HI Marsha, The Title was "Images and Physical Reality"
I'm so glad you liked it and I'm so hoping she'll finish ZAMM this summer and join MD. We argue a lot, Em and me, but in a good way. My dad has a video from when she was about five, eating thanksgiving dinner and she was arguing that there wasn't any good reason why I should be the one in charge. J On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 1:48 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hello John, > > 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
