2017 was our 20th year online!

Welcome to the Piano World Piano Forums
Over 2.9 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers (it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!

Shop our online store for music lovers
SEARCH
Piano Forums & Piano World
(ad)
Petrof Pianos
Petrof Pianos
(ad)
Pianoteq
PianoTeq Karsten Collection
(ad)
Piano Life Saver - Dampp Chaser
Dampp Chaser Piano Life Saver
Who's Online Now
59 members (cgeronimo, 36251, Carey, AmyKaye, Bourniplus, beet31425, ChiaraTor, 17 invisible), 460 guests, and 222 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
(ad)
Estonia Pianos
Estonia Pianos
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Hop To
Page 7 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Re: What is the purpose of art?
time-lord #1448531 06/02/10 01:40 AM
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,857
3000 Post Club Member
Offline
3000 Post Club Member
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,857
I think that's the wrong question.


"Hunger for growth will come to you in the form of a problem." -- unknown
Re: What is the purpose of art?
pianozuki #1448550 06/02/10 02:21 AM
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 10,856
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Offline
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 10,856
Originally Posted by pianozuki
Originally Posted by keyboardklutz
Jeez.


Jeez?
As in - how did God get into this topic? I thought we didn't do God? Besides, I find all this religion stuff rather spooky!

Re: What is the purpose of art?
keyboardklutz #1448561 06/02/10 02:58 AM
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,264
btb Offline
4000 Post Club Member
Offline
4000 Post Club Member
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,264
Was taken with Bernard’s quote
"Hunger for growth will come to you in the form of a problem." -- unknown

Might I suggest that the hunger is always there ... and that the "problem" arises when the individual finds him/herself in the vacuous state of “not knowing” ... the problem gnaws at the innards until solved ... however, for some, the innate hunger remains ever on guard.

Sorry chaps ... I’m ever on the lookout for a problem ... keeps my ancient brain-box in good working order.

What was the question?

Re: What is the purpose of art?
Mattardo #1448565 06/02/10 03:07 AM
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,572
L
2000 Post Club Member
Offline
2000 Post Club Member
L
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,572
Originally Posted by Mattardo
some people are just determined to believe that great circumstances or great people always produce great art. 'First' doesn't always make 'best'




I would like to point out, Mattardo, that I didn't say that cave drawings are the "best" art.

However great art they are, yes.

And yes, great art they are because they are the first art. It is fantastic. Identifying magnesium deposits, transporting this material to the cave, crushing the mineral, mixing it with water or who knows what ... maybe with [censored]! ... in order to fabricate a sort of paint. And this, solely to create images.

The imperative of artistic creation is fully present; it is the same phenomenon as Botticelli tens of thousand of years later, or our beloved Bach.

It is the proof that in these caves, human beings passed and left their unique mark, they had already lifted themselves above animal existence and created human existence.

One has to have a bit of love for humanity ... as the philosopher said, "Nothing human is foreign to me".

Re: What is the purpose of art?
landorrano #1448569 06/02/10 03:13 AM
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 10,071
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Online Content
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 10,071
Originally Posted by landorrano


Landorrano -

Thanks very much for posting the first link. I hadn't heard about Ms. Bourgeois' passing. Kinda wish you hadn't posted the second link - but whatever. grin

Ms. Bourgeois was commissioned by the City of Phoenix to create a 110 foot tall monumental public art sculpture for the atrium of our new convention center - which is adjacent to the entrance of downtown Symphony Hall. The piece, which was installed in 2006, is aptly called "Art is a Guaranty of Sanity" - a phrase that Ms. Boutgeois applied to several of her creations - and a statement that, perhaps, partially addresses the OP's original question.



Mason and Hamlin BB - 91640
Kawai K-500 Upright
Kawai CA-65 Digital
YouTube channel - http://www.youtube.com/user/pianophilo
Re: What is the purpose of art?
gooddog #1448574 06/02/10 03:37 AM
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,572
L
2000 Post Club Member
Offline
2000 Post Club Member
L
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,572
Originally Posted by gooddog
I understand what you are saying but I am referring to a more primitive time (10,000 years ago or more) when early human survival was much more tenuous than it is now. Survival depended on more base things than art and past-times. Art was a child of the agricultural revolution because there was more food and therefore more time for activities such as painting, music and complex religion. My point is that one must satisfy the necessities before engaging in art and past-times. I would love to call my passion for music a necessity, but in reality, it is a luxury. I can survive without it, but not happily.


I believe that your assertion is wrong, that early human survival was especially tenuous or precarious, and than early man had to struggle from morn' till night just to keep his belly filled and had thus no time for higher pursuits, haunted by fear of the elements and of ferocious animals.

I think that, to the contrary, human kind came into being in a kind of prosperity. A proposerity that we can certainly call primitive, compared to that which followed the agricultural revolution, but that has nothing of primitive compared to all that had previously existed.

Anything that can be called human beings has, by the fabrication and utilisation of tools, lifted itself above the laws of nature and is in the process of re-fashioning these laws.

Anything that can be called human has developed, thanks to this tool-making actvity, a human brain, capable of abstract thought and which strives to take possesion intellectually of the world as he has taken possession of it with his hand.

Also has developed a differentiation of roles within social existence, and an intense psychic-communicative activity that glues each individual to the group and even to specific indivuals within the group. Therein artistic activity.

His existence established, artistic activity is not a luxury, it is a necessity of life. Man cannot live on bread alone.

Re: What is the purpose of art?
Carey #1448575 06/02/10 03:45 AM
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,572
L
2000 Post Club Member
Offline
2000 Post Club Member
L
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,572
Originally Posted by carey
Kinda wish you hadn't posted the second link - but whatever. grin


Why? All art is, in great mesure, sexuality, don't you agree? An image of the smiling artist with a big ... a big ... a big ... well, how can we put this ... a big family jewel under her arm is perhaps the best response to the question, what is the purpose of art.


Re: What is the purpose of art?
landorrano #1448706 06/02/10 10:54 AM
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 10,071
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Online Content
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 10,071
Originally Posted by landorrano
Originally Posted by carey
Kinda wish you hadn't posted the second link - but whatever. grin


Why? All art is, in great mesure, sexuality, don't you agree? An image of the smiling artist with a big ... a big ... a big ... well, how can we put this ... a big family jewel under her arm is perhaps the best response to the question, what is the purpose of art.



I have no problem with the photo itself. thumb But I would venture to say that a good many folks who participate in the forums aren't familiar with Ms. Bourgeois. I was a bit concerned that some viewers might form an "opinion" of the great lady based on the photo alone - and that would be unfortunate IMO. She really is/was a a giant in the art world. Obviously she had a great sense of humor, and, yes, sexuality figured prominently in some, but certainly not all of her work.


Mason and Hamlin BB - 91640
Kawai K-500 Upright
Kawai CA-65 Digital
YouTube channel - http://www.youtube.com/user/pianophilo
Re: What is the purpose of art?
Carey #1448945 06/02/10 05:50 PM
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,317
1000 Post Club Member
Offline
1000 Post Club Member
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,317
Originally Posted by carey
Originally Posted by landorrano
Originally Posted by carey
Kinda wish you hadn't posted the second link - but whatever. grin


Why? All art is, in great mesure, sexuality, don't you agree? An image of the smiling artist with a big ... a big ... a big ... well, how can we put this ... a big family jewel under her arm is perhaps the best response to the question, what is the purpose of art.



I have no problem with the photo itself. thumb But I would venture to say that a good many folks who participate in the forums aren't familiar with Ms. Bourgeois. I was a bit concerned that some viewers might form an "opinion" of the great lady based on the photo alone - and that would be unfortunate IMO. She really is/was a a giant in the art world. Obviously she had a great sense of humor, and, yes, sexuality figured prominently in some, but certainly not all of her work.


Yes, not knowing her or her work, I now conceive of her as "the old lady with the penis under her arm and the [censored]-eating grin". First impressions are powerful things.

I think too many artists use art as as an excuse to throw away all taste (I'm not necesarily applying this to Ms Bourgeois) and exhibit all sorts of depravities or subjects that would normally be kept to certain circles and not aired abroad. Roger Maplethorpe comes to mind, as do many other artists (whose names I do not know or care to recall).

It's not that I'm puritanical or think that sex is dirty - it's not, but it can definately become dirty. When you have pornographic magazines on one side of the coin showing various scatalogical and pedophillic acts and these magazines are generally condemned and called 'pornography', yet on the other side of the coin you have famous (some not-so-famous UNTIL they create these works) artists who exhibit the same exact things (except they use a better grade of camera, or a canvas) and they get away with it because it's "art" or "an outward expression of their inner soul" or "represents the objectifying of women" - and so on and so on...

If people want to display phalluses and feces in a public venue, then so be it - that's their choice, if they can legally get away with it, and they're not within so-and-so feet of a school. But to masquerade it as art shows an extreme lack of taste, and a perversion of what the term 'art' should mean, in my opinion.

Honestly, what the heck is 'art'? Is there a concrete definition that is not debateable? The ambiguity of the term leads to tasteless displays of some psychologically or socially damaged individual's total lack of tact and self-restraint.

I think this does have a bearing on the topic at hand - and a lot of it has to do with what 'art' is. How can we determine the purpose of 'art' if we don't have a solid definition of what it is, or even agree on any definitions offered?

Re: What is the purpose of art?
keyboardklutz #1448946 06/02/10 05:52 PM
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,317
1000 Post Club Member
Offline
1000 Post Club Member
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,317
Originally Posted by keyboardklutz
Originally Posted by pianozuki
Originally Posted by keyboardklutz
Jeez.


Jeez?
As in - how did God get into this topic? I thought we didn't do God? Besides, I find all this religion stuff rather spooky!


You're not s-s-scared of th-th-the Holy Ghost, are you?
Don't worry - we'll spread a circle of forum salt around you and you'll be safe!

[Linked Image]

Re: What is the purpose of art?
gerg #1448977 06/02/10 06:24 PM
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 359
F
Full Member
Offline
Full Member
F
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 359
Originally Posted by gerg
I would say that one who believes that bears the burden of providing an account for the foundations of rational thought, which latter make no sense in a random and purposeless universe. Neither does beauty, nor ethics. Communication would not be possible because there would be no transcendent basis for the laws of logic, not themselves subject to the scrutiny of scientific positivism but rather presupposed a priori.

So my argument is one of the impossibility of the contrary. And it provides a reasonable answer to the question "What is the purpose of art?" smile
How does the existence of God provide a basis for the foundations of rational thought? And for that matter, if you're happy for God to exist without a cause, why similarly can't logical axioms also exist without cause?

Last edited by FunkyLlama; 06/02/10 06:26 PM.
Re: What is the purpose of art?
FunkyLlama #1449076 06/02/10 09:19 PM
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,317
1000 Post Club Member
Offline
1000 Post Club Member
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,317
Originally Posted by FunkyLlama
Originally Posted by gerg
I would say that one who believes that bears the burden of providing an account for the foundations of rational thought, which latter make no sense in a random and purposeless universe. Neither does beauty, nor ethics. Communication would not be possible because there would be no transcendent basis for the laws of logic, not themselves subject to the scrutiny of scientific positivism but rather presupposed a priori.

So my argument is one of the impossibility of the contrary. And it provides a reasonable answer to the question "What is the purpose of art?" smile
How does the existence of God provide a basis for the foundations of rational thought? And for that matter, if you're happy for God to exist without a cause, why similarly can't logical axioms also exist without cause?


Gerg is commiting the Burden of Proof Fallacy : "a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B." (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html).

The Appeal to Ignorance Fallacy and the Either/Or Fallacy also rear their ugly heads in this argument, as does the Appeal to Authority with it's reference to the Apostle Paul, which I briefly mentioned in an earlier post.

Gerg seems to be setting up his argument by attempting to make the claim that, apart from God, rational thought, beauty, ethics, etc have no explanation or meaning - so the reason for the season must be God. By using the Straw Man Fallacy (" A straw man argument is one that misrepresents a position in order to make it appear weaker than it actually is, refutes this misrepresentation of the position, and then concludes that the real position has been refuted") he attempts to make an idea false, when it is not. Because there may be a slight ambiguity involved in some of the terms, he seems to feel the only real explanation is supernatural. Incredible.

It's typical flawed logic that one can hear in any Sunday School. I don't mean any offense, Gerg, I just wish you would use some more original arguments that do not depend on misleading information!

It's silly to shift the burden of proof on others, when it's fairly obvious that someone positing the belief in an unseen deity must prove his claim. The equivalent claim could be made by me:
"Since you have no explanation for the purpose of Art, beauty, or ethics - then it must be to praise the One-Eyed Purple-Striped Violinist Who Sits on My Shoulder Playing only Mozart and Demands I Worship Him. If you disagree with me - prove me wrong!"

In other words, I say God exists, now prove me wrong or provide a concrete 100% infallible explanation. If we can't identify a cause, it MUST be God! I don't know who spilled my soda this morning while I was at work - must be God: not one of my cats. After all - I have no proof it was one of them. Try applying Occam's Razor to this whole argument: the easier explanation is usually the better.

Re: What is the purpose of art?
Mattardo #1449090 06/02/10 09:43 PM
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 5,993
5000 Post Club Member
Offline
5000 Post Club Member
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 5,993
I think discussions about religious beliefs should be avoided at all costs. This is a Piano Forum not a religious one. People are going to get angry and someone is bound to be offended. Why don't we drop it and move on?


Best regards,

Deborah
Re: What is the purpose of art?
Mattardo #1449092 06/02/10 09:46 PM
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 769
500 Post Club Member
Offline
500 Post Club Member
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 769
Originally Posted by Mattardo

I don't know who spilled my soda this morning while I was at work - must be God: not one of my cats.


You have diviiiiiiiiine cats! laugh

Mattardo, it is funny for me when someone uses a lot of logical/rational arguments to criticise the logical/rational criticsm of God existence.

Kurt Gödel proved that you cannot prove the truth of the axioms of a system with the axioms of the system itselfes.

What this have to do with God? Nothing, or everything. So, we could keep on discussing this for the sake of the disussion. sleep

cheers

ps: Gerg, I have a proof of God's existence, and a proof of God's non existence. Now, prove it! smile

Re: What is the purpose of art?
Mattardo #1449099 06/02/10 10:00 PM
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,651
1000 Post Club Member
Offline
1000 Post Club Member
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,651
Originally Posted by Mattardo
Originally Posted by FunkyLlama
Originally Posted by gerg
I would say that one who believes that bears the burden of providing an account for the foundations of rational thought, which latter make no sense in a random and purposeless universe. Neither does beauty, nor ethics. Communication would not be possible because there would be no transcendent basis for the laws of logic, not themselves subject to the scrutiny of scientific positivism but rather presupposed a priori.

So my argument is one of the impossibility of the contrary. And it provides a reasonable answer to the question "What is the purpose of art?" smile
How does the existence of God provide a basis for the foundations of rational thought? And for that matter, if you're happy for God to exist without a cause, why similarly can't logical axioms also exist without cause?


Gerg is commiting the Burden of Proof Fallacy : "a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B." (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html).

The Appeal to Ignorance Fallacy and the Either/Or Fallacy also rear their ugly heads in this argument, as does the Appeal to Authority with it's reference to the Apostle Paul, which I briefly mentioned in an earlier post.

Gerg seems to be setting up his argument by attempting to make the claim that, apart from God, rational thought, beauty, ethics, etc have no explanation or meaning - so the reason for the season must be God. By using the Straw Man Fallacy (" A straw man argument is one that misrepresents a position in order to make it appear weaker than it actually is, refutes this misrepresentation of the position, and then concludes that the real position has been refuted") he attempts to make an idea false, when it is not. Because there may be a slight ambiguity involved in some of the terms, he seems to feel the only real explanation is supernatural. Incredible.

It's typical flawed logic that one can hear in any Sunday School. I don't mean any offense, Gerg, I just wish you would use some more original arguments that do not depend on misleading information!

It's silly to shift the burden of proof on others, when it's fairly obvious that someone positing the belief in an unseen deity must prove his claim. The equivalent claim could be made by me:
"Since you have no explanation for the purpose of Art, beauty, or ethics - then it must be to praise the One-Eyed Purple-Striped Violinist Who Sits on My Shoulder Playing only Mozart and Demands I Worship Him. If you disagree with me - prove me wrong!"

In other words, I say God exists, now prove me wrong or provide a concrete 100% infallible explanation. If we can't identify a cause, it MUST be God! I don't know who spilled my soda this morning while I was at work - must be God: not one of my cats. After all - I have no proof it was one of them. Try applying Occam's Razor to this whole argument: the easier explanation is usually the better.


You expended time and energy to formulate a rebuttal to my argument, which latter was simply to bolster my answer to the question, "What is the purpose of Art?" I commend you for that.

Please join me for a little walk in the countryside on a lovely day, just two friends talking and taking in the sun. Imagine we come to a field with fully-assembled piece of machinery sitting in the middle of it. It's a tractor. What is the natural inclination of our thoughts? Is it more rational to assume that the machine just "is", that it just "came to be" on its own, or is it rather more rational to assume that the tractor had a designer? We don't debate this small point as we gaze upon the pastoral scene, we just assume it. Why would the burden of proof rest on one who makes such an assumption? Occam's Razor, right?

Likewise it stands with reality, with order in nature. Again, Occam's Razor.

You have taken pains to type up a rather emotional response, but have not provided a rational basis for the machinery that is reality. This is because you cannot do so - more precisely, because what you ask me to believe - namely that everything just is - is far more preposterous. You must borrow from what is rational only under theism even to formulate the arguments, which require the laws of logic, which themselves in turn are unaccounted for under your own worldview.

Likewise, no disrespect intended to you or anyone else. I submit that, in your argumentation, you are proceeding out of emotion (evidence the ridicule in your words) because you fear the implications of the contrary viewpoint, namely ultimate accountability. That emotion, in turn, rooted in your own fears, serves as an illustrative example of why men and women have gone to great lengths to construct alternate frameworks for reality, conflating science with philosophy while at the same time criticizing those who have done so in the past, which in turn necessitate the contrived and twisted explanations for the purpose of art.

Beyond the purpose of art, we might do well to account for our own sense of self-awareness. We know we have it. We take it for granted. But how do we account for it?

You don't need to answer that, because your ideas are fundamentally emotional in their genesis. This is not a debate I can win, and not one that you can win either. I just answered a question, honestly and wholesomely, and simply, and stand by it: The purpose of art, literature, indeed of all human endeavor is to glorify God by dusting Creation for the fingerprints of the Creator, by seeking the good, the true, the noble, the beautiful and sharing it for the service of mankind. That includes art, and it includes piano music written by composers of widely varying worldviews because all beauty belongs ultimately to the Author of Beauty.


http://www.ecital.net
Wikicital: A collaborative effort to build a knowledgebase of classical music history combined with examples. Your chance to both perform and write...

Don't click here!
Re: What is the purpose of art?
deAlmeida #1449107 06/02/10 10:12 PM
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,651
1000 Post Club Member
Offline
1000 Post Club Member
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,651
Originally Posted by al-mahed
What this have to do with God? Nothing, or everything. So, we could keep on discussing this for the sake of the disussion. sleep


Your insight is commendable and that's exactly right. It's all or none. No one can "win" the argument as it is essentially emotion that drives it. One side can make a watertight case and the other side will continue to reject it not on a rational basis but on an emotional one. It's the same old war that has been raging since remotest antiquity, a war that will not be won or lost on a music forum.


http://www.ecital.net
Wikicital: A collaborative effort to build a knowledgebase of classical music history combined with examples. Your chance to both perform and write...

Don't click here!
Re: What is the purpose of art?
gerg #1449142 06/02/10 11:06 PM
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,317
1000 Post Club Member
Offline
1000 Post Club Member
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,317
Originally Posted by gerg
Originally Posted by Mattardo
Originally Posted by FunkyLlama
Originally Posted by gerg
I would say that one who believes that bears the burden of providing an account for the foundations of rational thought, which latter make no sense in a random and purposeless universe. Neither does beauty, nor ethics. Communication would not be possible because there would be no transcendent basis for the laws of logic, not themselves subject to the scrutiny of scientific positivism but rather presupposed a priori.

So my argument is one of the impossibility of the contrary. And it provides a reasonable answer to the question "What is the purpose of art?" smile
How does the existence of God provide a basis for the foundations of rational thought? And for that matter, if you're happy for God to exist without a cause, why similarly can't logical axioms also exist without cause?


Gerg is commiting the Burden of Proof Fallacy : "a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B." (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html).

The Appeal to Ignorance Fallacy and the Either/Or Fallacy also rear their ugly heads in this argument, as does the Appeal to Authority with it's reference to the Apostle Paul, which I briefly mentioned in an earlier post.

Gerg seems to be setting up his argument by attempting to make the claim that, apart from God, rational thought, beauty, ethics, etc have no explanation or meaning - so the reason for the season must be God. By using the Straw Man Fallacy (" A straw man argument is one that misrepresents a position in order to make it appear weaker than it actually is, refutes this misrepresentation of the position, and then concludes that the real position has been refuted") he attempts to make an idea false, when it is not. Because there may be a slight ambiguity involved in some of the terms, he seems to feel the only real explanation is supernatural. Incredible.

It's typical flawed logic that one can hear in any Sunday School. I don't mean any offense, Gerg, I just wish you would use some more original arguments that do not depend on misleading information!

It's silly to shift the burden of proof on others, when it's fairly obvious that someone positing the belief in an unseen deity must prove his claim. The equivalent claim could be made by me:
"Since you have no explanation for the purpose of Art, beauty, or ethics - then it must be to praise the One-Eyed Purple-Striped Violinist Who Sits on My Shoulder Playing only Mozart and Demands I Worship Him. If you disagree with me - prove me wrong!"

In other words, I say God exists, now prove me wrong or provide a concrete 100% infallible explanation. If we can't identify a cause, it MUST be God! I don't know who spilled my soda this morning while I was at work - must be God: not one of my cats. After all - I have no proof it was one of them. Try applying Occam's Razor to this whole argument: the easier explanation is usually the better.


You expended time and energy to formulate a rebuttal to my argument, which latter was simply to bolster my answer to the question, "What is the purpose of Art?" I commend you for that.

Please join me for a little walk in the countryside on a lovely day, just two friends talking and taking in the sun. Imagine we come to a field with fully-assembled piece of machinery sitting in the middle of it. It's a tractor. What is the natural inclination of our thoughts? Is it more rational to assume that the machine just "is", that it just "came to be" on its own, or is it rather more rational to assume that the tractor had a designer? We don't debate this small point as we gaze upon the pastoral scene, we just assume it. Why would the burden of proof rest on one who makes such an assumption? Occam's Razor, right?

Likewise it stands with reality, with order in nature. Again, Occam's Razor.

You have taken pains to type up a rather emotional response, but have not provided a rational basis for the machinery that is reality. This is because you cannot do so - more precisely, because what you ask me to believe - namely that everything just is - is far more preposterous. You must borrow from what is rational only under theism even to formulate the arguments, which require the laws of logic, which themselves in turn are unaccounted for under your own worldview.

Likewise, no disrespect intended to you or anyone else. I submit that, in your argumentation, you are proceeding out of emotion (evidence the ridicule in your words) because you fear the implications of the contrary viewpoint, namely ultimate accountability. That emotion, in turn, rooted in your own fears, serves as an illustrative example of why men and women have gone to great lengths to construct alternate frameworks for reality, conflating science with philosophy while at the same time criticizing those who have done so in the past, which in turn necessitate the contrived and twisted explanations for the purpose of art.

Beyond the purpose of art, we might do well to account for our own sense of self-awareness. We know we have it. We take it for granted. But how do we account for it?

You don't need to answer that, because your ideas are fundamentally emotional in their genesis. This is not a debate I can win, and not one that you can win either. I just answered a question, honestly and wholesomely, and simply, and stand by it: The purpose of art, literature, indeed of all human endeavor is to glorify God by dusting Creation for the fingerprints of the Creator, by seeking the good, the true, the noble, the beautiful and sharing it for the service of mankind. That includes art, and it includes piano music written by composers of widely varying worldviews because all beauty belongs ultimately to the Author of Beauty.


I'll take gooddog's advice on avoiding religion from now on (maybe heh), but I'll also take you up on your offer to walk in the countryside to discuss religion with you sometime. You may have discerned ridicule in my post, and you are correct to a degree - but only because I seek more original proofs for God, and yours were based primarily on personal beliefs, not anything that can sway another person. The old proofs no longer apply and I wish there were some bright thinkers emerging who could add more to the field, besides personal affirmations and their own unique faith.

I am a religious person, but more in the lines of a Spinoza or a Paine - a Deist, rather than a Biblicalist (if such a word exists!) - which is why I bridle at using Romans in the way you did, and Romans in general.

Please don't misconstrue my words because of the tone. I'm an avid reader of Scripture - I just don't believe every word of it, and I'm no fan of Paul. I'm always open to PMS, however, on the subject - as long as it doesn't fall back upon personal visions and revelations that are only appropriate and meaningful to the person originally experiencing them.

But stating such answers as you did, in the modern world, is bound to get emotions high, as gooddog points out. Orwell was right when he predicted censorship would be the only way to handle differing opinions, so we will probably have to cut our religious conversations short! Oh well...

Re: What is the purpose of art?
deAlmeida #1449143 06/02/10 11:12 PM
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,317
1000 Post Club Member
Offline
1000 Post Club Member
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,317
Originally Posted by al-mahed
Originally Posted by Mattardo

I don't know who spilled my soda this morning while I was at work - must be God: not one of my cats.


You have diviiiiiiiiine cats! laugh

Mattardo, it is funny for me when someone uses a lot of logical/rational arguments to criticise the logical/rational criticsm of God existence.

Kurt Gödel proved that you cannot prove the truth of the axioms of a system with the axioms of the system itselfes.

What this have to do with God? Nothing, or everything. So, we could keep on discussing this for the sake of the disussion. sleep

cheers

ps: Gerg, I have a proof of God's existence, and a proof of God's non existence. Now, prove it! smile


Ha - sometimes I think God is punishing me via my cats every time I have to clean their litter.

Skepticism is not very popular it seems. Why is it okay to criticize every single form of non-rationalism except someone's religion? I never quite understood that taboo.

Re: What is the purpose of art?
gooddog #1449146 06/02/10 11:15 PM
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,317
1000 Post Club Member
Offline
1000 Post Club Member
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,317
Originally Posted by gooddog
I think discussions about religious beliefs should be avoided at all costs. This is a Piano Forum not a religious one. People are going to get angry and someone is bound to be offended. Why don't we drop it and move on?


Can we at least make a topic called "Can playing the piano be a religious experience?" That would be a highly interesting thread, but probably a little controversial....

I would answer "Yes".
But I also find that entering an older, magnificent church and hearing a beautiful pipe organ playing Bach can awaken the deepest religious feelings possible, even ones lying latent in the most ardent Atheist's soul.
So perhaps the two go hand in hand - is there any wonder why the Catholic Church spends so much money on those pipe organs?

Re: What is the purpose of art?
Mattardo #1449183 06/03/10 12:54 AM
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 188
Full Member
Offline
Full Member
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 188
Please don't misconstrue my words because of the tone. I'm an avid reader of Scripture - I just don't believe every word of it, and I'm no fan of Paul. I'm always open to PMS, however, on the subject - as long as it doesn't fall back upon personal visions and revelations that are only appropriate and meaningful to the person originally experiencing them.

Mattardo, what is PMS?


Kawai RX-2
Page 7 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Moderated by  Brendan, Kreisler 

Link Copied to Clipboard
What's Hot!!
News from the Piano World
Where Did The Buttons Go?!
----------------------
Our April 2020 Newsletter Available Online Now...
The Piano World During the Pandemic!
----------------------
Posting Pictures on the Forums
-------------------
Forums RULES & HELP
-------------------
ADVERTISE on Piano World
(ad)
Best of Piano Buyer
 Best of Piano Buyer
(ad)
Faust Harrison Pianos
Faust Harrison 100+ Steinway pianos
Download Sheet Music
Virtual Sheet Music - Classical Sheet Music Downloads
New Topics - Multiple Forums
Modern Alternatives to the Metronome
by navindra - 07/13/20 08:10 PM
Eleanor Sokoloff RIP
by pianoloverus - 07/13/20 04:15 PM
Winter NAMM 2021 - Proceed or Cancel?
by PianoManChuck - 07/13/20 03:55 PM
Roland A-88mk2 - clunky black keys?
by Karnevil - 07/13/20 01:53 PM
Forum Statistics
Forums41
Topics200,235
Posts2,980,336
Members97,760
Most Online15,252
Mar 21st, 2010
Please Support Our Advertisers


Faust Harrison 100+ Steinways

Dampp Chaser Piano Life Saver

 Best of Piano Buyer

PianoTeq Bechstein
Visit our online store for gifts for music lovers

Virtual Sheet Music - Classical Sheet Music Downloads



 
Help keep the forums up and running with a donation, any amount is appreciated!
Or by becoming a Subscribing member! Thank-you.
Donate   Subscribe
 
Our Piano Related Classified Ads
| Dealers | Tuners | Lessons | Movers | Restorations | Pianos For Sale | Sell Your Piano |

Advertise on Piano World
| Subscribe | Piano World | PianoSupplies.com | Advertise on Piano World |
| |Contact | Privacy | Legal | About Us | Site Map | Free Newsletter |


copyright 1997 - 2020 Piano World ® all rights reserved
No part of this site may be reproduced without prior written permission
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.4