The best thing about good art is that nothing you can say about it is untrue. It supports every theory.
Yes, I think belief is central to art in that we believe an artwork is good even if we can't say why and even after we've listed all the pros and cons. Yes, I agree that good art resides as much in our inability to explain it as it does in our many modes of analysis, history, social context, etc. Some residue of the experience of good art remains and alters our consciousness; it becomes a part of who we are and can't be explained any more than we can explain a part of our selves. Yes, since art is in us and constructed by our experiences it is to some degree merely a matter of brain function. A growing knowledge of our brain functions can indeed explain the who, what and why of our thinking, feeling, action. There will likely be a residue, however, an organic ever-changing flow of something we call mind that falls beyond any description. We sense that because there are always parts of every moment of our living that fall beyond description but are affecting us consciously, somehow. What we call art is among them. If this were not true, we could describe art (as an experience) and make art on demand. But no guaranteed artwork can be made from sheer desire or direction. Every effort is an empty, as worthless as a clump of mud or as worthy as a cathedral according to no rule or prediction. Maybe it's a matter of extra dimensions, one of those 6 extra dimensions we can neither see, feel, count, measure, but act on us nonetheless. See M theory. WC --- On Tue, 3/3/09, Chris Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > From: Chris Miller <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Good Art Exists > To: [email protected] > Date: Tuesday, March 3, 2009, 11:49 AM > It looks like I got it completely wrong -- and it's > believers like myself who > dominate this list, with skeptics like Cheerskep and Mando > serving as a very > vocal minority. > > But beyond that simple statement of belief (and > William's extended exposition > of it) I doubt that our beliefs have much else in common. > > Unlike Brady, I do not believe that "the crucial, the > necessary and > sufficient, property of an "artwork" is the > truth-conditions to which it is > subjected.". I don't care whether something has > been offered to us as a > documentation or not, unless I need it to be accurate about > some detail (like > the location of streets on a map) > > Unlike Francis, I do not believe that good art "must > presuppose some semiotic > value". I believe that good art exists as distinct, > rare, almost miraculous > phenomena that presupposes nothing that's capable of > being understood. > > Unlike Boris, I do not believe that "the best of art > is .... lifting the level > of sophistication of human as biological and spiritual > system.". Maybe that's > true -- but I just haven't seen any evidence for it. > Despite all the good art > I think I've seen, my own biological system has been > slowly, but relentlessly, > deteriorating -- and only God knows what my spiritual > system has been up to. > > Unlike William -- well, actually -- I can't find any of > his beliefs on this > thread which i would not share -- except for his ongoing > belief that brain > science will eventually say something non-trivial about > good art. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > Click to learn about options trading and get the latest > information. > http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/BLSrjnxUZ1l8u7yGhy6ZWsGCaITybu > dhzsxUvy5ykBhFvli3FlUAs0T0AIA/
