Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner What is the purpose of art?

Jeez?

some people are just determined to believe that great circumstances or great people always produce great art. 'First' doesn't always make 'best'

Louise Bourgeois dies at 98.

Now that is art.

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.

Kinda wish you hadn't posted the second link - but whatever.

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. 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.

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!

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?"

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?

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

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.

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

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.

You have diviiiiiiiiine cats!

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.

cheers

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

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?