Mind's Eye Re: Why are the arts important?

Emily is, of course, a bot, gendered or otherwise.  Communication can be split between life-world and system.  Mutual understanding is key in communicative rationality, yet how would we ever know the other party means or is authentic in her claim to be concerned with anything mutual?  Does the artist present the shock of truth or just what is expected of the naughty boy-girl (otherwise gendered) in the artist-role selling system?

Art and religion have been found in most human societies, including Neanderthal.  Defining either tends to exhaustion - Marx on religion is the 16th definition in a cursory literature review by Jared Diamond.  Reading explorations of 'what is art?' my only certainty is 'this ain't'.  Jurgen Habermas' two volumes on communicative rationality gave me a similar impression on mutual understanding.  Do Bowery birds do art?  They are at least better at decorating than I. 

On Sunday, November 9, 2014 3:16:22 PM UTC, Molly wrote:

Statements like these are often made out of context, making a consideration of the source imperative. Considering Marx in the context of his life and how that applies to the present is complicated business. Yet not all of us take time to do so, and take words at their superficial value, or worse, personally, tying all manner of historical emotion to it.  Once our words, like our artwork, are offered, how they are received is out of our influence until we are lucky enough to get direct feedback, and then communication begins (or ends.) In the cases of artwork, the art itself is rarely altered as a result of communication, and communication about interpretation can take a life of its own.

When we are communicating (or creating) and our intention is only to establish an image of our self, and not to connect with another in understanding, can we be engaging in artwork or beauty? What does it serve to only be self serving? Can we even be self serving when this is done, since the act of being only self serving isolates, and does not serve (by definition.) Does artwork require connection with the audience? Does communication require connection with other? If we really don't care how our words are received or if an understanding can be reached, are we communicating?

On Sunday, November 9, 2014 9:36:48 AM UTC-5, archytas wrote:

I meant my own verslimmstuff, of course.  Marx, of course, had religion as 'the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions  ... the opium of the people'.  Work of art, like good god contains its opposite meaning. 

On Sunday, November 9, 2014 12:59:05 PM UTC, Molly wrote:

As once the winged energy of delight
carried you over childhood's dark abysses,
now beyond your own life build the great
arch of unimagined bridges.

- Rainer Maria Rilke

I don't dismiss anything from you Gabby, or take it personally.  And while I don't pretend to understand all of it either, or where you are coming from, I can appreciate the long term contribution and effort. Everyone is who they are, and each expression here is propelled by circumstance we know nothing of, the everyday pressures and joys of life that are unexpressed but temper what is said in words to each other here. We really don't know much about each other, and what we do know could be horsefeathers. But the conversation does go somewhere, seen or unseen. And I do appreciate that. Good God indeed.

On Saturday, November 8, 2014 4:31:24 PM UTC-5, Gabby wrote:

Greetings from Gabbyland: They are there. And there is this certainty. This certainty that manifests in borders around zones. Light bubbles only to disappear again. Good God.

--

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to minds-eye+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.