Beauty in Art

It’s been interesting this semester discussing opinions and philosophies about art. What’s great is that art surrounds all of us each day. While walking to class or even at a store, one can see creations of art everywhere. It’s up to the individual to see and enjoy, or dislike what is artistic in our surroundings. Discussing history and concepts in our world of art in the classroom setting helps us realize that many great minds really shaped and developed the origins and beauty of art that we all enjoy today.

And, each person can have their own opinion on what they view as what is artistically beautiful or unattractive. It comes down to one’s perceptions and experiences which influences a person’s opinions. The more exposure I have to a variety of artistic ideas, the more I enjoy it and look forward to unique experiences. It’s up to all of us to further develop our world of art by continuing to deliver unique ideas to the history and beauty of what artistic expression is all about.

dreaming and reality

Ryan for a moment mentioned the difference between dreams and reality. i thought for a moment that would be a major and interesting part of his argument but its importance was made unclear. anyway, i wanted to comment on how i know that a dream is a dream and not reality because according to the International association for the study of dreams the dreamer cannot interact with a person that they have never had a sense experience with in what we call reality, and that if a person would were to be missing any of there senses such as a blind person they would dream with smell, tastes, and touches. this study has proven to me that we must first experience something awake before we can experience it in the dream state. therefore i can conclude that our experiences in reality effect the dream states when we sleep.

I really enjoyed the metaphor Alex used to illustrate God in her presentation last class. I thought it was very thorough and there were a lot of powerful comparisons. It also made me think about how personal each individual's thoughts of religion are. It is clear that Alex has a personal relationship to the ocean, and since I've lived ten minutes from the beach my whole life, I can understand that. I think humans all share a deep connection with nature, whether it be the ocean, the woods, or whatever. I think people also have a unique connection with their religious views, whether they are Catholic, atheist, or anything else. Both are things only the individual can fully understand for themselves. And even though they might be part of a larger group of people who believe the same things, they are going to have experiences that affect their beliefs, making them uniquely their own. My experiences have formed by religious beliefs, just as all of my experiences with the ocean have created my deeply personal feelings toward it.

#29

I have been thinking a lot about Aurelius' 29th meditation quite a bit. I really enjoy the language he uses, its almost poetic. The first line says to discard your misperceptions which means a lot to me because I feel like so much of how we live our lives is based on snap judgments and assumptions. It's such a hard thing to do though, its so easy to hold onto misperceptions and let them cloud our thinking. That's definitely one thing I want to work on for myself is being more accepting and more forgiving. Next he says, stop being jerked around like a puppet. I guess I've explained before that I see a lot of people living and doing things for all the wrong reasons and all the wrong people. The rest of number 29 says, limit yourself to the present, understand what happens to you-to others, analyze what exists, break it all down, material and cause, anticipate your final hours, other people's mistakes? Leave them to their mistakes. Most of this really sums up how I want to live my life. I want to live in the present and not fret about the future or get caught up on the past and things that can't be changed. This year, especially in my foundations classes I spent a lot of time challenging our perceptions of things and manipulating interpretations with materials so I thought that one particular line fit in really well with my educational goals in life, perfectly really. Everything in art to me in material and meaning, so why not in some ways pull that into my everyday life. Finally, I think this meditation reminds me to let go of the things I can't change, like my mortality or other people's choices. I've really fallen in love with this meditation and I think it was the most valuable reading to me this semester.

Religon

One thing that has always really bothered me is the way people react when they here the word "religon" or "god" or anything related to this. I find it really disrespectful for people to be put off by it so quickly. thats not to say I'm not also put off by people with religous views pushing their thoughts onto others who clearly aren't interested. Another thing I really wish religons did was push the views alittle bit - i realize now in days you can be labeled as "non denominational" but people with other views- why can't they push the boundries alittle bit -actually think about whats out their and experience and learn about other religons? I do respect traditions that are often played in catholic, jewish, muslim etc. religons but they seem so meaningless and overdone. I also really dislike how one sided religous - or athiest people are. I really want people to be more open to the ideas of whats out their and not completely turn different ideas off.

How should you live

I want to live my life by being the best I can be each day. My parents have always emphasized to not put things off until tommorrow, that you can do today.

Acquiring material things like that new release of the iPad doesn't make a person complete or deliver real happiness. One needs to take a step back and understand that a simple act of kindness toward your classmate, a relative, friend or homeless person on the street is an important way to live a fulfilling life. Personal sacrifice should be a priority in our lives as we can lend a hand to help out physically or monetarily, it's really pretty simple. In times of crisis like the devastation of a Tsunami, hurricanes or tornadoes, we can get involved.

Part of living life each day is that we should be aware and respectful of the environment around us. The little things add up, as it's easy to recycle or donate items you no longer need.

Try to discover your own, unique passion in life and follow that path to the best of your ability. It sounds like alot to live up to, but trying to live a well balanced life is something we should all strive for.

The Real World

This is basically a response to both Keller and Chevy's opinions on the nature of reality. They both argued that reality is subjective, and that different people see things in different ways. It's extremely easy to see where they're coming from as artists. Give a classroom of twenty people twenty identical apples to paint and you will get twenty completely different paintings of apples.

Individual perspectives are extremely important to the nature of reality because without human observation, there would be no one to assert that it existed or had a nature at all. I agree that their are discrepancies between the way that individuals relate back reality both to themselves and others. However, that is an error in the communication of the mind and the senses.

There is an objective reality or we would not all be able to point to two apples and observe they look exactly the same. When we look at the apple we are seeing the same apple everyone else in the room is seeing, but it is impossible to copy all the complexities of the apple, even though we are seeing them at once, so we invent or simplify the apple in our painting.

I enjoy speculating that the physical world may very well not exist, that I could be creating a reality all in my own mind and that my memory is the only reality that will ever be. Or that since we can never know what reality is when not faultily relaid through human observation and memory, we can assume that only our differing versions of it exist, each equally true.

Despite this speculation, I am for all intents and purposes, a practical person, and so I will continue to operate as if the material world is real and objective.

How Should We Live?

I wish everyone would just live for themselves. Doesn't that sound selfish? Maybe but I keep getting caught up in Aristotle's Vices and Virtues theory. Selfless and selfish. The excess of a virtue is a vice. Sort of like to much of a good thing is bad. Everywhere I go I see people who live there lives for everyone but themselves. I guess this sort of goes back to the discussion we had in class but I feel like to some extent you have to make yourself happy before you can make someone else happy. To many times good, selfless people lose themselves because they stop doing what is right for themselves and they live only to maintain the happiness of others. Like a host for a parasite... but hey, I guess this is what I'm about to tell you all about tomorrow so I suppose I should stop there!

So Much

I went to Barnes and Noble the other day and took alook at the philosophy section. I first tried to find a book on Descartes only to find that their are a vast amount. Many differnt views on descartes readings and interpretations but not only on descartes but their is an incredible amount of different theories, views and ideas on philosophy. I would really like to read more into philosophy but I do not want to shorthand myself by reading an overview of many different philosophers ideas, I feel it does not do them justice. but at the same time, how could I possibly read so many different ideas and thoughts without complete confusion? It will take a lifetime or more.

a common thread...

you know, one thing that i'm finding, both in people's presentations and my own doodlings, is that we really cannot answer just one of the five questions without answering and questioning another. for example, what is god like? that leads into questioning reality, which in turn leads into what exactly it is that we can know. I found it entirely interesting that, when people were presenting, more often than not (so far anyways) the presenter would end up answering  or involving the idea of one of the other questions in their response. philosophy, i have discovered (occasionally with much frustration) is a very circular subject, meaning one without an end. you can banter all you like, but there's always going to be something you've missed, something you haven't answered. how can we expect to find any one truth if we'll never be done questioning it?! perhaps that is the truth, that there is none. anyways, just found that interesting. sort of went off there a bit. but i'm sure you get the gist. i can only hope.

The Standard of Empathy

One thing I sort of forgot to go in depth about in my presentation today was my idea of the importance of empathy. As human beings we share experiences because we have the same set of emotions and react to certain situations in the same way. Although there are a variety of ways different people might react to the same situation, we can all put ourselves in the shoes of another person and understand on some level why they might react the way they do. At the very least we understand when we see a specific emotion in another person. For example if we see someone who is sad we have an emotional reaction in empathy for their sadness.

This is the reason we feel guilt when we fail to help another person. We know or can at least imagine the situation they're in, and we, at least subconsciously want to help them, just as we would want to help ourselves in the same situation. It's also the reason we have strong emotional reactions to plays and books and other forms of story-telling.

In this way, harming others really harms ourselves. This is an idea I borrowed from Marcus Aurelius, but he would say that the reason harming others harms ourselves is because we are going against the force of cosmic order, not because we feel guilt at inflicting harm on other people that we can feel through empathy on ourselves.

Doubt

I find it hard to believe that NO ONE ever questioned reality before descartes. I would guess that doubting started when philosophy started. Why would it be necessary to write down what somthing is until it was questioned on what it might be? Why have I never questioned how computers work? I know my computer can turn on and off although it breaks at times, but why is it that I can somehow plug the machine into a wall and it has life? do I trust this because it happens over and over again? Hume would say you shouldn't trust everything based on repetition, this is what he called "induction fallacy". We also base our lives on trust - I trust the fact that the world is round, but do I know for sure? No I trust the books that say this and every other person on the planet. But I have never doubted these things before now, but I still trust them as being true. Does this mean that we doubt more often now because of descartes and other philosophers views? Or did we always have this capacity to doubt? I believe that its a chain reaction, once one person doubts then more people doubt... and who knows - if everyone doubts reality will the world end up in complete chaos?

Solid literature or show me the money

Schopenhauer said, “Buying books would be a good thing if one could also buy the time to read them in: but as a rule the purchase of books is mistaken for the appropriation of their contents”.

Schopenhauer believed books were focused on making money. He felt the content of books did not allow people a resource to learn from or develop individually on a personal level. It almost seems like people are developing content to become a recognized expert on a subject matter, or noted as “that fantastic author” for the glamour of it all. I understand that some people write because they enjoy it, that’s what they like to do. I also agree people that have the knowledge and ability to convey their expertise on to paper in book form is a special gift. But, what is the author’s real objective.

Is the author’s goal to make use of global distribution and run thousands of books all over the world, concerned about profit margins? Or is that author sincerely focused on objectively sharing their perspectives and expertise to us with the objective of educating us and helping individuals become more well rounded about that topic. Schopenhauer has a great concept, that if we purchase a book, then we should also invest in the time to read it. Our books shops are filled with a cross section of literary masterpieces along with commercialized books targeting the bottom line dollar. Even way back in the 1800’s, Schopenhauer understood that authors misused their power to develop shallow literature for monetary gain as their primary objectives. Let’s not waste limited time we have on superficial literature. Let’s also give our authors the benefit of the doubt and try to learn from their powerful piece. I sure hope my next purchase on the “red hot sale table” at Border’s Books delivers the goods for me!

My own recipe

Arthur Schopenhauer felt that our world is basically what we recognize in ourselves as our “will”. It is up to the individual to successfully take on the responsibilities that life presents to each of us. Schopenhauer’s beliefs on reading books points out how much one can fall into dreams and allow authors to influence our thoughts and almost take over us. By reading, we do invite the author to deliver their point of view of a subject, but one must be strong and really take the content for granted. An authors point of view can be very strong, so keep it in perspective and enjoy the literary ride.

If I want to learn how to make an incredible pot of chili, I’ll rely on a book about foods with detailed recipes. It’s fine if we read to enlighten our knowledge base and really learn about history, or gain insight about the many subjects our complex world provides. However, I refuse to come away from a book I just read with a new, magic answer about that topic. I won’t allow that author to take over my mind and completely influence my opinions. I enjoy reading with an open mind and get into that piece, and learn from that author’s knowledge base. In the end, I’m going to digest and learn from the details of that topic, but I’m still going to use my own ingredients and cook up my own bowl of chili.

Reading Ourselves Stupid

In class we briefly discussed the idea of reading "paralyzing the mind". Schopenhauer argues that when you read, your own mind basically takes a nap and lets the author do the thinking for you. I was skeptical of this argument at first, but I came to agree with him.

It happens all the time in classrooms. You hear a lecture by a teacher who projects their views onto you. And even though you may question a teacher's opinion, rarely will you question the facts that they tell you. You could look at a piece from your art history textbook, pick out all the important visual aspects, study the time period it came out of and formulate your own interpretations about the piece. But that would take a lot of effort and a lot of time. Instead, it is much easier to let your teacher and art historians do the thinking for you, so you listen to lectures and read about the piece instead of trying to interpret it yourself.

I think this is what Schopenhauer is getting at with his argument. He says that if someone spends all of their time reading, not thinking or making, that they will "read themselves stupid", meaning they will no longer be able to form their own thoughts or opinions. I can tell that this is true, at least with myself, over time. The more I read about art history for example, the harder I find it to interpret pieces I see in museums. I often catch myself (and others) glancing at the piece and then going straight to reading the plaque on the wall, which gives us someone else's interpretation or the artist's statement. It's become easier to read about the piece than to rely on visual clues and our own thoughts about it.

I think Schopenhauer's argument is applicable to fiction reading too. The more we read, the more difficult it is for us to think up our own stories. If you've ever asked a little kid to tell you a story, you know that it comes very natural to them. They can go on forever, inventing new plot twists as they go along. But when little kids ask us to tell them a story, we find it more difficult. Adults' stories are more structured and have a plot very similar to that of a Disney movie. Why does that trend occur? I think it is because over time, as we read more stories and see more movies, our own imagination suffers because we become accustomed to letting others do the thinking for us. Whether fiction or non-fiction, I think Schopenhauer is definitely onto something when he says that people can "read themselves stupid."

"posers"

what is a poser anyway? most would say it's "pretending to be someone you're not". that's bollocks, i say. one of my ideas about things is that you can never really know someone. humans are very fluid individuals. based on this idea, in reference to "posers", how do we then that that's not how they really are? i have heard an idea expressed a number of times in a few different ways, and it is this: you emulate that which interests and inspires you. seeing as we're born basically a blank piece of paper, i would say this statement is definitely something i agree with. we all do it, whether it be with our choice of clothing, a way of speaking, or even a certain style of art. "but they're copying me!" i believe copying and emulating to be two completely different things, and i have yet to find someone who copies another out of spite. though, i have heard that "imitation is the highest form of flattery". so what're yew complaining about anyways?!

On Writing and Books

Although I find Schopenhauer's writing to be mostly the complaints of a cynical old man who despises anything new, I was surprised to find that his opinions on the literature of his time period are relevant to this time period, and I even agreed with a few of them.

Schopenhauer's main argument seems to be that literature only has worth if it is a ground-breakingly insightful piece of writing that teaches us all how to be better people or a better society and is written in the most flawless beautiful prose possible. I wholeheartedly disagree. There is nothing wrong with a story intended only to entertain, or to inspire the imagination of the readers. Many such stories contain important perspectives or philosophies as well. I would agree with him that books written by people only looking to make a profit (ie, James Patterson) are not worthy of much praise or attention, but reading them on occasion will not cause society to plummet into the depths of literary despair. It may not even cause anyone to loose brain cells.

Even reading writing that's simply awful can be useful. It helps aspiring writers to learn how not to write. Which brings me to another thing I disagree with Schopenhauer on. Writing is not a talent bestowed in people from birth. Anyone can learn writing techniques by reading work that skillfully incorporates them; they just have to figure out what to look for.

From the point of view of an aspiring writer, one thing I found particularly interesting was Schopenhauer's idea that too much reading is bad. On the surface I disagree completely. You don't just blindly accept the ideas presented in whatever you're reading, you're constantly forming your own ideas that either conflict or compare with the writer's. On the other hand, I sometimes find that I can't read nearly as much as I use to when I was little because as soon as I start reading, I'm inspired to write, either because the book is so good or because it's mediocre and I can think of a way to do it better. I need a balance between reading the work of others and creating my own.

what makes good art?

i believe good art comes from a certain sort of excitement all your own. art should be made for yourself and because you wanted to. good art does not come from instruction. it is the result of individual expression through processed-information-made-personal. good art is not "because i told you so". good art is not "here's a butt-load of money". good art is, however, sharing your mind with someone else.

and then there are technicalities...

elsewhere.

i find i have the best ideas when i really shouldn't be deviating from the subject at hand. a good example being i tend to draw my best doodles in other people's sketchbooks. also, thinking of good blog ideas in the middle of class. or even pondering possible comic plots and drawing designs whilst listening to a story being told by a friend. could it be the natural rebellion in human nature? could it be a subconscious fear of being presently involved? could it be that i'm simply fascinated with distractions? i wonder if others have this odd tendency. do share your theories if, and only if, you can relate.

minds and reading

Schopenhauer says that when the reader reads they are reading the thoughts of the person who wrote the book, and if we read too much we will forget how to think for ourselves, and that we should reserve reading for only good books. I think he is on the right track i have never picked up a book that i wasn't interested in because like Schopenhauer was discussing life is too short to waste time on a bad book, but what qualifies a "bad book" besides opinion, experience, and others opinion's on the book in question. for me most of the time if someone has told me not to waste my time on the book unless i really wanted to read that book I' m not going to read it. I do think the idea of reading the other persons thoughts in there books is interesting because it is a reflection on what the person was doing at the time and that can brought to another level of interpretation when the visual arts is brought in because the artist can create an image or images to match up with the thought process and actions of the author. Besides it is always good to have the visual with the literal, if it is a good interpretation of what Schopenhauer says is a good book.