Rebirth of Reason

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3

Post 60

Tuesday, January 28, 2003 - 9:42amSanction this postReply
Wow! This has been one of the best discussions on SOLOHQ!!! In addition to the epiphany I experienced by Michael's words, I've had another with Peter's statement about the various dichotomies -- specifically, the one about art versus entertainment! I knew that I was dealing with such a dichotomy emotionally, but could never place it in proper intellectual perspective and was more or less content to have my guilty pleasures with entertainment. *grin*

Thank you Peter!

And yes, men with beards can't be trusted and that is a very good thing! Makes you always question their motives and see for yourself what is up.


Yes, I know that came out rather awkward but I'll let it stand as Freud was mentioned a time or two in this discussion. :)

Thank you everyone for a most enlightening discussion that has done so much in helping me work out many internal issues and previously unanswerable questions. This has been the most mind blowing discussion and so passionate too! I love it!

I too have to get back to work now, but I definitely feel refueled, both spiritually and intellectually!

Thank you!

Joy :)

Post 61

Thursday, December 4, 2003 - 8:41amSanction this postReply
It is good to see that this questions are still ununsered! If architecture has hibernated since the 14th century, i may agree; but if the concept of the word has changed in the way we "make cities", i just have to agree with all the twentyeth century film writters, vanguardist painters, and all of the curious and meddling persons, who "destroid" architecture. IT WAS BRUNELLESCHI'S FAULT!
(I'm sorry about my english)
Weel done, for openning our minds into the autocriticism... and stop beeing autistic.

Post 62

Tuesday, May 11, 2004 - 3:58pmSanction this postReply
I know for many this discussion is long dead - but not for me. :-)

Regarding our discussion of the artistic value - or not - of the likes of couture, cookie jars and mediaeval chairs, Aristotle as always is informative and instructive; and so it turns out is Plato! As it happens, I've realised their respective discussions of analogy and metaphor are directly analogous to the 'cookie jar argument.'

But first, to recap: We essentially agreed in our discussion that art is intended to be our 'shortcut to metaphysics,' and I pointed out that  "essentially, there needs to be a sufficient level of complexity within the nature of the object to allow the artist to integrate and communicate a view of the world by means of that object." I went on to suggest that we should recognise there is a threshold of complexity below which an object is not really able to offer us sufficient metaphysical insight to constitute being called 'art' - unless that is it is part of a wider ensemble: "For a cookie jar that is part of an architectural ensemble however, that jar may well be an integrated component in the whole 'universe' which the architect is creating to live in - by its texture, colouring, convenience etc. and by its placement within the whole 'gesamptkuntswerk' the architect can say something about how important it is (or not) to enjoy delightful nibbles. :-)"

Now, what both Plato and Aristotle bring to the discussion is the idea that mimetic devices like analogy and metaphor are themselves a way of being a shortcut to understanding - by their very nature, as Aristotle asserted, they cause us to "learn and make inferences." What strikes me is that if our cookie jar is an integral and well-designed part of a larger ensemble that is itself causing us to learn and make inferences, then the cookie jar is somewhat similar in nature to a metaphor in a larger work - much like the position occupied by, for example, Plato's cave or the Myth of Er in his Republic.
Neat, huh. :-)


Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Post 63

Sunday, August 7, 2005 - 12:11pmSanction this postReply
As pointed out in other postings, the major problem here is the use of the word 'Art' to designate two distinct things - one, the notion of the 'fine arts', that which is there for its own sake, which is for contemplation... the second, tho, is that which is broader, and which properly is utilized by the term 'aesthetics', the study of beauty and form... sorry to again post a disagreement here, but Art is for contemplative use, and 'Craft' is for utilitarian use - thus architecture, for all the aesthetics it has, is NOT Art, but a highly worked [at best] Craft, a utility merged in aeasthetics...

Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3

User ID Password or create a free account.