teacher said, ” Art is for the stupid.”
I thought you were going to die and no one would remember you. Someone will remember that yes, it seems like there was some kind of mechanical engineering teacher, will not remember his name, but they will remember what an asshole he was and immediately forget again.
And the person who made the film will live forever.
Conclusion: You will be eaten by worms in the grave, and Your Works will live and plant seeds in the minds of subsequent people.
So what's the point really? And why do we need these tons of painted pictures in museums? And why are people queuing up to see it?! Ho-ho-ho, that's a great question! We can spend hours ranting that this is beauty and a person needs spiritual enlightenment, etc. etc. There is no secret here and this is also part of the truth. BUT! Strange as it may seem, I will give the most banal example: the Internet meme is also an art that has only changed in accordance with time. Now imagine that there was no Internet, no TV sets, no photos, and so on, but people were still the same, with their critical view of the world, people, and their huge imagination. And people liked to have fun, too. They liked funny or scary pictures. Only then did art take on the role of funny, scary, informative pictures. It had an entertaining and educational character on a par with literature. Just as we now read the meaning of a certain meme (in the context of our time), so earlier people read their meaning from pictures and it was clear to them, as it reflected the realities of that time. Yes, and people used to love selfies no less than they do now, but they didn't have cameras, but the one who had a coin in his pocket could order a portrait for himself. Over time, art changed and acquired broader functions, it began to be a means of agitation (for example, as posters) or to encourage people to pay attention to their shortcomings. In general, art is in any case a story about visual love. We may like it or not, we may not understand it, but in any case it is a visual mirror of time, just like literature, cinema or music.
The point of art is to create a new reality – a reality that no one before the artist who created it could even imagine in their imagination. Reality – beyond the existing ideas. (Actually, that's the whole point of a real scientific discovery, but come on, those are the details.)