[MD] Fwd: Images and Physical Reality

[John Carl]

HI Marsha,

The Title was "Images and Physical Reality"

I'm so glad you liked it and I'm so hoping she'll finish ZAMM this summer
and join MD. We argue a lot, Em and me, but in a good way.  My dad has a
video from when she was about five, eating thanksgiving dinner and she was
arguing that there wasn't any good reason why I should be the one in charge.

J


On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 1:48 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:

>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> ___
>
>
> 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
>