"We have art so that we may not perish by the truth." -Friedrich Nietzsche
Art is basically here so that we can cover up the fact that our lives are meaningless. Art gives us meaning for our lives; it makes us feel like we have and there is a purpose, since we cannot fully understand or figure out why we truly are here. I feel that art is a way for us to try and find out what our meaning is; it is a means for us to try and escape deep within ourselves and dig up that which makes us who we are. We attempt to find our essence within art, and the essence of all people, but to me it just seems like a way to create reckless delusion.
As far as I'm concerned, humans have no ultimate purpose in the Universe. We have no real impact on the Universe as a whole, even if we drastically impact the earth. But then again, I'm not astrophysicist or anything of the like, so I'm not exactly sure of the affect of our planet on everything else, however, that does not change my ultimate point. Art is a way for us to escape and defend ourselves from this ultimate truth: that humans have no meaning. If we all were to perish, nothing would change, and if it did, it would probably be for the better. We use art to give us meaning, and yet we try to put meaning into art. Sort of backwards, don't you think?
Saturday, April 21, 2012
More on Beauty
Why can't we simply think that everything is beautiful? Is there really such a problem with that? In class we brought it up in discussion that, supposedly, if we follow Nehamas' view then we would and could call everything beautiful. Well is that really so wrong? What's wrong with finding beauty innate in anything and everything in the world? I do not find it to be ignorance or the like, but simply having appreciation for that which so humbly and abundantly surrounds us every day of our lives. One does not need to be an esteemed and astute critic with a narrow-mindedness on what is good or bad art or what is truly beautiful to appreciate something and get pleasure from it. To me, that mindset is the ignorant one. While it is all well and good to have varying degrees of appreciation for things, and while it is okay to have intellectual analyses of certain things, that does not mean to condemn those who simply to decide to appreciate something for the sake of appreciating it, for in the end, what does it really matter? It is all opinion, and ultimately, in this Universe where humans are but a mere speck of dust, our opinions don't mean a thing.
Second Question on Nehamas
Does reading something "deeply" really imply that there is a bottom? Can it still be applied to mean that there is always more to explore?
I believe that Nehamas brings up an interesting point when he makes the claim that reading into something deeply implies there is a bottom. I had never thought of that notion before; however, while that may be the case, I'm not sure that I fully agree with it. I believe that when referring to the word "deeply" in that connotation, it brings up a different point entirely. While this may be obvious, I'm not sure that Nehamas is completely correct in this fact. Take for example what we call "deep space": here we are referring to so far out into space that we do not know what is out there. It means to go further out in all directions of the Universe from where we are. We all know, or at least subscribe to the same paradigm, that space has no foreseeable end or "bottom."
So how does this connect to reading something? The same way the Nehamas did so with his argument. It is another way that we humans use the word "deep" to describe something. It does not have to imply that there is an end or bottom, it simply means to look further into something, and that further can expand to infinity.
I believe that Nehamas brings up an interesting point when he makes the claim that reading into something deeply implies there is a bottom. I had never thought of that notion before; however, while that may be the case, I'm not sure that I fully agree with it. I believe that when referring to the word "deeply" in that connotation, it brings up a different point entirely. While this may be obvious, I'm not sure that Nehamas is completely correct in this fact. Take for example what we call "deep space": here we are referring to so far out into space that we do not know what is out there. It means to go further out in all directions of the Universe from where we are. We all know, or at least subscribe to the same paradigm, that space has no foreseeable end or "bottom."
So how does this connect to reading something? The same way the Nehamas did so with his argument. It is another way that we humans use the word "deep" to describe something. It does not have to imply that there is an end or bottom, it simply means to look further into something, and that further can expand to infinity.
First Question on Nehamas
What does the phrase "to see the object as in itself it really is" mean?
This phrase, while worded very strangely, may not be a very difficult question to answer, or rather, it is one of those questions that one knows the answer to, but has a hard time putting into words. "To see the object as in itself it really is" essentially means to see the object--in this case art--for what it truly is, or for what the artist tried to convey from it. However, while this may take on the appearance of a purely subjective view, this is not so. It does take a bit of an objective view to understand what an object "in itself" really is. While one must observe the object as a painting or sculpture, etc., one must also look at specifically what the piece of art is. Is it a landscape? Does it resemble that of something in reality? Or is it abstract? A strange arrangement of colors and lines and shapes?
Then, one must delve even deeper into what the artwork is. What does it represent? What does it mean? What was the artist trying to communicate? What is this a painting/sculpture/what have you of anyway? Is there more to this? These are the questions one must ask themselves to truly find what an object in itself really is. It is, for lack of a better word, to find the true essence of the piece (while this word is highly misleading and misused in this case, but the writer hopes that the reader will understand the point he is trying to make). Picking apart every piece of the object and truly finding what it is.
This phrase, while worded very strangely, may not be a very difficult question to answer, or rather, it is one of those questions that one knows the answer to, but has a hard time putting into words. "To see the object as in itself it really is" essentially means to see the object--in this case art--for what it truly is, or for what the artist tried to convey from it. However, while this may take on the appearance of a purely subjective view, this is not so. It does take a bit of an objective view to understand what an object "in itself" really is. While one must observe the object as a painting or sculpture, etc., one must also look at specifically what the piece of art is. Is it a landscape? Does it resemble that of something in reality? Or is it abstract? A strange arrangement of colors and lines and shapes?
Then, one must delve even deeper into what the artwork is. What does it represent? What does it mean? What was the artist trying to communicate? What is this a painting/sculpture/what have you of anyway? Is there more to this? These are the questions one must ask themselves to truly find what an object in itself really is. It is, for lack of a better word, to find the true essence of the piece (while this word is highly misleading and misused in this case, but the writer hopes that the reader will understand the point he is trying to make). Picking apart every piece of the object and truly finding what it is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)