Runboard.com
You're welcome.
Community logo


runboard.com       Sign up (learn about it) | Sign in (lost password?)


 
Terreson Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info


Global user (premium)

Reply | Quote
Art is transformative?


Bills are paid for the month, with 8 days left. Have rent for December. Got a paycheck which means I can cover next month's bills too. Enough groceries in hand for a good 2 days. It's a Saturday evening, not quite dark. I'm rested and I have no responsibilities to see to, except for the one responsibility that has vectored my career. And I got a beef, got a peeve that can set me off the way only 2 others can.

You hear it all the time. Art is transformative. Art is transfiguring. And the hugest lie of all, art is transcendent. There is nothing transformative or transcendent in art. It is only art's Unitarians who maintain as much, and apolegetically, wanting to be accepted at the Thanksgiving dinner table. It is a huge lie. Art does not transform and the record is on my side in this debate. Art transfixes. Art exposes. Art dredges up creatures civilization, for its own maintenance, needs keep buried. Art bares the raw seed looking to go carnal. In the end, art crucifies.

I seriously get tired of this Unitarian !@#$. Art is not nice and it never has been. Nor should it be. Cummings wasn't nice. Sexton and Plath were not nice. Bellini wasn't nice. Lorca wasn't nice. Dante wasn't nice. Delacroix wasn't nice.

Art does not transform. It in-forms. As I said, the record is on my side.

Tere
Nov/22/2014, 7:12 pm Link to this post Send Email to Terreson   Send PM to Terreson
 
libramoon Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info


Global user

Reply | Quote
Re: Art is transformative?


Yet art does transcend, even if the other end of the trance is not nice, or comforting, or better. Art, when we engage with it, takes us places outside of our comfort zone, inside of those nagging demons we harbor, beyond what we thought we allowed.
Nov/22/2014, 8:52 pm Link to this post Send Email to libramoon   Send PM to libramoon Blog
 
Terreson Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info


Global user (premium)

Reply | Quote
Re: Art is transformative?


Libra, this is one time when I will say I disagree. Art transcends nothing. Art transforms nothing. Neither amounts to its job. Its job is to plumb experience, dredge up the inchoate, and, with any luck, bring up the numinous. Said again, and going back to the Greek tragedies, the record is on my side. Thinking art transformative is a sure killer.

Tere
Nov/23/2014, 1:42 am Link to this post Send Email to Terreson   Send PM to Terreson
 
Terreson Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info


Global user (premium)

Reply | Quote
Re: Art is transformative?


Robert Johnson. Nothing transformative here, but the birth of the Mississippi Delta Blue.

[url][sign in to see URL]

Tere
Nov/23/2014, 2:20 am Link to this post Send Email to Terreson   Send PM to Terreson
 
libramoon Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info


Global user

Reply | Quote
Re: Art is transformative?


If you will read my post, Tere, I did not claim that art is transformative. I don't even know what that means. I suppose art can transform various materials into a cohesive statement or form, a different formation.
I said art transcends. It does, when it is done right. It moves emotions, it imposes ideas, it carries the engager into other possibilities or worlds for that psychic eternity. What we do with that moment depends on us.
Nov/23/2014, 2:43 pm Link to this post Send Email to libramoon   Send PM to libramoon Blog
 
Terreson Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info


Global user (premium)

Reply | Quote
Re: Art is transformative?


Maybe just a matter of semantics, Libra. I find nothing transcendent in art. What I find is more in the nature of the immanent.

Tere
Nov/23/2014, 4:26 pm Link to this post Send Email to Terreson   Send PM to Terreson
 
libramoon Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info


Global user

Reply | Quote
Re: Art is transformative?


Please define your terms, that we may find how language is confusing us.
Nov/23/2014, 4:59 pm Link to this post Send Email to libramoon   Send PM to libramoon Blog
 
Zakzzz5 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info


Global user

Reply | Quote
Re: Art is transformative?


Terreson,

Like Libra, I would ask for a definition of some of the terms -- as you see it. Below you say, "Its job is to plumb experience, dredge up the inchoate, and, with any luck, bring up the the numinous." The definition of numinous is, "Having a strong religious or spiritual quality; indicating or suggesting the presence of a divinity." For me art that suggests the presence of the divinity, whether it is Christ, Buddah, the Universal Ground, or Mathematics, is by definition "transcendent." As for transformative, I'll have to think on that, but I believe that depends on the person who is witnessing the art, or even making the art. These observations of mine do not in any sense negate the things you say that art does accomplish. It's a big subject. Zak

quote:

Terreson wrote:

Libra, this is one time when I will say I disagree. Art transcends nothing. Art transforms nothing. Neither amounts to its job. Its job is to plumb experience, dredge up the inchoate, and, with any luck, bring up the numinous. Said again, and going back to the Greek tragedies, the record is on my side. Thinking art transformative is a sure killer.

Tere



Apr/2/2015, 5:45 pm Link to this post Send Email to Zakzzz5   Send PM to Zakzzz5
 
arkava Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info


Global user

Reply | Quote
Re: Art is transformative?


It does seem to be a matter of semantics. I think Tere is taking transcend to mean freed of material conditions? A transcendent status that only knows polite "well. that's nice" sort of responses that changes nothing. If that's the case, well, art cannot do that. But transform it does, itself and the viewer like Libra and you Zak seem to indicate. In fact Tere seems to be saying the same thing when he says that " Art transfixes. Art exposes. Art dredges up creatures civilization, for its own maintenance, needs keep buried. Art bares the raw seed looking to go carnal. In the end, art crucifies." An immanent process, a transformation or several transformations but maybe not transcendence in the sense of a higher reality added to our reality etc. But who's to say?

Last edited by arkava, Apr/17/2015, 11:43 am
Apr/17/2015, 11:41 am Link to this post Send Email to arkava   Send PM to arkava Blog
 
arkava Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info


Global user

Reply | Quote
Re: Art is transformative?


Hm. Tere you used the word immanence in your respinse to Libra as well. Didn't notice that before. Then you are using transcendence in the usual sense. You are against this easy equation of art as a transcendent [sign in to see URL] sure how you are playing that off transformation though. I would think art is transformation in a certain sense. Not a separate life but life in the process of well living.
Apr/17/2015, 12:52 pm Link to this post Send Email to arkava   Send PM to arkava Blog
 
libramoon Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info


Global user

Reply | Quote
Re: Art is transformative?


I don't get this idea of transcendence being polite or nice. Some art is polite and/or nice -- that is art for calm conversation or simple reverie, but not transcendence. And maybe art is not transcendent in itself, but only as it affects us -- both artist and audience.
Apr/17/2015, 2:19 pm Link to this post Send Email to libramoon   Send PM to libramoon Blog
 
arkava Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info


Global user

Reply | Quote
Re: Art is transformative?


Zeke,

One point on the budhha. He is called tathagata in the texts which literally translates to (thus come) or (thus gone). That's because of the original buddha's rejection of brahmanical metaphysics. The buddha is the streamwinner. When he's dead he's taken out of the entire chain of causality, taken out not to any other plane but just ceasing. For example, the term cittamatra was translated as "mind only" (by early scholars like stcherbatsky etc.) and hence taken to be some sort of idealism. Actually the original buddha tried to steer clear of all metaphysical or transcendent assumptions. In the centuries that followed budhism kept accumulating more and more rituals and substantialist leanings. Too many schools and too much compassion. Ugh.



quote:

Zakzzz5 wrote:

Terreson,

Like Libra, I would ask for a definition of some of the terms -- as you see it. Below you say, "Its job is to plumb experience, dredge up the inchoate, and, with any luck, bring up the the numinous." The definition of numinous is, "Having a strong religious or spiritual quality; indicating or suggesting the presence of a divinity." For me art that suggests the presence of the divinity, whether it is Christ, Buddah, the Universal Ground, or Mathematics, is by definition "transcendent." As for transformative, I'll have to think on that, but I believe that depends on the person who is witnessing the art, or even making the art. These observations of mine do not in any sense negate the things you say that art does accomplish. It's a big subject. Zak

quote:

Terreson wrote:

Libra, this is one time when I will say I disagree. Art transcends nothing. Art transforms nothing. Neither amounts to its job. Its job is to plumb experience, dredge up the inchoate, and, with any luck, bring up the numinous. Said again, and going back to the Greek tragedies, the record is on my side. Thinking art transformative is a sure killer.

Tere








Last edited by arkava, Apr/18/2015, 9:36 am
Apr/18/2015, 9:30 am Link to this post Send Email to arkava   Send PM to arkava Blog
 


Add a reply





You are not logged in (login)