From 79aed687dab49344136ca201c3a1a7b888f2de06 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Lucian Mogosanu Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2013 15:38:54 +0300 Subject: [PATCH] posts: 004 --- posts/004-on-art.markdown | 75 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 75 insertions(+) create mode 100644 posts/004-on-art.markdown diff --git a/posts/004-on-art.markdown b/posts/004-on-art.markdown new file mode 100644 index 0000000..cc9e171 --- /dev/null +++ b/posts/004-on-art.markdown @@ -0,0 +1,75 @@ +--- +postid: +title: On art +author: Lucian Mogoșanu +date: August 1, 2013 +tags: cogitatio +--- + +The first thing I need to point out, and indeed I do, like a fish needs water, +is that art is purely a personal thing. There is no single definition of art, +more like billions of them, and people believing otherwise are nothing but +close-minded fascists. It's not only that artistic values vary from one culture +another, but between two given individuals, even if they suckled from the same +breast. + +That being said, what follows is my view of art; mine and mine only, and I find +no pleasure whatsoever in knowing that others may or may not share it. + +The word "art" comes from the latin "ars", which means "skill", or "craft", and +is closely related to "arma", which refers to joining, fitting together etc. So +the roots of art lie in making tools, or using tools to make other (useful) +objects and such similar activities. Contrary to popular belief, for a long +while, art involved not only aesthetics, but also practical aspects: a good +carriage was "a fine piece of art" not only because it looked good, but also +because it served its purpose well and because it was the result of weeks, +maybe months of hard work. + +In time, the meaning of the term shifted to what is nowadays known as "fine +art", that is, works that are highly polished and refined by the hands and +minds of the greatest masters of a particular field. Art is therefore not +simply craft, but also the best there is. + +A second shift led to the view that art is not only the best, but it is also +that which transmits emotions. This definition is hardly quantifiable, since +subjective experience can, as I previously mentioned, vary greatly from one +person to another, and thus art becomes purely a matter of taste and +preference. So what is, in my opinion, art? It is two things. + +Firstly, it's a product of mind, hands and whatever else it is that created it. +Art itself doesn't involve the process of creation and it has nothing to do +with the person that created it. Trying to find the meaning of a piece of art +in its creator is nothing more than egomania and mindless adulation. Surely, +creators deserve praise and criticism for their art, but in the end it's the +livened piece, not its author, who speaks. Furthermore, once it's created, the +piece becomes completely separated from the creator, becoming subject to its +consumers' scrutiny. + +This also implies that aspects related to the process of creation, for example +the tools used, are completely irrelevant from the point of view of art, since +consumers can in few cases judge the tools themselves. Besides, including +creation into art would exclude non-humans from the artistic process, which is +obviously wrong, since nature is one of the greatest artists in history. + +Secondly, art is that which leads to the "improvement" of mankind, whatever +this so-called "improvement" might be. Electronic circuits, and computers in +particular, are clearly art. The Internet is an incredible piece of art, not +only due to the fact that it's bigger than what any single human could have +ever achieved. These are simply "the best" and they convey the emotion of awe, +which makes them fall into the standard definition of art. Engineering is an +art and any attempt of the humanities to prove otherwise are not only +misguided, but also malicious in nature. + +These two definitions are interesting due to the fact that they include +computers as creators of art. It's absurd to try and find "personality" in a +computer-generated work of art; it is also absurd to say that that which is +generated by a computer is not art, even though it can compete in refinement, +maybe even surpass the equivalent created by a human. + +However, my view does not and cannot integrate *some* concepts into the +definition. For example, it doesn't allow for intellectual property. Since art +only depends on the final product, then near-perfect copies have the potential +to be as valuable as the original. Since art can be created by machines, art +can be copied by machines. This, by the way, is something which upsets +copyright holders, a thought which is a good starting point for another, which +I may discuss at another time. -- 1.7.10.4