What truth is there in beauty?

crispygoat · #1 10-15-2010, 10:20 AM

Beauty meaning the arts, whether it be literature, music or visual arts.

Please do answer in a mature and professional way as I plan on using this thread as a point in an essay.

thank you.

edit:

What role, if any, should the arts play in a society? What are the merits of art? Why would one read A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man instead of a history or biology manual?

sloasdaylight · #2 10-15-2010, 10:25 AM

What?

5StringBlues · #3 10-15-2010, 10:25 AM

()smoke() · #4 10-15-2010, 10:28 AM

there is truth in beauty because there is beauty in truth, it's a circular thing for me

if that is ambiguous, i can expound to say that i find a certain natural beauty in broken things, because of the truth they represent...yes, i'm weird

Bongolation · #5 10-15-2010, 10:28 AM

None, as far as I can tell.

**funkybass4ever** · #6 10-15-2010, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crispygoat

Beauty meaning the arts, whether it be literature, music or visual arts.

Please do answer in a mature and professional way as I plan on using this thread as a point in an essay.

thank you.

edit:

What role, if any, should the arts play in a society? What are the merits of art? Why would one read A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man instead of a history or biology manual?

the arts should be the basis of the way a society expresses itself and if that is too mature an answer then lalala i can't hear you lalalal same to you but more of it lalalalalalallal

Selta · #7 10-15-2010, 10:56 AM

We're not here to write your essays for you.

crispygoat · #8 10-15-2010, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray Salamon

We're not here to write your essays for you.

This isn't the point. The point is to collect data on what 21st century artists think is the use of art and compare it to what Plato, Aristotle said.

PSPookie · #9 10-15-2010, 11:18 AM

The truth in beauty is as subjective as the concept of beauty itself.

One could argue that beauty is a lie since many regard perfection as beauty and vice versa. In reality, the only perfection that exists in the universe is the perfect absence of perfection. Were it not so then we would not exist.

Jim Nazium · #10 10-15-2010, 11:24 AM

IMHO, the truth in art is in direct experience of the whole of something, as opposed to analysis of its parts.

Robert Pirsig tlaked about this in "Zen and the Art of Mortorcycle Maintenance". What is a motorcycle? The Western, scientific answer is that it's a motor vehicle concicting of an engine, a drivetrain, and a chassis. The engine consists of an intake system, a crankcase, and an ignition system. The ignition system consists of a distrbutor, a coil, and spark plugs, etc. But, he asks, if we understand all of that, do we understand what a motorcycle is? Or do we have to ride one - feel the wind, hear the sound, feel the sensation of balance, etc - in order to fully understand it?

Science can't communicate that (at least the way we currently practice science in the west). Art can, or at least it tries. Imagine a painting of someone having a good time riding a motorcycle. That piece of art can present and communicate a truth about motorcycles that science can't.

MatticusMania · #11 10-15-2010, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crispygoat

This isn't the point. The point is to collect data on what 21st century artists think is the use of art and compare it to what Plato, Aristotle said.

Art has always been, and always will be, an expression of the soul, nothing more nor less. What role does it play in society? None. As you can readily see, art is on the decline, and only a minority of the masses actually care for or have an appreciation of it. What truth lay in beauty? No truth, only ones perception of it.

sloasdaylight · #12 10-15-2010, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MatticusMania

Art has always been, and always will be, an expression of the soul, nothing more nor less. What role does it play in society? None. As you can readily see, art is on the decline, and only a minority of the masses actually care for or have an appreciation of it. What truth lay in beauty? No truth, only ones perception of it.

I don't know how different this is from before.

I would also argue that art is not on the decline, but rather what is perceived as art is changing. Now whether or not you think it's changing for the better or worse is a judgement call, but I wouldn't say art is on the decline.

wilser · #13 10-15-2010, 12:47 PM

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I actually quite enjoy the sound of the vuvuzela

...beautiful!

MatticusMania · #14 10-15-2010, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sloasdaylight

I don't know how different this is from before.

I would also argue that art is not on the decline, but rather what is perceived as art is changing. Now whether or not you think it's changing for the better or worse is a judgement call, but I wouldn't say art is on the decline.

I would say that art is on the decline as every year we lose music and art programs in many schools. Less people being exposed to forms of expression will equate to less people learning how to express themselves. During the Renaissance, art had a lot more influence over the masses as it seemingly does today. Of course art is changing, as it will have to with the times, but I think the business has changed art a lot, and not for the positive.

PSPookie · #15 10-15-2010, 12:59 PM

Pop "art" is plentiful these days. While pop art is often scoffed at one must remember that Shakespeare and Mozart were pop artists in their day.

Having said that, I still think most pop art is crap. OTOH pop tarts are delicious.

BassChuck · #16 10-15-2010, 01:09 PM

The idea of art is to find beauty. The act of finding beauty reveals truth about yourself. Knowing beauty, seeking beauty, finding beauty are actions that make life worth living.

Life becomes worth living not for the beauty we find, but in the act of knowing that there is beauty worth finding.

hrodbert696 · #17 10-15-2010, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MatticusMania

Art has always been, and always will be, an expression of the soul, nothing more nor less. What role does it play in society? None. As you can readily see, art is on the decline, and only a minority of the masses actually care for or have an appreciation of it. What truth lay in beauty? No truth, only ones perception of it.

I disagree from this from another angle. The idea that art is the unique expression of an individual's inner life is a pretty recent notion in the development of human society -- it really only sets in with nineteenth-century romanticism. Arguably it's that very individualism that explains why modern society finds art training so dispensable -- "art for art's sake" reduces art to an idiosyncrasy of individuals and not a vital social function.

In ancient Greece, or Rome, or medieval Europe, and many societies besides, art existed to glorify and elevate the gods and the community. The artist was not the semi-divine being we've artificially made him into, but a craftsman with a job to do for the society around him.

The statement that the masses do not care for art only properly refers to high art, and high art itself is a byproduct of the mass marketing of art. Go into any "non-creative" person's house and you'll find posters on the walls, mp3s on their ipods and little kitschy sculptures on their shelves. That's art, folks, it's just not high art.

Prior to the nineteenth century, normally the only art a person would have had access to was either public art (the relief sculptures on the facade of the temple, etc) or folk art (grandpa doodling around on his fiddle). The production of more highly-trained artists was aimed at elite patrons. Come the nineteenth century or so, improvements in printing and in overall prosperity (thanks to industrialization) make everything from prints of famous paintings to concerts by trained musicians more accessible to the masses, and they devoured them.

As a result, bohemian artistes started to try to produce art that the masses would NOT appreciate and thereby created, in many different media, "high arts" or the "avant garde." Having deliberately estranged themselves from their culture, these artistes then turn around and adopt the tone of tragic lament that the masses do not appreciate their brilliance (yes, I deliberately slipped into present tense there).

Frankly, to me the whole schtick has gotten very old and it's time to let the romantic, bohemian experiment die its natural death. Art needs audiences and audiences need art.

Sorry, this probably doesn't answer the OP. But in my mind it sets the context for any meaningful discussion of the question.

MatticusMania · #18 10-15-2010, 01:55 PM

Good post. I can agree that my post was of a more modern perspective and does not accurately depict the History of Art. However, art will change along with the society that influences it. This is where it is now, and I dont likely see it moving backwards. I think its moved from serving such a purpose to society. It is now a matter of the individual.

**Vorago** · #19 10-15-2010, 02:08 PM

The only truth is beauty is that it's subjective.

totallyfrozen · #20 10-15-2010, 02:10 PM

Andrew Fletcher wrote, "Let me write the songs of a nation; I don't care who writes its laws." (a clever line that he stole from Mark Twain and modified).

Music is an extremely powerful influence on the human experience. Songs have been written to embolden troops heading into battle, to teach simple truths to toddlers, to praise dieties, etc. In addition to the motivational aspects of music, we are all familiar with the human experience related through music. There is probably NO ONE that you know who hasn't heard a love song. Some are about the loyalty of love, some are about disappointment of broken hearts, etc.

Humans were designed to express themselves and explain their experiences through art. Animals cannot do this. We refer to a bird's whistles and noises as a "song" because it sounds like a song to us--but the bird is mearly making it's call. It's no different than a dog bark or a cow's "moo". Only humans have the ability to express themselves with the organization and manipulation of many sounds simultaneously to form music. Music is unique to the human experience and has an incredibly strong influence on those who hear the art. Next time you watch a movie, get to the emotional part and then MUTE the sound. You'll notice the effect and impact of the scene is greatly diminished. When "talkie" movies first came on the scene you could hear dialog and some sound effects but there was no score behind it all. The emotional impact of the scenes was not as great as later movies that had a score running under the scenes. Watch some old movies (early 1930's era) and some newer movies you'll see what I mean.

BTW, not all art is beautiful. We often use the terms synonymously as if we owe it to the artist to call his/her work "beauty". Some artists want to depict pain, evil, injustice, or disappointment to expose it--it's not intended to be beautiful.

Someone else might have a different opinion but, of course, they're wrong and I'm right.

Cool topic, btw.