5 ms·

> any new deep truth What is a 'truth' in art. Also, what is a 'deep truth' specifically. > factual understanding of the real world Can you name me a few fac

> any new deep truth What is a 'truth' in art. Also, what is a 'deep truth' specifically. > factual understanding of the real world Can you name me a few factual understandings that art has brought.

sixstringtheory 4y ago
"Truth" and "understanding" are both things that have changed throughout human history, they are not fixed. Art can be something that changes the way you understand the world, which would change your idea of what the truth is about reality. I just rewatched Goodfellas the other day. No doubt that film brought a deeper understanding for many many people about mafia philosophy, history and events, and inspired more research (I went down a Wikipedia rabbit hole after watching it, myself). Dali's melting clocks might suggest a new way to conceive of time. I only dabble a little in science fiction, but my impression is that it has historically inspired plenty of scientific and engineering endeavors, including AI generated art (and I'm sure there are plenty of dystopians out there that may show how it could go wrong). Reading literature from everything between the ancients and contemporaries, I'm constantly finding things that parallel my current interpersonal challenges and give me new insights. What is "truth" to you?
- zasdffaa 4y ago
  FYI <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth> "Truth is the property of being in accord with fact or reality" Your post is just a typical arts-based response. Not rigorous, sloppy, with "No doubt", "might suggest", "my impression is", "interpersonal challenges". It's just a sloppy mess that can't be engaged with, quite deliberately. Edit, if I sound frustrated I am. I'm trying to get a better handle on 'art' so I can understand what is there and what its genuinely worth to other people. It's rare to get anything other than gloop, from which I'm starting to wonder at the bona fides of people who say supportive things of art. Generative art is frankly amazing - how much input was from artists (any at all?), how much was from scientists/mathematicians? (and how much from the intersection of the two if that's not empty).
  - Bakary 4y ago
    The problem is that it can take a long time to explain certain feelings or ideas you get from art (of any form), and even the attempt is a bit painful or downright impossible. A very low-level example would be a Jackson Pollock or Mondrian painting. It's just a bunch of... stuff but it's extremely visually pleasing compared to just random blotches. There are theories as to why that might be[0] but overall, it would be nigh impossible to tell you why I personally find these pieces compelling because the reason is almost unconscious and tactile. A medium level example would be a song that inspires a certain narrative in your mind. For instance, that intro song by the XX gives me all sorts of conflicting emotions that could be summarized as 'wanting to do more with my life', but the summary doesn't do it justice at all. A higher-level example would be a piece of literature read at the right time in your life. It's a show-don't-tell type of exercise where the author exposes ideas to you about life or the world without spelling them out explicitly. Sometimes the ideas don't have much to do with the surface details of the narrative. In many ways, it is similar to experiences you actually lived yourself and that imparted ideas or lessons to you. If you are not in the same headspace, this will seem like a con or pretentious nonsense. But what is really going on is that trying to explain it is often like trying to explain a joke or a subtle social interaction to someone who didn't get it. My friend once tried to explain to me the beauty of the Carmack fast invert square root, and I didn't really get it because I lacked certain foundational ideas. But there was no doubt in my mind that he was seeing artistic worth in that moment, and that despite me being unable to understand it it was certainly not 'gloop'. Trying to come at it with the combative Wikipedia-article-on-fallacies/STEM vs. art mindset is self-defeating, like interpreting the scientific method as a tool for prescriptive claims. [0] https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/01/why-fractals-are-so-soothing/514520/ https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/01/why-frac...
    - zasdffaa 4y ago
      I don't have time to do this very good answer justice, I'm sorry. Let me try and be brief. Some people like Pollocks or Mondrians, some don't, and one thing I'm asking really is that people be honest and not pretend. Such honesty is a kind of rigour. if we accept that certain kinds of art are liked by some people and not by others then questions have to be asked about what I some art is considered good generally (and goes in the gallery) and some isn't. To ask this question is also a kind of rigour. Art I don't believe can be justified in any scientific sense, but I think the art may be judgeable in its own context, and I'm fine with that, provided we try. This too is a kind of rigour. I perfectly understand the your fast inverse square root, or Euler's e/i/pi/-1 formuala are beautiful to some, they are not to you and me. Let's be careful with that, try and understand, and tolerate people's differences instead of saying "this is beautiful" and "this is not beautiful" (because that's an absolutist position). This is a kind of rigour. I agree, scientific method is not appropriate, but something else is. Let's try to find it? Anyway, that is an absolutely excellent answer and while it doesn't answer my questions, it does open up the hope that these questions can be answered or at least approached. For which, thank you! Edit: somehow some just is bad, check out http://museumofbadart.org/collections/ http://museumofbadart.org/collections/ I'd wear dark shades if I were you, some of this stuff blisters the eyes.

> any new deep truth What is a 'truth' in art. Also, what is a 'deep truth' specifically. > factual understanding of the real world Can you name me a few factual understandings that art has brought.

sixstringtheory 4y ago

"Truth" and "understanding" are both things that have changed throughout human history, they are not fixed. Art can be something that changes the way you understand the world, which would change your idea of what the truth is about reality. I just rewatched Goodfellas the other day. No doubt that film brought a deeper understanding for many many people about mafia philosophy, history and events, and inspired more research (I went down a Wikipedia rabbit hole after watching it, myself). Dali's melting clocks might suggest a new way to conceive of time. I only dabble a little in science fiction, but my impression is that it has historically inspired plenty of scientific and engineering endeavors, including AI generated art (and I'm sure there are plenty of dystopians out there that may show how it could go wrong). Reading literature from everything between the ancients and contemporaries, I'm constantly finding things that parallel my current interpersonal challenges and give me new insights. What is "truth" to you?

zasdffaa 4y ago
FYI <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth> "Truth is the property of being in accord with fact or reality" Your post is just a typical arts-based response. Not rigorous, sloppy, with "No doubt", "might suggest", "my impression is", "interpersonal challenges". It's just a sloppy mess that can't be engaged with, quite deliberately. Edit, if I sound frustrated I am. I'm trying to get a better handle on 'art' so I can understand what is there and what its genuinely worth to other people. It's rare to get anything other than gloop, from which I'm starting to wonder at the bona fides of people who say supportive things of art. Generative art is frankly amazing - how much input was from artists (any at all?), how much was from scientists/mathematicians? (and how much from the intersection of the two if that's not empty).
- Bakary 4y ago
  The problem is that it can take a long time to explain certain feelings or ideas you get from art (of any form), and even the attempt is a bit painful or downright impossible. A very low-level example would be a Jackson Pollock or Mondrian painting. It's just a bunch of... stuff but it's extremely visually pleasing compared to just random blotches. There are theories as to why that might be[0] but overall, it would be nigh impossible to tell you why I personally find these pieces compelling because the reason is almost unconscious and tactile. A medium level example would be a song that inspires a certain narrative in your mind. For instance, that intro song by the XX gives me all sorts of conflicting emotions that could be summarized as 'wanting to do more with my life', but the summary doesn't do it justice at all. A higher-level example would be a piece of literature read at the right time in your life. It's a show-don't-tell type of exercise where the author exposes ideas to you about life or the world without spelling them out explicitly. Sometimes the ideas don't have much to do with the surface details of the narrative. In many ways, it is similar to experiences you actually lived yourself and that imparted ideas or lessons to you. If you are not in the same headspace, this will seem like a con or pretentious nonsense. But what is really going on is that trying to explain it is often like trying to explain a joke or a subtle social interaction to someone who didn't get it. My friend once tried to explain to me the beauty of the Carmack fast invert square root, and I didn't really get it because I lacked certain foundational ideas. But there was no doubt in my mind that he was seeing artistic worth in that moment, and that despite me being unable to understand it it was certainly not 'gloop'. Trying to come at it with the combative Wikipedia-article-on-fallacies/STEM vs. art mindset is self-defeating, like interpreting the scientific method as a tool for prescriptive claims. [0] https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/01/why-fractals-are-so-soothing/514520/ https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/01/why-frac...
  - zasdffaa 4y ago
    I don't have time to do this very good answer justice, I'm sorry. Let me try and be brief. Some people like Pollocks or Mondrians, some don't, and one thing I'm asking really is that people be honest and not pretend. Such honesty is a kind of rigour. if we accept that certain kinds of art are liked by some people and not by others then questions have to be asked about what I some art is considered good generally (and goes in the gallery) and some isn't. To ask this question is also a kind of rigour. Art I don't believe can be justified in any scientific sense, but I think the art may be judgeable in its own context, and I'm fine with that, provided we try. This too is a kind of rigour. I perfectly understand the your fast inverse square root, or Euler's e/i/pi/-1 formuala are beautiful to some, they are not to you and me. Let's be careful with that, try and understand, and tolerate people's differences instead of saying "this is beautiful" and "this is not beautiful" (because that's an absolutist position). This is a kind of rigour. I agree, scientific method is not appropriate, but something else is. Let's try to find it? Anyway, that is an absolutely excellent answer and while it doesn't answer my questions, it does open up the hope that these questions can be answered or at least approached. For which, thank you! Edit: somehow some just is bad, check out http://museumofbadart.org/collections/ http://museumofbadart.org/collections/ I'd wear dark shades if I were you, some of this stuff blisters the eyes.