[this email was supposed to go to the mailing list, but it only went into
the private email, so I re-send it]
Dear Lauri & Pedro,
The claim that arts are there to obtain new meanings should be supported.
Say, we keep up to three 'realms': the everyday social practice, the
scientific practice, and the irrational (or far less restricted) practices
of art, mysticism, religion etc.
In order to avoid inconsistencies within social systems, the variety of
meanings must be minimized. Consider globalization: standard exchange
rules,
unified language, unified culture etc. Also, science, as the method of
production of verifiable inter-personal knowledge, tends to 'cluster'
within
certain domains of meaning.
It is thus left to art to produce 'pictures of the world' that are
inadmissable neither in everyday life nor in scientific practice.
I would, however, object that this is the only 'function' of art:
First, please note, apart from that, that artists frequently consider
themselves 'explorers' - but what do they explore? Perhaps they are not
only
hinting everyday practices and science on 'where to go in the search of new
meanings', they also look into areas where the science better should not
go.
If the science enters these chambers, the magic is dispelled: many poets
spent nights writing sonets to their lovers, but is it as poetic if they
knew they were attracted by a composition of pheromones? So, we could
suggest that arts deal with subjects too delicate to have 'hard' knowledge
about, to be experienced rather than expressed.
Second, allow me to remind you that it was only in 'ratio-biased' 18th
century that art has become clearly identified as an alternative method of
meaning-production. Before that, it went hand in hand with either religion
(the sacred art ) or with everyday life (known at the time as 'crafts'). It
was not supposed to 'explore', it was supposed to support, to invoke
spiritual attitude or good moods. Only when art was fully liberated from
crafts and religion, we observe the 'explosion' of 'meaning-production'
(spans across a range of arts from early 20th century). Many people claim
that the art has lost its scope. It has also lost its moral imperatives,
because these imperatives are NOT provided by arts.
Therefore, I would also diagree that art is a technology of ethics. Ethical
systems are not derived from art, they forerun artistic expressions of
ethics. They are shaped by deep beliefs and values, that resolve personal
existential questions (the problem of death and the meaning of life). This
can only be done by some form of religion - or something that substitutes
religion for a non-religious man.
Best wishes,
Pavel O. Luksha
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Lauri Grohn" <lauri.grohn@kolumbus.fi>
> To: <fis@listas.unizar.es>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 8:25 PM
> Subject: Re: [Fis] art and meaning
>
>
>> At 14:58 15.2.2006, Pedro Marijuan wrote:
>>
>> "Why do human individuals need arts at all? "To obtain
meaning" (to
>> access varieties of meaning scarcely present in ordinary life) would
be
>> the most economic response. By fabricating artificial soundscapes or
>> visual landscapes we enact intellectual episodes of remarkable
>> gratification --for producers and consumers of art-- implying thus a
new
>> source of "value" and "fitness" within social
groups."
>>
>> My explanation: Arts are technologies of ethics.
>>
>> This picture perharps explains a little bit more, I hope:
>>
>> http://www.kolumbus.fi/lauri.grohn/yk/text/typology.html
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Lauri Gr�hn
>> metacomposer
>> www.synestesia.fi
>>
>
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Received on Thu Feb 16 14:30:43 2006
