txomsy
Apprentice of amateur
- Messages
- 295
I hope this clarifies my thinking, because this is my last post in this thread (I am already bored).
And I do apologize for the length.
I am not claiming that cave art didn't have a meaning or function, because I do not know.
What I say is that to produce art of quality one needs to train, and that all our experience tells us that we prefer what we deem more valuable or pleasurable. So artists had to find first pleasure in doing art, others had to first find pleasure in works of art, and then they would use it. Same for utility: someone had to first find utility in something, etc.
That divinities were presented art, or that ancestors were buried with artistic objects (even if primitive art) means they thought those objects would please them. For divinities it is a guess. For your parents, it is direct knowledge that they liked them. Maybe they were commissioned, but still, someone had to make them, master the technique playing with it, and pleasure is a twisted thing.
Because when someone loves what benefits them, they are more prone to do it, and get a selective advantage. And also, when one has to repeat something many times, it ends up being pleasurable, and what is beneficial is repeated more often, hence has more chances to become pleasurable. Twisted.
Any art course, beyond basic techniques, teaches us about harmony (of color, sounds...), composition, rule of thirds, the golden ratio, symmetry, etc. also that rules are to be broken; but what is "beautiful" tends (not always) to match these rules. Same for math and the sciences. Of course not everybody loves music, or painting, or science, or math, or literature. But we see certain ratios very often everywhere, and those general rules that are beneficial, pleasurable, are what we define as harmonic or beautiful. Just take any aesthetic rule/law/theory: all of them stem from and have practical applications or common/frequent experience.
Then, what matches those rules is "beautiful", i. e. pleasurable, we will tend to also do it. Or if you prefer, beauty and art are an abstract expression of general, universal trends (or truths or rules) that when applied to a work make them "beautiful" (i.e. match what our experience tells us is "good" for us, pleases us).
Thus, if what is beneficial and/or frequent becomes pleasurable, it also becomes the source of the core concepts that build the perception of "beauty".
Hence, all the discussion comes to one dichotomy, as I said: if we are the result of natural selection, the ones who like what is beneficial get selected, what is beneficial can be directly beneficial, or generally beneficial (concrete works vs. general laws, crafts vs. art) and we have evolved to also love things that have similar characteristics, then:
Does it turn out that all Art, like mathematics is ultimately utilitarian because it ultimately stems from benefits and reflects abstract "laws" that are beneficial for us? in which case the question is meaningless, or
Is there a separation between the generic and the concrete, between maths and applied engineering, between art and craft? because if there is, then same as you have people who delights in general maths and physics laws, you must have people that delights in general aesthetic laws, "beauty" and its expression, i.e. art.
Or, if you prefer, try to name any work of art that was not utilitarian, and I'll show you a direct or an indirect survival advantage in producing it. Try to name any work or art that was not pleasurable, and I'll show you a how it actually was. So, what is it?
But, anyway:
When we see skillful work, we need to assume that when it was done, the artists already had developed their sills, and that the artists didn't do only those preserved works in all their life. So the most natural is to assume they would try many times in other substrates, until they got it right before committing. And if they had decided to become artists it is difficult to also assume they didn't like doing art nor did enjoy doing it. Commissioned cave art being utilitarian? granted. All the other work being "paid for" and utilitarian and not any one done for pleasure? difficult. Being an artist who loves art and does not once try to do it for his own pleasure, of for "art's sake"? For me, very unlikely.
And Cave Art was only a device to show that it can have started long, long ago. We can take the Middle Ages, or Classical Art, or Middle East, or Precolumbine, or Chinese... Any age or culture (btw, you seem to concentrate in Occidental art, is not there any worthy ancient Asian art?). And not just painting either.
We all know how much "benefit" being an artist does give one and how rich, famous and wealthy it makes each of us. So much that everybody competes to become an artist to become rich and famous.
Yes, artists would send their best work to the Chinese emperor every year on his birthday to please him and be rewarded. Long before galleries became common in Occident. But, the rest of the year? And those who did not win? And all the others not selected by the local authorities to be submitted? For each selected artist there are thousands who do not succeed and cannot live off their art, and yet continue doing it. Yeah, maybe some do it out of hope they will one day become an icon, but are we all so single minded? Were they 60.000, 10.000, 1.000 years ago when they had immensely more leisure time?
And don't tell me they didn't. I lived in a world without most of current facilities (not even cars, electricity or running water) and the pace was hugely slower, and there was spare time to bore anyone, so much one had to fill it with non-utilitarian activities (reading, writing, playing music, singing, talking, dancing, sporting, walking, waiting, and still you bore down to death). And that was not even one century ago. You can't judge the ages by current experience.
Didn't old workers sing their work out? Is not music an Art?
That is my position: we cannot (me neither) claim doubtlessly it started early or lately for there is no way to know directly.
But from our experience of the world, our own, of animals, nature,... we have lots of evidence that there must have been lots of opportunity, lots of time, lots of motivation, and so, the weight leans -for me- on the side of an early start.
And we cannot say when art is utilitarian or for art's sake: when a worker sings while working, you may claim they do because the pleasure of it compensates the hardships of their labor, or you can claim that they sing because that compensates the hardships of the labor and helps them work harder. The first does it for art's sake, to enjoy art. The second is utilitarian. The answer probably is both.
But if it is both, then art for art's sake coexisted/was the same as utilitarian, and therefore must have existed, like, forever.
Now, go ask a master and an slave why did the slaves sing. You think they wanted to work harder, or to have some pleasure while painstakingly working? Or both? Me, I do not have any way to know why they did what they did. But I do have my suspicions.
If you think of it, ultimately it all depends on how you (each of us) want to conceive art and others' motivations.
And I do apologize for the length.
I am not claiming that cave art didn't have a meaning or function, because I do not know.
What I say is that to produce art of quality one needs to train, and that all our experience tells us that we prefer what we deem more valuable or pleasurable. So artists had to find first pleasure in doing art, others had to first find pleasure in works of art, and then they would use it. Same for utility: someone had to first find utility in something, etc.
That divinities were presented art, or that ancestors were buried with artistic objects (even if primitive art) means they thought those objects would please them. For divinities it is a guess. For your parents, it is direct knowledge that they liked them. Maybe they were commissioned, but still, someone had to make them, master the technique playing with it, and pleasure is a twisted thing.
Because when someone loves what benefits them, they are more prone to do it, and get a selective advantage. And also, when one has to repeat something many times, it ends up being pleasurable, and what is beneficial is repeated more often, hence has more chances to become pleasurable. Twisted.
Any art course, beyond basic techniques, teaches us about harmony (of color, sounds...), composition, rule of thirds, the golden ratio, symmetry, etc. also that rules are to be broken; but what is "beautiful" tends (not always) to match these rules. Same for math and the sciences. Of course not everybody loves music, or painting, or science, or math, or literature. But we see certain ratios very often everywhere, and those general rules that are beneficial, pleasurable, are what we define as harmonic or beautiful. Just take any aesthetic rule/law/theory: all of them stem from and have practical applications or common/frequent experience.
Then, what matches those rules is "beautiful", i. e. pleasurable, we will tend to also do it. Or if you prefer, beauty and art are an abstract expression of general, universal trends (or truths or rules) that when applied to a work make them "beautiful" (i.e. match what our experience tells us is "good" for us, pleases us).
Thus, if what is beneficial and/or frequent becomes pleasurable, it also becomes the source of the core concepts that build the perception of "beauty".
Hence, all the discussion comes to one dichotomy, as I said: if we are the result of natural selection, the ones who like what is beneficial get selected, what is beneficial can be directly beneficial, or generally beneficial (concrete works vs. general laws, crafts vs. art) and we have evolved to also love things that have similar characteristics, then:
Does it turn out that all Art, like mathematics is ultimately utilitarian because it ultimately stems from benefits and reflects abstract "laws" that are beneficial for us? in which case the question is meaningless, or
Is there a separation between the generic and the concrete, between maths and applied engineering, between art and craft? because if there is, then same as you have people who delights in general maths and physics laws, you must have people that delights in general aesthetic laws, "beauty" and its expression, i.e. art.
Or, if you prefer, try to name any work of art that was not utilitarian, and I'll show you a direct or an indirect survival advantage in producing it. Try to name any work or art that was not pleasurable, and I'll show you a how it actually was. So, what is it?
But, anyway:
When we see skillful work, we need to assume that when it was done, the artists already had developed their sills, and that the artists didn't do only those preserved works in all their life. So the most natural is to assume they would try many times in other substrates, until they got it right before committing. And if they had decided to become artists it is difficult to also assume they didn't like doing art nor did enjoy doing it. Commissioned cave art being utilitarian? granted. All the other work being "paid for" and utilitarian and not any one done for pleasure? difficult. Being an artist who loves art and does not once try to do it for his own pleasure, of for "art's sake"? For me, very unlikely.
And Cave Art was only a device to show that it can have started long, long ago. We can take the Middle Ages, or Classical Art, or Middle East, or Precolumbine, or Chinese... Any age or culture (btw, you seem to concentrate in Occidental art, is not there any worthy ancient Asian art?). And not just painting either.
We all know how much "benefit" being an artist does give one and how rich, famous and wealthy it makes each of us. So much that everybody competes to become an artist to become rich and famous.
Yes, artists would send their best work to the Chinese emperor every year on his birthday to please him and be rewarded. Long before galleries became common in Occident. But, the rest of the year? And those who did not win? And all the others not selected by the local authorities to be submitted? For each selected artist there are thousands who do not succeed and cannot live off their art, and yet continue doing it. Yeah, maybe some do it out of hope they will one day become an icon, but are we all so single minded? Were they 60.000, 10.000, 1.000 years ago when they had immensely more leisure time?
And don't tell me they didn't. I lived in a world without most of current facilities (not even cars, electricity or running water) and the pace was hugely slower, and there was spare time to bore anyone, so much one had to fill it with non-utilitarian activities (reading, writing, playing music, singing, talking, dancing, sporting, walking, waiting, and still you bore down to death). And that was not even one century ago. You can't judge the ages by current experience.
Didn't old workers sing their work out? Is not music an Art?
That is my position: we cannot (me neither) claim doubtlessly it started early or lately for there is no way to know directly.
But from our experience of the world, our own, of animals, nature,... we have lots of evidence that there must have been lots of opportunity, lots of time, lots of motivation, and so, the weight leans -for me- on the side of an early start.
And we cannot say when art is utilitarian or for art's sake: when a worker sings while working, you may claim they do because the pleasure of it compensates the hardships of their labor, or you can claim that they sing because that compensates the hardships of the labor and helps them work harder. The first does it for art's sake, to enjoy art. The second is utilitarian. The answer probably is both.
But if it is both, then art for art's sake coexisted/was the same as utilitarian, and therefore must have existed, like, forever.
Now, go ask a master and an slave why did the slaves sing. You think they wanted to work harder, or to have some pleasure while painstakingly working? Or both? Me, I do not have any way to know why they did what they did. But I do have my suspicions.
If you think of it, ultimately it all depends on how you (each of us) want to conceive art and others' motivations.
