Thread: Is There an Underlying Value You Look To Satisfy In Your Evaluation of Art?

Originally Posted by KenOC

I'm the same way, except that I closely fit the stereotype of those independent thinkers who don't believe they fit a stereotype.

All my friends fit the indep. thinker stereotype!


And yet, here I was trying to avoid that I was one too.

I have a hunch that Art and its values are not as intangible as we may think (or like to think). I love analyzing film, music, poetry, and paintings: anything that made me experience or feel something, to understand why or how these magicians in Art were able to manipulate me. I've also read Plato on this subject. It's all in the rhetoric. That is why I'm so interested in technique, and translating it to more intangible emotions and ideas. Is the "spirituality" in Bach inherent in the music or contrived? I'd argue it is all contrived. It doesn't matter that he is a devote Lutheran, and probably believed what he wrote would speak to God, or whether it affects us in that way. He succeeded in getting the point across, and more: making us (or some of us) look beyond or feel something external. That is why I say Art is all manipulation, we are all suckers and can't help it. That is why I'm so against critics that are artificial (in my view) to keep drawing some unwarranted connections as if Art has a life of its own.

Originally Posted by Phil loves classical

I have a hunch that Art and its values are not as intangible as we may think (or like to think). I love analyzing film, music, poetry, and paintings: anything that made me experience or feel something, to understand why or how these magicians in Art were able to manipulate me. I've also read Plato on this subject. It's all in the rhetoric. That is why I'm so interested in technique, and translating it to more intangible emotions and ideas. Is the "spirituality" in Bach inherent in the music or contrived? I'd argue it is all contrived. It doesn't matter that he is a devote Lutheran, and probably believed what he wrote would speak to God, or whether it affects us in that way. He succeeded in getting the point across, and more: making us (or some of us) look beyond or feel something external. That is why I say Art is all manipulation, we are all suckers and can't help it. That is why I'm so against critics that are artificial (in my view) to keep drawing some unwarranted connections as if Art has a life of its own.

I agree all Art is manipulation, but to bring it back around to the main topic, I was analyzing before the experience of the piece. I need to experience and then analyze.

Originally Posted by Razumovskymas

My art has to be absolutely clear and totally incomprehensible at the same time.

Can you explain that further?

Originally Posted by isorhythm

Puzzled by this - "manipulation" suggests the artist is trying to make the audience feel something he or she doesn't feel. I don't think any good art is like this.

Hmmm... Somebody said, "Art is passion recalled at leisure." And a rather famous composer said, "An artist must be able to assume many humors."