Response to Aditi's "Purpose"

Interestingly i would like to raise a question

Were you aware that you drew that toaster?

From a Freudian point of view, one would say it is reflection of your past expiernces.

You were aware of this, and your subconscious was working its magic. The fixation of an object was in your mind, reflection some feeling, purposely.

when looking from a contemporary point of view, a more cognitive view, one would say that your toaster mexican, was nothing more than an accident, a relaxation doodle at best, no intention intended.

But who really knows ?

Even the best minds in the field are fighting like dogs in a pit for their theories.

I believe your purpose, was to draw, and you intended that.

how can unintended creation have a purpose?

how can we unintentionally create objects purpsefully!?

Response to Tyler's "Phantasies"

I agree with you on this matter. When I play the piano, i let it reflect my mood even though i play not my own stuff.

When I strike the keys, its not what I did as a child comes at me, its what i did that day, problems, worries, successes etc. I do not deeply dwell on my cognition when i was a child, i dwell on my day, feelings! I do not have flashbacks, montages, or any other kind of sudden source of memories, and feelings that i could care less about.

Although... Freud was not a cognition specialist. His theories were based on instinct, back brain, and past experiences.

Maybe Im looking in the wrong place bring cognition and feelings, but i do not feel as they are separate, having a feeling, and now dwelling on it, can be compared to tasting and elaborating on the sweetness of a food.

Can we mix those to things?

Would Freud think(haha cognition)/agree that cognition and feelings are compatible?

Response to Tyler's: "Arts Malleability"

If we follow Tolstoy's theory as a group of NAZI's, it is not art if the person is not gettin the right feeling from the piece. The communication has to be exact, correct, and precise. When I first read this theory, i thought i was reading about telepathy, but its just Tolstoy's theory nothing new.

If we apply his theory with respectable vagueness (look at what we re talking about ! ART it doesnt get more vague than that) the puppy, and the Aussie picture is still art. Because they evoke feelings, about the portraits.

Communication doesnt always happen correctly, it's not as simple as miscommunication, there are shades of gray, how much did you retain of it etc.

1.How is communication fail in art?

2.How did Tolstoy come up with communication theory?

3. Are we looking at the wrong level of communication, is it something broader Tolstoy intended?

I hope you got hit by a car aka Tolstoy

So tolstoy believes in art as communication. Noble belief interesting theory. but how can we communicate with something that can be interpreted in various ways? lets say i made a painting of glass of milk and people because i was thirsty, and people look at it, and say: oh i understand his emotions and feelings in this painting, its about his early childhood when he was a baby. HELL TO THE NO. effective communication in art is as reasonable as cutting your hair to make a wig out of it. the chances of actually communicating an exact expiernce and feeling through an art piece are as good as winning the lottery.

1. what are your chances of winning the lottery?

2. was tolstoy drunk when he wrote this theory?

Response to Andrew Roiter's Response to Nicole's "Canibalism"

I believe cultures have their own standards and their ethics.
It is all formed to help them survive in their enviorment, to keep together the human pack.

It may seem weird that some things are unaccaptable and outlandish but in scope of our own culture majority of the world is that way. I would like to point out that western media often exaggerates details, to make money. the other human cultures are less taboo than you think they are.

1.) What cultures are the most taboo ?

2.) how many exagurated detail is there in normal person's mind about cannibalism?

Imitation of original form.

First of let me define in which way i would like to use the word "imitation". Imitation in this blog will mean: attempt to copy and recreate and original form.

When workers, artisans, and regular people try to imitate original form, to make life more manageable. Our point of view on this matter is quite ironic frankly. We talk about original forms, and how we try to imitate them. We are original forms too, de facto.

If we stand on the same level as the objects we re trying to imitate(as does brother with a brother).

hence our imitations are not up to level with original form. we cannot create things equal to us (according to Plato's Utopia).

Art is a little more but mere a copy of artisans work. it includes given perspective to an existing form, it may be imperfect, but it evokes certain emotion, and feelings. it gives us a way to see how other people perceive this world.

1. Perfection in art, is it an abstract concept?

2. How can we (human race) be imitated?

Capturing the beauty of nature. aka making art.

Many times we ve seen pictures or paintings of nature and we do consider them art works, yet we re faced with a statement nature is not art. I agree with that statement, art is creation of human mind, and human emotions. Its a human made discipline, that nature has no intrest in. Something may be beautiful, but when we capture something with a camera lens, or stroke of paintbrush, we give it perspective, a subjective view. We may see it that way, and we may believe its how its true apperance looks like, but no two people will see the same image of our world. They may see similarities but not the picture, impression, or emotion. Hence my explanation of human captured images of nature being a perfect fine art material.

As subjective beings, we cannot help but to see the world uniquely, we are all different, and scenery of a sunset may be different, or it may invoke different feelings in all of us, the picture of setting sun already has framework set, and aims at invoking certain feelings.

1. How big is the difference between art in nature, and nature in art

2. how would different people from different cultures percieve a picture or a painting vs real thing.

response to aurora's "time and beauty".

I would like to take a different point of view on auroras "capture of time and beauty " thesis.

I would like to look at the current tense, the time we live in and music.

For this particular example im going to talk about classical piano music.

CPE Bach being my favorite composer his most famous show piece solfeggietto is perfect to discuss.

The tempo is very important for flow to be consistent, music to be harmonic, and for end result to be what the composer imagined.

We cant tell what time is it when we play strings of notes, or double forte, but the time is involved in the music. the amount time defines the show piece if it was meant to be played in the tempo of 180, 120 is not a true representation of its beauty.

the concept is hard to grasp and perhaps im not being clear, but the time it takes to play a show piece should remain the same to capture the beauty. For soffeggietto its about 56 seconds, and thats how it should be presented.

maybe time in painted works is something easier to notice than the flow of time in a active piece like piano show piece but the time still takes a great deal effect on the music, the consistency makes it beautiful.

1. is time necessary aspect of beauty?

2.how can we explain the pass of time and beauty? - flowers are only beautiful once a year.