[MD] Fwd: Images and Physical Reality

[MarshaV]

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 <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?
> 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


 
___