The Philosopher and the Artist

[Endymion]

What is the difference between an artist and a philosopher? It is my bit and wagon to believe that true philosophers are artists, vice versa. What philosopher would ever concede himself the ideal that his own works could ever satisfy the quest of philosophy in general, the search for truth? What true artist would ever despise the greatest values of his novel mind, and rest with the idea that he is the artist who paints what society only has given him?
Both take the intimate knowledge of form and command it. They recognize types, presentation, and temporal modes. They set about a medium of accord with man, so its like the varying tones of a deep new melody; people either find it pulling towards satisfaction, thus inspiring or lacking and worthy of expunction or transformation.
I'm astounded with the shear adeptness and acuity required by a lifetime of genuine effort. Nietszche, Marx and the offshoots of Critical theory, Sartre and the movements of postmodernism revolve around a center of which all human beings share whether they see it or not. There is nothing in me to suggest that a study of philosophy as well as art is the the big finale for it in-itself, the sought after goal in life. These are precursory materials with which we dominate the world and further inspiration and capacity to love. But I'm boggled at how sparse and worthless these things are to people.

[xorbie]

Here is how I see it. Great artists, great philosophers, great scientists, great mathematicians - they all saw things that nobody had seen before. The difference is what talent they had to express it. Some were great writers, composers, mathematicians .. well you get the point.

So, to be a great artist requires not only quite a lot of artistic talent, but also a "revelation" of sorts.

[spacer1]

Originally posted by xorbie:
Great artists, great philosophers, great scientists, great mathematicians - they all saw things that nobody had seen before.
I agree, sort of. I would prefer to say that they all saw things that everybody has seen before, but which nobody had previously recognized, or expressed, in that way before.

[Thomas Ash]

Sorry to disagree with everyone, but I think philosohers and artists are very different. In fact, great though art may be for many things (entertainment, enlargement of interests, etc.) I think it's a pretty terrible and misleading medium in which to discuss philosophy and truths more generally. Metaphor, simile and fictional cases which ,ay bear no resemblance to morality muddy the waters terrible. A favourite example oif mine is Dickens' Hard Times which creates a complete straw man of Utilitarianism and then proceeds to 'disproove' it (as Dickens states was his intent) by shwoing that it leads to the ruin of all concerned... in his fictional world where he can make it lead to whatever he damn pleases, of course. :mad:

[drmatik]

Philosophy is the the art of the thought. Stress that word art

matik

[Keith Russell]

As an artist myself, I know lots of artists.

Few of them have much--if any--knowledge of philosophy.

None of the artists I know are what I would also call 'philosophers'.

Many of the artists I know don't even think consciously about art. They do what they do, and they believe that it would be a waste of time to thoughtfully reflect on what they do, or why they do it.

I disagree, but that doesn't mean that I'm right.

For me, it is not only important, but crucial to my art that I reflect--even at length--about what I do and why.

But, I do believe I am the exception.

K

[Thomas Ash]

Hi Keith,

That's very interesting. I guess you should know better than me, as I'm not even slightly artistic (in the sense of being able to 'do' art myself.) A lot of people I know find the philosophy of aesthetics fascinating, and though I don't myself I can totally sympathise.

Best wishes,

Thomas Ash


__________
Check out my website for all :cool: infidels, Atheist Ground (http://www.bigissueground.com/atheistground/) - and my broader website on politics, philosophy, science and history - Big Issue Ground (http://www.bigissueground.com/)!

[John Page]

Originally posted by drmatik
Philosophy is the the art of the thought. Stress that word art
Nicely summarized.... so the beauty of the thought is in the mind of the thinker? Seems to me both art and philosophy are about achieving states of mind/feelings etc. and communicating them.

[Thomas Ash]

Originally posted by John Page
Nicely summarized.... so the beauty of the thought is in the mind of the thinker? Seems to me both art and philosophy are about achieving states of mind/feelings etc. and communicating them.

Isn't philosophy also about achieving truth (I know you don't like that word from the thread about 'Absolute Truth' last year... I'll just state again i don't mean capital-T Truth, whatever that is... :confused: ) Or do you believe that beauty really is alway truth, and truth always beauty. Well, the vilely anti-Semitic elements of Wagner are expressed in beautiful German, but the sentiment is horseshit. An on the flip side, horseshit isn't beautiful, but it is true (well, its existence is... you know what I mean.)

best wishes, Thomas

[John Page]

Originally posted by Thomas Ash
Isn't philosophy also about achieving truth ............Or do you believe that beauty really is alway truth, and truth always beauty......

Thomas:

Hmmm, I think philosophy is about achieving understanding of reality - of which truths are a subjective part. Art can be about the truth of someone else's thoughts and feelings - communicated through the rendering of subjects. Arguably, the more abstract the topic, the more abstract the thought that goes with it. I could also say that art communicates without an intervening formal language and is thus able to communicate a range of things not possible with words - perhaps with less distortion.

Truth and beauty? Both subjective and not necessarily coterminus within a single subject. Truth can hurt and truth can be really ugly. Beauty can be achieved with a lie.

Cheers, John

[Luiseach]

Originally posted by John Page
I could also say that art communicates without an intervening formal language and is thus able to communicate a range of things not possible with words - perhaps with less distortion.



John:

You make an interesting point here about the role of art in expressing something that cannot be fully expressed using words.

How about the literary arts, which are (obviously!) constructed of words?

That is, can literary language (metaphor, simile, allegory, allusion, symbolism) express a fuller range of meanings than non-literary language?

[Thomas Ash]

Fair enough, John. But I do think it's best being cautious about whether the 'message' of a piece of art (if of course it has a simple 'message' which a lot of art doesn't, all power to it) is sound or just ludicrous. I think my Hard Times example is the best example of this, as Dickens very clearly was trying to drive home a point, which wouldn't have stood up to a second of examination.

Best wishes,

Thomas

[John Page]

Originally posted by Luiseach
How about the literary arts, which are (obviously!) constructed of words?
Point taken - any aspect of reality can be characterized as art. Hmmm god as anthropomorphized creation artist. ;)
Originally posted by Luiseach
That is, can literary language (metaphor, simile, allegory, allusion, symbolism) express a fuller range of meanings than non-literary language?
Yes, I am sure of this. While I can imagine an artistic body language equivalent of the literal "Bugger Off!" I cannot think how you would communicate the qualities of prose except prosaically, for example.

Cheers, John

[John Page]

Originally posted by Thomas Ash
But I do think it's best being cautious about whether the 'message' of a piece of art.....
Caution agreed - the message perceived may not be the one intended. An expression of humble and honored welcome through the art of sacrificing a goat might be received as a message potraying a primitive civilization and belief system, for example.

Cheers, John

[xorbie]

Just for the record, I said great artists are like great philosophers, mathematicians and scientists. This is mostly a position I hold as a result of a discussion I once had in a Brit Lit class in HS about "artistic temprament."

Anyway, I never said that artists are anything like philosophers or scientists, I said that the greatness in them is similiar. Or to put it another way, in order to be great them must do similiar things. Artists and philosophers must aproach truth from vastly different routes, but when I hear a brilliant piece by James Horner (one of the few classical composers I actually enjoy... I guess I need to mature more or something), I can't help but feel this is the "truth" in some way. Also, I feel almost exactly the same way when I solve a math problem in (what I find) to be an elegant way and when I listen to great music.

Take from it what you will.

******************

The Wise Grasshopper