Runboard.com
Слава Україні!
Cinemaseekers.com Message Board - Cinemaseekers Forum THE TRUTH ABOUT CINEMA

CINEMASEEKERS FORUM

This forum is meant to be an extension of the themes and concerns of our website. Please keep the focus on spirituality, philosophy and cinema. Thank you!
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this forum are the sole responsibility of the individual contributors and do not necessarily represent the views of the owners of this website (except in postings by the owners themselves under "cinemaseekers" or "questers".)

runboard.com       Sign up (learn about it) | Sign in (lost password?)

 
Narek Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info



Registered: 04-2006
Posts: 14
Karma: 0 (+0/-0)
Reply | Quote
about art


Art is one of the best known and least studied disciplines in the modern world. There are thousands of books about art. Usually it is all about forms, colours, etc., i.e., these books are mainly descriptive. Very little is said about the essence of art. This is why almost everything in the modern world is considered to be a work of art. One of the main goals of philosophy was to explain art, its relationship with ethics. Unfortunately, philosphy seems to have lost its way. It has become concerned with less important issues. In my view, the following questions still remain open:

1. What is the essence of art and how do we perceive a work of art?

2. If it is true that art is unprompted by necessity, then how do we explain the creative impulse?

3. Is there a relationship between ethics and art?

It would be interesting to read the views of other people.
4/26/2006, 8:23 am Link to this post Send Email to Narek   Send PM to Narek
 
questers Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Head Administrator

Registered: 09-2003
Posts: 74
Karma: 0 (+0/-0)
Reply | Quote
Re: about art


"Art must address the question: Why does man exist? What is the purpose of human existence?" (Andrei Tarkovsky)

This definition of art is the corner stone of all truly great artists, not just Tarkovsky, because it vibrates in total harmony with the Natural Laws of Creation/Nature. But, as we know, not everyone wishes to align themselves with what is natural. And, while we are on the subject of naturalness, so as not to get lost in vague generalities, here's a definition of what it means to be natural:

"To be natural...means to ascend, to strive upwards, following the attraction of the Living Power! For where there is naturalness everything strives upwards only, just like every blade of grass, every flower and every tree. Thus what man's volition brought about unfortunately bears only an external resemblance to that which he was supposed to accomplish!" (Abd-ru-shin, "IN THE LIGHT OF TRUTH: THE GRAIL MESSAGE", chapter "Life").

"To be natural...does not mean to go about half-naked or to disport himself barefoot in eccentric clothing! To be natural means to listen attentively to one's inner voice and not forcibly to disregard its warnings!Unfortunately more than half of all the people today have fallen so far and become so dull that they can no longer understand these natural intuitions." ((Abd-ru-shin, "IN THE LIGHT OF TRUTH: THE GRAIL MESSAGE", chapter "The Significance of Man's Generative Power For His Spiritual Ascent" - Listen to the entire chapter in MP3, 36 min)


Those of us, who admire Tarkovsky - not only as a filmmaker, but also as a human being - can immediately draw some parallels with his statements about conscience and personal responsibility, which clearly reveal that he did not suppress these "natural intuitions" of his spirit within himself. Here are some of my favorite quotes of his:

"...the most convincing of the arts demands a special responsibility on the part of those who work in it: the methods by which cinema affects audiences can be used far more easily and rapidly for their moral decomposition, for the destruction of their spiritual defenses, than the means of the old, more traditional art forms."

"It is so much easier to slip down than it is to rise one iota above your own narrow, opportunist motives. A true spiritual birth is extraordinarily hard to achieve."

". . . nobody wants, or can bring himself, to look soberly into himself and accept that he is accountable for his own life and his own soul."

"The connection between man's behaviour and his destiny has been destroyed; and this tragic breach is the cause of his sense of instability in the modern world...[man] has arrived at the false and deadly assumption that he has no part to play in shaping his own fate."

"I am convinced that any attempt to restore harmony in the world can only rest on the renewal of personal responsibility."

I believe, it was Robert Schumann, who said that the laws of art are the same as the laws of ethics. Naturally, he was talking about genuine art: the art of the spirit for the spirit.

To create art is the most basic necessity there is, because the so-called "creative impulse" comes from the very essence of man - his spirit. The body is simply wrapped around the spirit as a protective cloak, while the spirit-core is the actual man. We see this illustrated in the most dramatic way under the harshest conditions of a concentration camp, where the body is cold, hungry and abused, yet the spirit's urgent necessity to create art breaks through: Paradjanov creating his amazing collages in a Soviet labor camp and Olivier Messiaen writing for a quartet in a Nazi prison camp (and there are numerous other less famous examples).

How tragic then to see art redefined and perverted into entertainment, where the stimulus of the spirit is replaced by the stimulus of the physical senses. It is degrading, not only for the creators of such "art", but, as Tarkovsky said, for the audience as well.

"Humanity has lost its dignity,

But Art has rescued it.

Even before Truth's triumphant Light

Can penetrate the recesses of the human heart,

The poet's intuition will intercept Its rays,

And the peaks of humanity will be radiant,

While the dews of night still linger in the valley." (Schiller)



Maria Wagner



Last edited by questers, 4/27/2006, 10:43 am
4/27/2006, 3:35 am Link to this post Send Email to questers   Send PM to questers
 
NPCoombs Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info



Registered: 04-2005
Posts: 32
Karma: 3 (+3/-0)
Reply | Quote
Re: about art


quote:

Narek wrote:

Art is one of the best known and least studied disciplines in the modern world. There are thousands of books about art. Usually it is all about forms, colours, etc., i.e., these books are mainly descriptive. Very little is said about the essence of art. This is why almost everything in the modern world is considered to be a work of art. One of the main goals of philosophy was to explain art, its relationship with ethics. Unfortunately, philosphy seems to have lost its way. It has become concerned with less important issues. In my view, the following questions still remain open:

1. What is the essence of art and how do we perceive a work of art?

2. If it is true that art is unprompted by necessity, then how do we explain the creative impulse?

3. Is there a relationship between ethics and art?

It would be interesting to read the views of other people.



Well, I would dispute the statement that art is the least discussed topic in philosophy. My shelf of texts on aesthetics testifies the opposite.

There is no time for reviewing every option, but I think the persuasive argument is that art is a mimetic mechanism. The most powerful art looks to our past and our innermost fears and concerns: life and death, survival, the vanishing of our subjectivity with death, our removal from nature etc. Our archaic evolutionary past so removed from our regulated and administered society is the subject of true art.

Art provides a window of perception alien to that society has to offer with its comforting lullabies about how we are supposed to live, think and perceive. Art is freedom, art is contemplation.

4/27/2006, 7:01 pm Link to this post Send Email to NPCoombs   Send PM to NPCoombs
 
Narek Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info



Registered: 04-2006
Posts: 14
Karma: 0 (+0/-0)
Reply | Quote
Re: about art


You are both artists and your comments are valuable for me. Thanks. I am a mathematician and I love clarity. I also love art. 'The well tempered clavier' by Bach, 'the dancing queen' by Abba or 'awaken' by Yes - all send shivers down my spine. Therefore I cannot fully accept Tarkovsky's statement that art has to address serious questions. This is probably the job of aesthetics or philosophy. Maybe I am wrong, I don't know. It seems to me it is impossible to speak about art objectively, without emotions. Artists speak about art artistically. There seems to be a gap, a fundamental incompatibility between art and science. Art does not care about science, science cannot comprehend the full depth of art. It will always remain elusive and incomprehensible for the language of science. Don't you agree with me? This is both fascinating and depressing.

Last edited by Narek, 4/29/2006, 11:26 am
4/29/2006, 11:06 am Link to this post Send Email to Narek   Send PM to Narek
 
NPCoombs Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info



Registered: 04-2005
Posts: 32
Karma: 3 (+3/-0)
Reply | Quote
Re: about art


quote:

Narek wrote:

You are both artists and your comments are valuable for me. Thanks. I am a mathematician and I love clarity. I also love art. 'The well tempered clavier' by Bach, 'the dancing queen' by Abba or 'awaken' by Yes - all send shivers down my spine. Therefore I cannot fully accept Tarkovsky's statement that art has to address serious questions.



Indeed! All art has play in it. Perhaps though what separates true art nowadays is that the notion of entertainment has monopolized that type of art concerned only with play. In 'true art' play is sublimated into the formal gestures of creativity and innovation. The play in art is frequently its innovation. Cache is a very playful film through its formal mechanisms. 'The Colour of Pomegranates' is perhaps the purest example of play in modern art. What separates this kind of play from the play in entertainment is that this plays questions rather than confirms the status quo in society and perception. This play is marshaled towards greater themes and messages that can then be reflected upon by philosophy.
quote:


 This is probably the job of aesthetics or philosophy. Maybe I am wrong, I don't know. It seems to me it is impossible to speak about art objectively, without emotions. Artists speak about art artistically. There seems to be a gap, a fundamental incompatibility between art and science. Art does not care about science, science cannot comprehend the full depth of art. It will always remain elusive and incomprehensible for the language of science. Don't you agree with me? This is both fascinating and depressing.



Art and science are not all that different. How can you speak scientifically about science? How can you scientifically verify the axioms of the scientific method. Impossible, it is a tautology.

Fundamentally art and science are both embedded in the process of creativity and mutual recognition of innovation. Nowadays however science has become the preserve of big business and abstract edifices beyond the reach of most people. In opposition art has tended towards the opposite, true art stands in opposition to big business.

Thanks for starting this discussion.
4/30/2006, 11:33 am Link to this post Send Email to NPCoombs   Send PM to NPCoombs
 
Narek Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info



Registered: 04-2006
Posts: 14
Karma: 0 (+0/-0)
Reply | Quote
Re: about art


I agree with NPCoombs, art has play in it and many other ingredients. This is what I am interested in. I agree with you, art should not be just an enertainment. However, my question is not about the function of art, it is about the essence of art: what is art? If you ask me what science is, the answer is very simple: science is just a tool which helps us understand the world around us. Nothing more than that. Can we say the same about art? Is it just a tool for entertainers and philosophers? I suspect, art is more than that. We can live without philosophy but we cannot live without music, without beauty. Philosophy is just a tool like science. It appeals to our reason. The lack of rational arguments leads to mysticism, ideology, pseudoreligion. Unlike ideology, art is honest and sincere. Art is freedom (NPCoombs). It defies definitions and frozen labels just like humans do. It is always unpredictable. This is what puzzles me and this is why I think that art will always remain elusive to the scientific language.

Maria gave us the amazing examples of Paradjanov creating his collages in a Soviet labor camp and Olivier Messiaen writing his quartets in a Nazi prison camp. These are perfect illustrations of how fundamental the creative impulse is. Creating art is a basic necessity of the human spirit (unlike any other biological necessity) - I agree with that. However, your words add another layer of mystery to my original question about the creative impulse, the fundamental driving force.

Last edited by Narek, 5/1/2006, 1:50 pm
5/1/2006, 1:30 pm Link to this post Send Email to Narek   Send PM to Narek
 


Add a reply





You are not logged in (login)