I don't think 'Final' is the title. College papers usually require a title presenting the topic.
On Jun 5, 2010, at 5:04 AM, Mary wrote: > Final Paper > > >> What was the title of Emily's paper? >> >> >> Marsha >> >> >> >> >> >> On Jun 4, 2010, at 2:59 PM, John Carl wrote: >> >>> 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 >> >> >> >> ___ >> >> >> 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 > > 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 ___ 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
