Thread: Abstract

Originally Posted by Adam24

Recently i started "The value of Art" on my philosophy course at college and ive come to a conclusion that art doesn't exist, its made me look at things in a whole new light, i now see the world in a completely different way. I've always been able to controll my emotions which i think helped me work this out. Basically alot of things that people hold alot of value in/to etc dont actually exist; such as a relationship.



Now i think the best way for me to explain this is to try, proabbly fail, then answer any question people have to ask on the matter. Im also proabbly going to make alot of claims and not back them up so question away ill happily explain.

Also ignore typos please

I havnt planned t his its just a rant so sorry if it is hard to read.

If you dont like a person what is easier, to change who they are as a person? or to change how you see that 'person'. Think of them not as a peron but as an object, the personality is what you interpirit, they may belive they are a nice person you may not. They are neither, as a self that person does not exist. They exist abstractly within your interpritation and opinion.

The same can be said of art. Art is an interpritation within your mind. 'Art' in a form of its own does not exist in the real world. It is an abstract concept.

This can be said of so much. The world as we see it does not exist, this is no new claim but so much that we hold as real does not exist any where but abstactly. I think perhaps abstract is the wrong word, when i use it i mean it does not exist in the real world, it exists outside of physcality ( is that real word?).

Okay im gona stop now. Please question this as it will help me explain it further.

Are you talking about things like concepts, ideas?

In a way, but more its existence. I havnt done much on plato but i belive i may be talking about something simmilar to his forms if you know any thing about that.

Originally Posted by Adam24

In a way, but more its existence. I havnt done much on plato but i belive i may be talking about something simmilar to his forms if you know any thing about that.

Like the perfect forms of objects, completely objective?

Well i belive he said everything exists in a form on a higer world, another world that can only be reached through reason. In this world everything has it's own form, such as a square, and then all squares in the real world will hold properties of the form of a square.

I mention this beacuse art it's self does not exist in the real world, it is just in the mind, perhaps as an idea or concept but more universall.

Originally Posted by Adam24

Well i belive he said everything exists in a form on a higer world, another world that can only be reached through reason. In this world everything has it's own form, such as a square, and then all squares in the real world will hold properties of the form of a square.

I mention this beacuse art it's self does not exist in the real world, it is just in the mind, perhaps as an idea or concept but more universall.

So how then does art relate to Plato's perfect forms.

Are you saying that art has a perfect form?


Also when you say "art does not exist in the real world" what do you mean exactly?

How can something exist not in the real world. How are we defining exist and real?

I relate art to the forms beacuse it exists in a simmilar realm. You can never sense art, only someones interpritation of art. Art it's self can never be experienced.

Not so much a 'perfect' form but a form that all art holds aspects of yes.

I think i kinda answered your other questions in the top bit. When i say exist though i mean empirically senseable. Back to relationships, they do not truly exist as we can never sense it. All we can sense is our own interpritation of its 'form'; be it through holding hands, a poem, making love etc.

Originally Posted by Adam24

Recently i started "The value of Art" on my philosophy course at college and ive come to a conclusion that art doesn't exist, its made me look at things in a whole new light, i now see the world in a completely different way. I've always been able to controll my emotions which i think helped me work this out. Basically alot of things that people hold alot of value in/to etc dont actually exist; such as a relationship.



Now i think the best way for me to explain this is to try, proabbly fail, then answer any question people have to ask on the matter. Im also proabbly going to make alot of claims and not back them up so question away ill happily explain.

Also ignore typos please

I havnt planned t his its just a rant so sorry if it is hard to read.

If you dont like a person what is easier, to change who they are as a person? or to change how you see that 'person'. Think of them not as a peron but as an object, the personality is what you interpirit, they may belive they are a nice person you may not. They are neither, as a self that person does not exist. They exist abstractly within your interpritation and opinion.

The same can be said of art. Art is an interpritation within your mind. 'Art' in a form of its own does not exist in the real world. It is an abstract concept.

This can be said of so much. The world as we see it does not exist, this is no new claim but so much that we hold as real does not exist any where but abstactly. I think perhaps abstract is the wrong word, when i use it i mean it does not exist in the real world, it exists outside of physcality ( is that real word?).

Okay im gona stop now. Please question this as it will help me explain it further.

and its the truth, but sadly many people here run their mouths off like they've never thought about it.

"it" changes everything.

Sometimes you just need to ramble to hear the truth slip out.

i did say i hadn't planed it

I did think about it, but thats all i did so thats proabbly where the problem is.

The language i used dsnt change the point im trying to get across, im not to good at saying what i mean thats why i said to ignore typos etc.

So, nothing is intrinsically art. There is canvas and paint, marble, metal, clay, etc.. The object as art is the subjective experience of said object.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

So, nothing is intrinsically art. There is canvas and paint, marble, metal, clay, etc.. The object as art is the subjective experience of said object.

If that's a question on my opinion then yes, art is subjective to experience, but not the experience its self.

If its your view same goes really, the experience its self is not art, you are simply expirencing an interpritation of the 'form' art.

Or perhaps you are referring to a form that really is not art, and is merely pleasant, and art is that pleasantry expressed in the form of taking various things and putting them however. Sounds, images, piece of stone and wood, etc.

It makes sense to say that the by-product of the experience on the human is the subjective emotion attributed to the concept...art.

I don't think there is any way you can say that art is not subjective however I do believe that there are elements of form that make some art universally beautiful.
What I mean by that is pieces of work that are in genial thought to be masterpieces. No… of coarse nothing is all-inclusive, but for those that I speak of the human mind has constructs that strive for symmetry balance and harmony in a composition.
That is in essence what our mind does when it sees not the truth but what it WANTS to see. It's own version of it's sought after composition.
Don't you think?

so, are we only talking about abstract art here? Because realistic art is meant to mimic the real world. I dont know that many people who would look at a carving of a bird and call it a moose....Though I still get what you're saying, Im just trying to clarify. Abstract art I have a great distaste for...

Originally Posted by tkdyo

so, are we only talking about abstract art here? Because realistic art is meant to mimic the real world. I dont know that many people who would look at a carving of a bird and call it a moose....Though I still get what you're saying, Im just trying to clarify. Abstract art I have a great distaste for...

I was talking about all art, i said abstract beacuse i didnt really know what to cal it

Some of the other replies below may help you clarify

Originally Posted by Howie

I don't think there is any way you can say that art is not subjective however I do believe that there are elements of form that make some art universally beautiful.
What I mean by that is pieces of work that are in genial thought to be masterpieces. No… of coarse nothing is all-inclusive, but for those that I speak of the human mind has constructs that strive for symmetry balance and harmony in a composition.
That is in essence what our mind does when it sees not the truth but what it WANTS to see. It's own version of it's sought after composition.
Don't you think?

Well there are people who would aruge a simmilar argument to you, but say that art is not subjective at all - completely universal. Im not 100% sure but i think maybe kant said that? I'll find out.

Personally i think universall is to stronger word, i agree where you say its non 'all-inclusive'. Sure... the 'standard/sane' brain will look for simmilar things, but previous expereiences and the current subjective experience i believe is can differ alot from person to person. You said that the mind sees what it wants to see, i think this is true to a degree in what i said.

Originally Posted by Daniel Danciu

Or perhaps you are referring to a form that really is not art, and is merely pleasant, and art is that pleasantry expressed in the form of taking various things and putting them however. Sounds, images, piece of stone and wood, etc.

It makes sense to say that the by-product of the experience on the human is the subjective emotion attributed to the concept...art.

Well i dont think their is some higer place with all the forms as plato did, i just belive that alot of things humans hold true are purely subjective emotional experience, even if two people standing next to each other experience one brick they do not experience it together. I call it art so we all know what we are talking about, and there is no use in changing the word...or perhaps there is to avoid confusion.

So, i dont think art is the by product of this experience, i belive that what you are calling art is the experience, there is no art, merely an experience, but as the brain catorgorizes information you can distinguish this experience from another.




Keep the questions coming, im getting better

Well there are people who would aruge a simmilar argument to you, but say that art is not subjective at all - completely universal. Im not 100% sure but i think maybe kant said that? I'll find out.

I do not see how this is possible.
If I consider a non-dualistic universal awareness, then possibly. A cycle where there is neither good nor bad, then I can understand the underlying principle of your statement. I still tend to disagree. That in itself is quite a topic to get your head around.

I still believe there is a reference, a gauge.

Originally Posted by tkdyo

so, are we only talking about abstract art here? Because realistic art is meant to mimic the real world. I dont know that many people who would look at a carving of a bird and call it a moose....Though I still get what you're saying, Im just trying to clarify. Abstract art I have a great distaste for...

Why do you have a great distatse for Abstract art? I understand that a lot of what's out there one would say a second grader could do, but...

mm, for the reason you stated...a lot of it seems to be just random paint jobs thrown together. Now, when you get in to things such as surrealism (which I love), or even abstract art where the artist DID still make it some kind of form I still appreciate. But beyond that...I find it hard to recognize the talent.

I believe art is in the expression, not form.

Originally Posted by ClouD

I believe art is in the expression, not form.

But without interpritation there is no expresion?

Originally Posted by Adam24

But without interpritation there is no expresion?

You must interpret the idea you intend to express. Otherwise you're simply doing but not expressing.

Originally Posted by Adam24

But without interpretation there is no expression?

Perhaps it's contradicting to have said I believe art is the expression, but what I mean is the [non]experiencing of expression. Creativity is the opposite of discipline and prose - the more form in/of mind, the less creativity. I don't mean creativity within parameters, I mean surrender to experience of expression, whatever form comes out of it is okay, but form is not what I believe to be the true art.

Life is expression.

I don't know if you'll understand, it is more than difficult to explain - it took my laziness over 40 minutes to type this post many many times and it still doesn't make enough sense to me, and maybe that's exactly what I'm talking about. It's 4am

but..there is a great difference in someone who is really expressing themselves and someone who is splotching paint and passing it off just to look deep. Which is what i feel a lot of it is

Originally Posted by De-lousedInTheComatorium

You must interpret the idea you intend to express. Otherwise you're simply doing but not expressing.

I hate language, but, yea.

Originally Posted by ClouD

Perhaps it's contradicting to have said I believe art is the expression, but what I mean is the [non]experiencing of expression. Creativity is the opposite of discipline and prose - the more form in/of mind, the less creativity. I don't mean creativity within parameters, I mean surrender to experience of expression, whatever form comes out of it is okay, but form is not what I believe to be the true art.


Life is expression.

Without interpritation there is no expresion. If i read what you said correctly you are contridicting your self beacuse you say life is not exprienced?

Non experience of expresion? Its impossible for this to exist. Expresion is created through an interpritation of an experience.

I read that right bud? =]

Originally Posted by Adam24

I hate language, but, yea.



Without interpretation there is no expression. If i read what you said correctly you are contradicting your self because you say life is not experience?

Non experience of expression? Its impossible for this to exist. Expression is created through an interpretation of an experience.

I read that right bud? =]

Life is expression - interaction with others, communication.

What I meant by non-experience is having no idea of form and prose, then there is the greatest creativity - even if the result has form. I am saying the experience, or non-experience of expression/communication is the art itself.

You can replace the word experience with interpretation, but that incites ideas (if that's not exactly what interpretation is) which is not experience - thinking about life is not living it, and without thoughts there are no words, no form, there is life/expression as it is, there is creativity. This is what I mean.