A short heads up

Just a short heads up if anyone out there ever reads this thing; I will no longer be updating, this hiatus will be of undetermined length, and may indeed be unending. I sincerely apologize, but i find myself lacking in inspiration and drive on this front, and it is a terrible thing for an author. I will resume updating should inspiration and drive find me. In the mean time 6 friends and I will be writing some sort of story creatively. it can be found here if you are at all interested: http://nhword.blogspot.com/

Happy reading!
Durg-Dragon

The structure of thought

This week we discussed at length the structure of the mind, specifically the realms of: Thought, Imagination, Creativity, Understanding, Knowledge, and Intuition. First we had to define these. The two major realms: Thought(conscious): Actively manipulating ideas and memories and the like. Intuition: A form of unconscious thought involving a coming together of instinct, and experience. The other four all fall within these two main realms, with a bit of overlap. Imagination: a form of thinking, typically creatively, and a way to interpret intuition. Creativity: Artistic imaginative thinking, does not involve intuition at all. Understanding: Can be initiated by interpreting intuition, though typically stays within the realm of conscious thought. Knowledge: The result of conscious thought directed at understanding, though can sometimes be the result of imagination and understanding together, only resides within conscious thought.
This is the way I see the mind as being structured when defined by just these specific realms. This is best shown with a diagram, but I have no form of creating such a thing on the computer. However, it becomes evident that the unconscious can greatly influence normal thought.

How much do you think the unconscious influences our day to day thought?

Response to Denise's question

"Is art just an attempt to capture the experience of being alive?"

It certainly is if you share any of the views regarding art as: Experience, and Communication among a few others. This is rather obvious when considering art as experience. With art as communication the primary use for communication is to share experience, with secondary goals of sharing emotion. An example of this to include bad, or, poor art would be a child's drawing portraying a house and family. This is communicating that the child has a house and parents and siblings. The child grows older, and his/her technical skill progressed as well as his/her understanding of communication, symbolism, art, and emotion. They produce a new work, this time a small black dot, surrounded by a white gap, then a surrounding circle of blood red that fills the rest of the canvas. This work, instead of simplistically communicating facts, representationally communicates, as the artist claims, a feeling of loneliness, peer pressure, depression, among other things.

Are both works art?

Artistic fetish

Piper's theory of art as fetish is an interesting one. Art is indeed treated absolutely uniquely, given special views and qualities simply because it is art. We attribute special qualities (see aesthetic properties among other things) to it, and elevate it above the mundane simply because it is art. What does making it special add to it? Why does it need to be special, or seen as 'above' normal things? Is this simply to distinguish it from what can, in many cases, be identical(see the urinals stamped with names, or the paintings of brillo boxes, other such paraphernalia)?

Response to Denise's question

"If art is an abstract concept, how can we describe it without examples and anecdotes?"
For the large part, I dont think it can be described without examples, not completely anyways. Though it can be done, I think it would take blatant, and completely excessive use of generalization. However these generalizations would be most easily reached through use of examples and anecdotes, from a great many sources, averaged and combined into one. Could these generalizations be arrived at without use of anecdote and example perhaps? 'T would take some pondering. Can art be described without any of the three though? (the three being generalization, example, and anecdote.)

Response to Denise's Question

"What do we lose by avoiding the experience of "bad" art?"
How can one learn to appreciate the good, without also experiencing the bad?
Using these appointed critics influences society towards what they consider to be good art, which creates a trend of people selectively looking at just what the critics consider good. This jades society to the art, until a very elitist trend has been started, only the best of that art field is viewed, and what was once 'good' is now viewed as bad. This puts once popular artists out of work, and while it improves the overall quality of the field, while drastically decreasing the number of artists in that field. The influence of the critics also creates a trend towards their personal tastes, making other fields wither and struggle, though this is typically balanced by the diversity of critics.
Following this train of reasoning, do you think it could be said that it is the critics who control the trends and direction of the arts, rather than the artists themselves?

Sightless Dreams

How do the sightless dream?
Do they dream in sound?
Do they dream in scent?
Do they dream in touch?
Or do they dream in something else entirely?
Scientific studies say that dreaming is the result of random synapse firing in the visual cortex, as well as memory, and other sensory regions of the brain during REM sleep, at least in humans, which suggests that the sightless still dream in visual means primarily. But then there are those who have either an impaired visual cortex, or it has atrophied due to disuse. If that is the case, then logically one would assume that they dream in all senses but sight.

What do you think?

Define art?

"Great one, is it truly possible to define art? It certainly seems to be a phenomenon that by definition exceeds definition."
"That it certainly seems to elude definition, if not defy it. After all every modern artist attempts to push boundaries, and strive from innovation and originality, by nature and intention trying to elude the definition of art. Yet other genres do not attempt to escape definition. I think it may be true that there is no universal definition, and rather, it would be more fruitful to define each specific genre of art as it stands alone. What do you think?"
"I agree dragon, and would like to pose an open question to my friends:"
Would it be more productive to define art by specific genre and medium, as opposed to one singular universal definition?

Response to Valerie's question

"What makes on person more able to criticize a work than someone else?"
"In my opinion, what would make one more qualified to critique something, would be knowledge in that field. If you critique paintings you should have taken quite a few painting classes, on history and technique for example, or if not that, be able to paint yourself. If music, you should be a musician, or have taken musical classes, whether theory, history, or lessons in a specific instrument would be up to you, but you should have knowledge in that field. Any old person on the streets can rant about their opinion on something, but if you've been trained or taught in that field, your word should carry a bit more weight having some knowledge and experience behind it. Why do people need to be told what to think about art in the first place, why do we need critics in our newspapers and online?"

Response to Denise's question

"When we view visual art are our emotions influenced more by the lines or subject of the painting or by the colors used? Or, if you prefer music, are they influenced more by the pitch or the rhythm?"
"Being a musician I find the second part of this question rather easy. Emotions are influenced by pitch, rhythm, tempo, and volume in equal amounts, they simply have a different effect on the emotion. Pitch, or rather combinations of pitches, define the mood, IE: happiness, sadness, whistfulness, you name it. Rhythm, and tempo define the urgency, and sometimes in conjunction with volume, intensity of the emotion. I have clarified music's component's effects on emotion, would anyone care to do so with painting's components? Brush stroke weight, color, lines/shapes, styles of stroke, type of paint, to name just a few."

Critics

"I came upon an interesting contradiction in my readings, the roll of the critic. They are traditionally and stereotypically seen as some sort of parasitic growth upon the artistic fields, merely there to offer their own opinion, and expecting to be paid for it. Typically they offer simple emphasis on the work's down-fallings, without acknowledging the pieces worth, or what went right in it. Yet there are those few gems who manage to point out what went well, and offer a relatively unbiased view of the piece that could be considered helpful. It seems generally accepted that critics should be done away with. Yet in his works, Bell applauds the critic, calles them useful, uses them to point out things he may have missed, to give him a different perspective."
The dragon looks at me for a minute then responds: "Both these view seem valid to me, while some critics are parasitic, and detrimental in nature, others seem to give worthwhile reviews, that contain shocking insight into the piece's nature, along with the critic's own personal opinion of the piece. A good question would have to be: Should criticism be treated as a profession and paid and respected as such, or should it be treated as a hobby, with the artist choosing to endorse reviews as they like, and newspapers donating money if the choose to, making the quality of the article more important than the affordability of the critic."

And so, I pose the dragon's question to you, my friends: Should criticism be treated as a profession, or as a hobby?

Response to Denise's question

"So, with new art forms always emerging to replace the old, will the traditional art forms lose their place in society?"
The dragon has given me the challenge of answering these on my own now. It is of my opinion that the traditional art forms will not lose their place, but rather, take a lesser roll in society, as we continue to grow and evolve as a culture, and as a species. New forms of art arise, grow popular, and eventually join the traditional art, but the traditional art does endure. Think about abstract art, cubist, greek scupltures, landscapes. At one point those were all new art forms. And they were displacing the then "traditional" art forms, but the traditional ones endure. While their place in society may not remain a popular idol, they will remain in society. My question i suppose would be more along the lines of: What do you consider art in this new age? I would consider video games, DnD campaigns, movies, stuff like that, all of it, art.

Response to Denise's question

"'In a society where beings can communicate emotions directly, such as one where all of the members are empathic, would art exist?' This is the question my friends ask this week, or rather the question which provoked the most thought. I have in fact read a book which had a related environment. In the deep future, when Homo Sapiens has splintered into hundreds of different species the main character visits one world, where short, squat (to deal with the high gravity) furred humans have evolved telepathy. It takes the main character months to realize it though she feels something is missing. After two long months, she discovers what was missing, she hasn't heard music in months, hasn't seen a hint of color other than what naturally occurs, hasn't even seen bodily decoration. Why would one need to express themselves when they can lay bare the contents of their mind directly? The idea intrigued me, and I thought on it for weeks upon weeks. It puzzled me as to why they wouldn't play music, the reason I play is to share the melodies which thrive within my head, but then I realized: they can share that wellspring of beauty and emotion directly, without interpretation, or alteration. The notion still intrigues me, had I grown in such a society, would I even have the music that plays in my head?" The dragon glanced at me, and responded "Likely not, though it sounds like you answered the initial question entirely on your own little one, you are growing in mind. Though I would ask that last question of your friends, they might have some interesting answers."

Language

Today something unusual happened. The dragon opened with a question for me, "What would you describe art as? be as specific as you can little one, and use whatever form of art you are most comfortable with." It is an interesting question, one that people have been trying to answer accurately, so I sat, and I thought, for a long while. After a fair pause the dragon looked at me and said "Take your time young one, wake me when you have a suitable answer." A couple hours later, after further deliberation, I cleared my throat to get its attention, and spoke this, "I shall speak for music, for it is what I feel most comfortable with and I feel it still applies to most art. It is a language, but not a language of facts, it is a language of feelings, of emotions. If speech is the language of the mind, then music is the language of the soul. But if this is true of most art, they why are some works universally understood and accepted, while others must be translated or altered before comprehension can occur?"

Response to Alex's question

"Do you think that a government-controlled news service could be a good idea, or do the risks outweigh the possible benefits?"

This is the question the dragon chose to answer after reviewing the selection I brought it.

"It is an interesting question, and largely depends on the government in question, the culture being ruled by said government, and how much the populace trusts the government. If the government is too corrupt, it would run into the same problems as today's news channels, selling itself out to the highest bidder, too controlling and it would begin down the propaganda path. If the culture is too rebellious, then they will never trust the government, and the government is more likely to be a stricter one, and would also probably air on the side of propaganda, too trusting, and the government would likely grow corrupt. It is a fine balance, that would only work in the most ideal setting. To sum up, it is possible, simply not feasible in today's world." The great beast blinked at me after a pause, and responded, " It is generally polite to return an answer with another question in a brainstorming such as this." I thanked the dragon profusely, and wandered out of the cave, my mind whirling with thoughts as it so often did, and one question stood out:

Would it be possible to have a truly impartial unbiased source of news in todays society, and if so, how would it work?

Intentionality

The dragon looked at me, and I at it, we had discussed at length the nature of art. In all its mighty years, it still had not quite come to terms with the enigma that is art, but did have some insightful thoughts on the nature of it. There was one point upon which we immediately agreed. "If the artist intends it to be art, is it? I should think so..." I trailed off in thought, and the dragon was quick to reply, "But of course, for who has the ultimate say in their creations, other than the creator?" I found this point immensely interesting, given the next thought which came to mind, "What of art with no creator, what of nature?" "That is a trickier definition, and depends largely upon your beliefs little one, were the gods not the creator of it? Or, should you not follow that belief, does art, in fact, need a creator, or does it simply need a viewer?" I should like to pose that question to all of you, reading this journal, the responses would be most interesting, and likely to provide much food for thought.

Inroduction part 2

I found myself craving conversation with the mighty one, and journeyed back to the cave once more. This time our discussion ranged far and wide, flowing from topic to topic like a river flows from mountain to sea, but there was one topic to which we returned with increasing regularity, art, and not in any specific medium, but art in general. There was one question we struggled to answer that stood out the most: What constitutes art? Whether it me music, spoken word, written word, or painted image. This time, instead of a question, the Dragon left me with a task: bring some examples of art, and think on this more.

Introduction

I find myself at a cross at a crossroads, an interesting time in my life. So many questions, but which are truly important. So many answers, but which ones are correct? I find myself looking for clarification on these matters philosophical. In my wanderings I found myself at the Dragon's den, in the presence of this mighty being, the immortal dragon, with wisdom of the ages at its whim. So we talked for a while, though while it got to know me, I feel like I still know next to nothing about this enigmatic infinite. Due to my lengthy conversation, my time with the dragon grew to a close, us mortals do have our duties to attend to, I left it with this question: "What can you teach me, great one?" It was quick to counter. "What can you learn, little one?" And thus my time this day was gone, and over, and I had to depart, eagerly awaiting my next conversation with this deity-like figure.