a few questions about art and other things

Let us transport ourselves to the Homeric world, a planet very similar to Earth except that, as its name indicates, none enjoyed the sense of sight. Are the mysterious Mona Lisa and the picturesque starry night art for the inhabitants of this world? Taking the question further, does the visual arts exist in these lands of the blind?

Now, imagine that, by divine revelation, you discover that the conception of ‘The Ingenious Hidalgo Don Quixote de la Mancha’ was not penned by the master of the pen, Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, but the product of the random typing of a seated man. Was. chimpanzee in front of typewriter; Will he lose his place at the top of the pyramid of genius of the human intellect? Will they be excluded from the artistic field?

These questions, through a journey to the existential peripheries of art, immerse thought in search of the fundamental elements that constitute it; Limits are crossed where the unnecessary becomes scarce and the essential becomes the norm. This is reflected in the assembling of a puzzle – especially if the number of pieces is very high – where the optimal strategy is to start by assembling the edges to limit the possible arrangements of the rest of the pieces. When an idea is so complex that it boggles the mind, something similar can be achieved by focusing on questions that walk the fine lines of extremes where existence begins to blur.

This tool has been used by the most eminent intellectual architects throughout time to build humanity’s knowledge. Subjecting limited cases of an argument to rigorous judgment has been shown to be effective in determining its validity and domain. The definition of being human has been crafted by the resonating hands of this method. Let us remember when Plato’s students, striving for knowledge, questioned the essence of this concept; Paraphrasing the teachings of Socrates, the father of Western philosophy, he ended the doubt by replying that humans are the only bipedal animals without wings. However, “Here is the man”, Diogenes uttered disrespectfully when he conquered the Academy, armed with a broken cock in hand, upon learning of such vandalism. In this way, through radical reasoning of thought, the Cynic revealed the shortcomings of said definition, showing that it was not a reliable representation of human essence.

Diogenes, like the dog, we will devote himself to posing the conditions and radical questions to question the essence of art, in this case; We strongly encourage the reader to answer the questions presented in order to unleash the aesthetic sense in him – one who values ​​the beauty of art above all else. Don’t expect to find the answers, but expect the map to find them yourself.

Being a concept with so many edges and nuances, let’s approach this question with common sense: let’s break down what is supposed to be the art of intuitively determining what is essential; One can go from the particular object to the general idea, thus expanding its basic characteristics.

Let’s start with the following question: What, to you, has more artistic value: Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony, Queen’s ‘Bohemian Rhapsody’, Justin Bieber’s ‘Baby’ or the Eagles of America’s baton? More generally, are all arts on the same artistic level? Naturally, in the search for answers, three paths are explored: (1) Art as a spectrum, where one work is no more artistic than another, regardless of difference in historical, aesthetic, or cultural endowment – Maybe one is more attractive that people consider it, but that doesn’t mean that the second one in this listing loses its value; (2) art as a category without subdivisions, where a work is or is not clearly art; and, finally, (3) art as a quantitative or ordinal classification where some pieces are more artistic than others. Looking at the latter, is ‘Bohemian Rhapsody’ or ‘Baby’ more artistic? And if we now compare the novena and the American anthem? In a case where one is ignorant of the artistic world, we ask ourselves where does a work of art begin?

Let us, after the last doubt, consider a pointillist work of Theseus’ ship sailing from Crete after fighting the Minotaur. Suppose the flow of time gradually takes away the painting point by point. After the first one is erased, does the painting retain the same artistry? Are the artistic foundations preserved – the message conveyed, the cultural load, etc. – or do they change – perhaps being partially destroyed due to a point in time? How many dots have to be removed so that the painting lacks artistic sense? It is relevant to note at this point the moment a work becomes artistic: will it be when the last drop of paint hugs the canvas or until the work enters a conscious soul that transmits meaning?; When the idea emerges in the artist’s intellect after an inspirational vision or until the piece is placed in a room where people admire it for its artistic beauty; Is art born only when it is the result of the work created by the artist?

This brings us back to the classic question about the chicken and the egg: is it the art that comes before the artist and creates the artist, or vice versa? To answer in favor of the second, we must debate what, if not art, defines this person; What quality or qualities give you the gift of creation? And, in uncovering that range of thought, it is also necessary to question whether everything an artist does is art. Let us recall here ‘Artist Shit’, the controversial conceptual work of Piero Manzoni, satirizing the cult of the artist and consumerism in this section, defecating in 90 aluminum cans, charged with a certain ironic allegation that, being a famous artist, according to his popular belief, excrement must be art. Choosing the latter as an answer brings with it disastrous drawbacks.

Let’s focus on the first: art is what the artist is involved in. The question about the monkey author and Don Quixote at the beginning of this text inevitably arises here: does art always have the artist as a result or, sometimes, is it completely self-sufficient? Also, should the cast be aware? If so, does it need to be consciously guided by someone?

Delving deeper into the essence of art and challenging the possible answers to the previous questions, consider a child playing with oil paint who, surprisingly, has painted da Vinci’s ‘The Last Supper’ in the bedroom mural. Throw away the palette. Assuming the Italian never painted this masterpiece, would this random randomness of colors on the wall be art? For certain minds – above all for the minds of certain artists – a technique – conscious and directed routing – is necessary to relate something to that realm. In turn, for many others, art lies not in who does it and how, but in what it conveys to those who appreciate the work in question. For him art depends entirely on actual or potential contemplation.

Returning to the question of the Homeric world and the Mona Lisa, let us question whether what one appreciates gives art meaning and basis. Furthermore, let us ask ourselves what would happen if an artist buried a brilliant literary work in the depths of a trunk, where it would never be found again: would that text be considered art? Does writing need to come into contact with a conscious being in order to be conscious—so, considering art as an epistemological quality that arises exclusively from the relationship in act Between work and subject—? or whether the transmission of a work and its contact with a conscious entity is necessary, but only potentially so – art is a potential epistemological quality, which arises Possibility Relationship between work and subject—? Is art, as already said, independent of whether it is read or, in a general way, contemplated, or is the observer an ‘essential condition’ (a characteristic “of which without” it cannot be)?

Leaving these questions to the consideration of the reader, but continuing to examine the role of those who appreciate works, let us explore the limits of the essence of the message that art – if any – is supposed to transmit. Following the path explored by this question opens the door to the following question: If an inexperienced photographer, in the absence of any technology, visits the beautiful land of Agra, India, and mechanically takes pictures – perspective in color, Without looking for contradiction and harmony,For the grand Taj Mahal, is photography art or just what is captured – the mausoleum itself? And, conversely, if photographs require immense technical and creative effort to immortalize an extraordinary moment, giving observers the opportunity to contemplate it from a unique perspective? And if the image was taken with a desire to convey peace and tranquility, but it failed, sending a message of chaos and despair: is this photo art? Fundamentally, we are inquiring about whether it is necessary for art to convey a message based on the inspiration of the piece, and if so, whether it should intentionally bring something new into the realm of philosophical-guided elements. In the works – to create a new world.

These questions, like a stick that keeps us from falling into ignorance, allow a flow of ideas that promote our understanding of art. However, only fragments of essence reach a corner of knowledge. These vertices limit its extension, sculpt a stable form, promote harmony among the various fundamental components so that the interaction between them gives rise to the existence of the concept.

Embedded in skepticism, the pursuit of knowledge is usually not obvious, but if one has the humility to recognize that one often finds oneself wading in uncertain ground, then the very effort to investigate the issues has immeasurable intellectual value. ; Even to that which is surrounded by question marks, a similar property may be attributed, for it delimits the fertile ground of ignorance, where, if the thinker dares to know the ‘sapere aud’ and explores the unknown, his hand of reason will sow seeds that will eventually sprout the fruit of knowledge.

Source link

Leave a Comment