RoR: Forum

Beautiful. I must say, I didn't know other people cried and all too... how many of you have? And at what work of art?

Post 1

Wednesday, September 21, 2005 - 7:57am

Peter wrote: "Why does great art move us? Because it speaks to the whole of us, and to everything we know and stand for."

This is true. My reaction is often immediate. I laugh, or I cry, I get goosebumps, or feel my face becoming flushed. "It speaks to me" seems mystical but isnt. What it (great art) does is speak to "everything we know and stand for" and my values. When the connection is made, like the pieces of a puzzle fitting together, its a beautiful thing and I feel tremendous gratitude to the artist.

Well done Peter.

John

Post 2

Thursday, September 22, 2005 - 10:43am

Peter,

Very good article on explaining the basics. (bonk)

I notice that you did what I did, though. Responding to a Sense of Life is the entire basis of responding to art, i.e. the foundation of your article (and, from another aspect, the foundation of my recent one on addiction). Sense of Life is a psycho-epistemological concept. Yet the word, psycho-epistemology is curiously absent from both your article and mine. Why do we do that?

Rand's definition (which I gave on another thread) from The Psycho-Epistemology of Art, The Romantic Manifesto, is as follows:

Psycho-epistemology is the study of man's cognitive processes from the aspect of the interaction between the conscious mind and the automatic functions of the subconscious.

Michael

Post 3

Thursday, September 22, 2005 - 5:03pm

Michael,

Thank you.

There are lots of important aspects of art I didn't cover. Brevity naturally demands selectivity. And 'the basics' means eschewing jargon as much as possible. :-)

Is there a further point to the question that I've missed?

Post 4

Thursday, September 22, 2005 - 7:43pm

Peter,

Are you asking if I have some kind of subtext in making my observation? No. Not at all.

I am simply surprised by the absence of the use of the word, psycho-epistemology, in general.

You see, when you put your own arguments together, you based your view on metaphysics and epistemology much in the same manner as I did. Yet the idea of psycho-epistemology is an essential concept to the discussion.

You left it implied. So did I.

Curious, that's all.

Maybe it's time to restore a bit of interest in this aspect. (I certainly will focus on it a bit now.)

Michael

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 9/22, 9:29pm)

Post 5

Sunday, September 25, 2005 - 9:52am