[MD] Fwd: Images and Physical Reality

[MarshaV]

Thank you for answering John. 

Your Em is a very talented young woman.  A quibble I might 
have with her paper would be the the use of the word "guilty". 

  
Marsha  





On Jun 5, 2010, at 1:01 PM, John Carl wrote:

> 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
>> 
> 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


 
___