Ok, I usually don't forward on stuff I get but I thought this was pretty good. And sort of an example of how the Metaphysics of Quality is affecting one college student anyway...
MoQ Discuss? I present to the thoughts of my eldest: PS: It also reminded me of a story about my new boss's chair, I've been meaning to share. PPS: I avoided the temptation to make corrections. I deserve a frickin' medal for that alone. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Em Pryor <[email protected]> Date: Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 1:43 AM Subject: Images and Physical Reality To: John Carl <[email protected]> Hey Dad, I just wrote a paper for my Art History class and somehow, I thought you might like to read it. I know my arguments could be better-developed but I wanted to know if I made the concept that I was driving at clear. anyway thought it might interest you. Love, Em I had all the answers, but then I forgot the questions... Emily Pryor Arth 116 Professor Carpenter Final Paper Suppose someone were to walk up to you and offer to sell you a chair. A plain, wooden-framed, straw-seated chair. Not particularly appealing, right? Now suppose it was revealed to you that this particular chair was one of those depicted in Van Gogh’s * Room at Arles*. More interested? Perhaps. But the chair still wouldn’t have nearly as much value as the *painting* of the chair. Here we arrive at the baffling phenomenon of art: that the useless, functionless depiction of a thing is valued more highly than the thing itself. What is art? It’s a stock-in-trade question for anyone interested in the art world. The general consensus these days seems to be that art is whatever an artist says it is. What is an artist? Anyone who knows how to successfully proclaim their work as “art”. A diabolic paradox that chases itself around in circles- perhaps explaining why artists seem so crazy. Generally, though, art is the artificial representation of an object/event or the depiction of a concept. The ideas and feelings behind art are important to communicate, but a problem arises when, like the objects, the ideas become devalued by the work. Art, in its early Rennaisance forms, was designed to remind the everyday man of the divine, and to make the spiritual a more concrete concept. It brought awareness of biblical truths to a largely illiterate population. This tradition, of communicating what could not otherwise be expressed, had continued throughout the ages. The various movements of techniques and ideals come and go, each rebelling against the norms of the last, but the fundamental purpose of art is to beautify life and express something. But is art *functional*? Does it serve a concrete, useful purpose? It does not provide food or shelter, but the very fact of its existence shows that it is necessary to the human soul—in every culture, at every time, there has been some form of art produced. It is a human need to express our thoughts, demonstrate our opinions, and leave our mark, in some small way, on the world. There is a place for art, and a very important one. The functional, concrete world around us, however, is also vital to our existence. As obvious as it may sound, we need the physical world just as much as the ideological one. However, in our society, the image seems to have risen above the reality, and the representation above the represented. The work that best exemplifies the rising awareness of this divide is, of course, René Magritte’s *The Treachery of Images*. By presenting the viewer with an image of a pipe, coupled with a French phrases translating to “This is not a pipe”, we are forced to confront the nature of art and our own perceptions. The phrase “seeing is believing” is all too true in human nature. We are prone to suspend rational judgment in favor of evidence presented to us with our eyes. Sometimes this is a good thing. One can arrive at all manner of erroneous conclusions using solely logic, while the evidence presented to us with our own eyes is more practical. However, this tendency leads us astray when it comes to images that lie. Nothing in our society provides a more useful example of this than television. Television, the great beacon of knowledge that shines from every living room, bedroom, and hotel suite. Form the corporate moguls in Hollywood to the humble eyes of the billions of viewers worldwide come messages of great importance. The commercial interests decide the messages sent. They decide what is beautiful and what is strange. They decide what is acceptable and what is perverse. They sell us things we never knew we needed, point out flaws we never knew were flaws, solve problems we never knew we had. Television restructured the way we experience culture. No longer a locally-grown, population-influenced phenomenon, culture is now shaped by the programming we receive. And who decides what we see? The corporate stockholders. They decide what is going to be beamed out, portrayed as alluring or interesting or disgusting. They decide what television is. They are the artists. Where once stood complicated concepts and feats of skill or originality now is the blue box of doom, beaming out messages of promiscuity and vanity. The pictures haven’t changed that much- nude women, battle glory- but the intent and concept behind them has shifted radically. No longer striving for expression or enlightenment or even beauty, the motivating force between the majority of images people see is money. When art loses its soul, what effect does that have on the soul of the person who experiences it? In every piece of art there are three components: the artist (representer), the art (representation) and the object, person, or idea being made into art (represented). In a classical portrait such as, say, the Leonardo da Vinci’s *Mona Lisa,* the representer and the represented were both real- genuine, functional beings not identifiable as art of themselves. This lends an honesty or accountability to the work, to some degree, while also casting doubt onto the value of the represented object—or, the actual woman. No one cares much for the location of the woman now. She is dead. She is useless to anyone. The painting, however, is still widely valued and sought after. Here is immortality. Here is worth. Could one really state, however, that a work of art is worth more than a human life? Suppose again with me. Suppose, now, that you are visiting a famous museum. While admiring a famous work of art, you are suddenly aware of smoke billowing out from one of the side rooms. In seconds, the museum is engulfed in flames. Visibility low, your head spinning from lack of oxygen, you notice a woman passed out on the floor not too far away from you. Looking back at the wall, you see the work of art hanging within reach. There is only time to take one thing before you flee the room. Do you rescue the priceless painting? Or do you save the woman’s life? The argument of worth really calls for another argument, that of the definition of “value” and “worth”. However, I believe that rapidly slips into the territory of the metaphysics of quality and, having not yet finished the book I was recommended on the subject, I don’t yet know how to define quality or worth. I think that even without making a strong argument in that direction, however, it is clear that a represented object is not less important than the representation. It is just important in a different way. To simplify the argument, take Marcel Duchamp’s *Fountain*. Here we have only representer and object, no representation at all. This is an example of art that defies the nature of art. Modern art, in some forms, involves only ready-made objects, things that take no skill or finesse to obtain. On one hand, the “art-ness” of these objects is somewhat debateable. One the other, looked at from the perspective of the devaluation of the real, these modern art presentations are a fascinating counter-blow in favor of the world of the represented. The argument of this paper is in no way anti-art or anti-representation, but on the importance of awareness of the divide between the depiction and the depicted. Our world’s standards are beings shaped by artificial forces, by the images constructed in a life lived largely on an artificial level. We don’t talk anymore- we text and chat. We don’t go to libraries anymore- we search articles on Google and EBSCO-host. We buy computer games and software- virtual products- with PayPal- virtual money. Perhaps the world would be clearer if we carried in our minds Magritte’s distinction: to the friend who is chatting with me from another continent, “These are not my words.” To the page I read online, “This is not a book”. To the romantic comedy that ruined my friend’s relationship with its idealized romance, “This is not love”. And to the reality television stars that force us all to evaluate why our existences are so drab and uneventful, “This is not life”. Art is vital to the human soul, and expression of ideas is necessary to intellectual progress; but art is not the human soul, and expression is not progress. We are all idolaters, guilty of raising the representation above the represented, guilty of valuing the symbol over the symbolized, guilty of valuing money over what money can do, guilty of praying to a painting of God and not God. Now… how much will you give me for this chair?
Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
