Hi John, A+
However, I always look forward to the Quality family time spent with my 15 year old on Friday nights when we sit down to watch Bill Maher together. ;-0 http://www.hbo.com/real-time-with-bill-maher/index.html We are really pulling for Texas to win the "Stupidest State in America" contest! Mary - The most important thing you will ever make is a realization. > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:moq_discuss- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of John Carl > Sent: Friday, June 04, 2010 1:59 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [MD] Fwd: Images and Physical Reality > > 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 Goghs * Room at > Arles*. More interested? Perhaps. But the chair still wouldnt 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? Its 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 soulin 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 Magrittes *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 havent 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 Vincis *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 objector, > 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 womans 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 dont 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 Duchamps *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 worlds standards are > beings shaped by artificial forces, by the images constructed in a life > lived largely on an artificial level. We dont talk anymore- we text > and chat. We dont 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 Magrittes > 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 friends > 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
