[MD] Fwd: Images and Physical Reality

[John Carl]

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 <sharpcurvz at yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 1:43 AM
Subject: Images and Physical Reality
To: John Carl <ridgecoyote at gmail.com>



 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?