4 ms·

I think there is a deep truth here. Most artists are acute observers of the human condition. They distill the products of such observation into artistic truths

I think there is a deep truth here. Most artists are acute observers of the human condition. They distill the products of such observation into artistic truths and evolve forms to freshly present their insights. The problem is that there is only so much an acute observer can learn about the human condition and share with us. Have we really experienced many people who have pushed the limits of such acuity materially further than did Shakespeare? I think not. It takes tools to advance beyond casual empiricism. And this is why science has indeed outstripped art as a lens with which to wonder at the world. For a person who has recognized that his/her time is finite and who wishes to drain as much understanding of the wonder of the world as possible in this short allotment the density of insights to be gained from reading scientific journals is many times greater than that to be had by reading even the most brilliant of novelists. Once you've read Shakespeare, Tolstoy and some more of a greats (a worthy business to be sure) diminishing returns soon sets in. Look to science for brighter lights.

abraininavat 13y ago
Most artists are acute observers of the human condition. Seriously? Most artists? Do you mean "most famous artists", or "the most accomplished artists", or "the best artists", or something like that? Or do you mean something like "artists tend to be more acute observers of the human condition than non-artists"? I agree with the rest of your post, so if you meant the statement as it's written I'm going to assume that you either haven't met many artists or that you've just been lucky with the ones you've met.
- pjbrunet 13y ago
  LOL. That bothered me too. I don't think art is limited, or should be limited, by our humanity. Just because we're physical beings, doesn't mean we're limited by the physical world. I'd argue many artists find the physical world boring, which is why they're drawn to art.
CamperBob2 13y ago
The problem is that there is only so much an acute observer can learn about the human condition and share with us. Very good point. We'll ultimately have to ask ourselves if -- paraphrasing Borges -- art and literature can exhaust their own possibilities. I think they can. We need to ask new questions, because the old ones have all been addressed adequately by now. Like you, I seem to spend a lot more time reading scientific and technical material nowadays, and almost none reading novels or fiction of any kind. I'm only moderately well-read, but even so, every bit of fiction that I read seems redundant with something I've already read. A disturbing line of thought.

abraininavat 13y ago

Most artists are acute observers of the human condition. Seriously? Most artists? Do you mean "most famous artists", or "the most accomplished artists", or "the best artists", or something like that? Or do you mean something like "artists tend to be more acute observers of the human condition than non-artists"? I agree with the rest of your post, so if you meant the statement as it's written I'm going to assume that you either haven't met many artists or that you've just been lucky with the ones you've met.

pjbrunet 13y ago
LOL. That bothered me too. I don't think art is limited, or should be limited, by our humanity. Just because we're physical beings, doesn't mean we're limited by the physical world. I'd argue many artists find the physical world boring, which is why they're drawn to art.

CamperBob2 13y ago

The problem is that there is only so much an acute observer can learn about the human condition and share with us. Very good point. We'll ultimately have to ask ourselves if -- paraphrasing Borges -- art and literature can exhaust their own possibilities. I think they can. We need to ask new questions, because the old ones have all been addressed adequately by now. Like you, I seem to spend a lot more time reading scientific and technical material nowadays, and almost none reading novels or fiction of any kind. I'm only moderately well-read, but even so, every bit of fiction that I read seems redundant with something I've already read. A disturbing line of thought.