Wanderer Registered User
Posts: 6
(11/3/01 5:24 pm) Reply
Art and Nature
I think of art as a natural phenomenon, the product of imagination and the desire to create meaning. At the same time, art represents nature, creating the idea that art and nature are opposed to each other. Speaking specifically about drama and verse, Nietzsche put it this way (in The Gay Science):
Quote: We have developed a need that we cannot satisfy in reality: to hear people in the most difficult situations speak well and at length; we are delighted when the tragic hero still finds words, reasons, eloquent gestures, and altogether intellectual brightness, where life approaches abysses and men in reality usually lose their heads and certainly linguistic felicity. This kind of deviation from nature is perhaps the most agreeable repast for human pride: for its sake man loves art as the expression of a lofty, heroic unnaturalness and convention. . . . At this point nature is supposed to be contradicted. Here the vulgar attraction of illusion is supposed to give way to a higher attraction.
My initial reaction to this passage is that so much has changed since it was written. The "tragic hero" has been supplanted by the anti-hero, though I think this transformation is still somewhat marginal. Realism has emerged, and now even that is a relic from a past age. Post-modern art carries the weight of historical awareness, which it attempts to throw off by manipulating the ways in which we perceive history--in essence, by manipulating and changing the ways we perceive perception itself.
The issue, as I see it, has to do with the distinction between art and nature. Art imitates life, life imitates art. Where do we draw the line between them? Must the relationship be one of opposition? Does this relationship change depending on the medium of expression?
Edited because a horrible post monster somehow deleted half of the quotation and the subsequent commentary. Grrrrrr.Edited by: Wanderer at: 11/3/01 6:39:17 pm
I have asked this question over and again, Mr. Wanderer. I have found that by incorporating the role of science, my question felt far more natural to me.
I feel that art simply expresses what is seen of life from the perspective of one hemisphere of the brain, where science expresses what is seen of life from the perspective of the other hemisphere. In each case, one is experiencing our universe from their perspective, interpreting it, then re-expressing it. Through our art or science then, it seems, we are simply, ultimately, become an echo of creation.
Edited by: Alfreda L at: 11/4/01 4:36:34 am
Re: Art and Nature
You bring up an interesting point, Alfreda L. The relationship between science and nature is generally not questioned. Yet, as with art, science is just another way of representing nature.
The difference, as I see it, is that science has a specific method which is geared towards the classification of phenomena and prediction of events; science considers itself a tool, not an end in itself. The scientist approaches nature as a challenge, a problem to be solved with reason and experiment.
Art, on the other hand, has no specific method and considers itself an end in itself. The artist favors imagination over reason (though reason is never discarded.) Experimentation is no longer simply an attempt to test a hypothesis, but an exploration of the boundaries of substance and form. Nature is not taken up as a problem to be solved and regulated, but as a source of inspiration. The artist finds the deepest connection to nature in the process of expression and creation.
Yet, unlike science, art often seems to work hard at explicitly contradicting nature.
I was walking down the street yesterday, noticing how beautiful the trees looked. For a moment, I felt close to nature. Then I noticed that the trees and other plants were all planted in controlled locations, out of the way. In every city, nature is domesticated. For the majority of people, untamed, orgiastic nature is not desirable, not beautiful. Yet "artificial selection" is still natural. We are all a part of the untamed, orgiastic universe. Does art have a responsibility to challenge the domestication of nature?
Edited by: Wanderer at: 11/6/01 12:38:55 pm
If I take the quote...I think Nietzsche is objecting to the "uberkill" of the romaniticism in works (both literary and visual) of his time. One need only stare at a Kaspar David Friedrich painting (a contemporary of the sage's) to understand the level of swooning to which artists/writers/composers were drawn during this time period. Although I am not certain, I suspect as you do, that the level of cynicism which flows through the minds of today was not quite so entrenched back then. Thus, the glory of the human spirit was both demonstrated and believed by people who didn't have their tongues firmly planted in their cheeks. There's nothing he hates more than the undeserved, complacent pats on the back which humanity figures out a way to bestow upon itself.
Is he concerned with nature itself here, or is he concerned with the rendering of nature with fraudulence?
I get the sense that Hollywood films would be about as close as our age could come to presenting an example which would be similiar to the art he's talking about (where the hero blows away 50 guys without breaking a sweat and grumbles some "superCool" glib line under his breath as he walks away the only survivor)...and those are a whole subject unto themselves.
You appear to be more interested in art's relationship to nature...human or otherwise. This is a hard one. Usually when one tries to escape looking like what one is, one ends up looking all the more that way:
Humans are domesticated and it's hard for a domesticated human to make an undomesticated work of art/writing/music. The historical attempts made to "return to nature" may have shocked a few people at the time but they resulted in artistic efforts which were far more telling about the nature of the "civilized" human engaged in them than the freedom of nature itself. (I'm thinking of Gaugain, Rousseau, Thoreau and even Dillard here). In the case of the first two, a pair of painters, the experiment (to my mind) failed. Gaugain's Tahitian women make beautiful paintings but it's also impossible to look at them without thinking him a massive and syphallitic middle class French fool who is out of place.
That which you seek to destroy, you reinforce.
In general, I'm not sure that art is necassarily contrary to nature...I see it more as one of many ways in which nature expresses itself through us. We may build the shopping mall and the parking lot, we may line the trees up with the boulevard, but we are in the grip of an innate aesthetic of the human mind...installed within us long before these creations were possible...by the same nature which put us here.
If anything, I like Platos grumpy pronouncement that art is forgery...it's good enough. Look at what wonderful variations are possible with centuries of forgeries. Edited by: NousPoetikos at: 11/6/01 3:56:09 pm
Intervention and Flow
Posts: 18
(11/6/01 3:52 pm) Reply
Re: Art and Nature
I'm glad you added that link, Nous. I particularly like the portrait of me contemplating the fog. (That one is now my wallpaper.)
Quote: Is he concerned with nature itself here, or is he concerned with the rendering of nature with fraudulence?
Difficult question. He was talking about Greek tragedy and rhetoric--about the desire of an audience to see and hear people acting out in ways which they cannot do in their own lives. The question, then, seems not to be about art as a "truthful" or "fraudulent" description of nature, but art as a cathartic tool which manipulates and attempts to resolve our frustration with nature (circumstance.)
I was going to mention Hollywood, too, as Hollywood thrives on fraudulent and manipulative concepts. But can any art truly be innocent in this respect?
Quote: Humans are domesticated and it's hard for a domesticated human to make an undomesticated work of art/writing/music.
I'm not sure if art can be completely undomesticated, yet . . .
Do you feel a responsibility as an artist to challenge domestication, to lead your audience away from the easy concepts which structure their everyday lives? Perhaps art is necessary to remind us that domestication is a process with intangible boundaries. In that sense, "nature" could be the grey area which defines the vague periphery of our thoughts.
Edited by: Wanderer at: 11/6/01 6:07:23 pm
Re: Art and Nature
I feel it is a reflection of our perception of nature as we would like it to be. If we really reflected nature it would be nothing but violence, so we show or hopes.
A painting of a mother nuzzling her youngster is cute,it is also heart warming. The point that is over looked is that most mothers in nature have multiple young. Do we ever ask ourselves what happened to the others?
Re: Art and Nature
Sorry to have put this off, Wanderer, with your mind around, I am always forced to eat my Wheaties before posting....and usually, I'm too spacey to find them in the first place.
Quote: The question, then, seems not to be about art as a "truthful" or "fraudulent" description of nature, but art as a cathartic tool which manipulates and attempts to resolve our frustration with nature (circumstance.)
Sorry Wanderer, my mind was moving back into the G(r)eeks and I misunderstood you...although I picked up on the egotism of humans reflecting the impossible in art...as did Keld.
I guess I'm not certain that Nietzsche thinks using art is a cathartic tool is a good thing...especially not when it serves the purpose of society and the "culture" he opposes...I'm a bit unclear as to whether you are proposing or opposing the idea as well.....?
Quote: I was going to mention Hollywood, too, as Hollywood thrives on fraudulent and manipulative concepts. But can any art truly be innocent in this respect?
Probably not...as Keld points out, most things are made with a certain romanticized vision of reality...even if that reality is unspeakably cruel (read Sade) or black (Celine, Goya, Bataille)...there is still a fantasy of perfection lurking behind the expression.
I think in the case of film, the images are more purposly exploitative of concepts which function culturally. In other words, John Wayne is a custom fit for film...as is Marilyn Monroe or Arnold Schwartzenegger. Characters from novels may make the journey to the silver screen...because they are complex enough to do so...but mass produced film tends to dull down the edges and place the exploitation of the viewer before the story. The most infamous moment in my mind is the 10 minute scene in Dances With Wolves where the men were aiming at the wolf before killing it. The reviews in LA lambasted that part of the film...and indeed...even though my eyes were tearing up I *hated* the fact that the overly trite Hollywood charicatures and swelling film score had "gotten to me". The effort on the filmmakers part was so transparent that I felt like a chump sitting there sniffling.
Good art, IMHO, no matter how romantic, should not be blatantly manipulative.
Quote:
I'm not sure if art can be completely undomesticated, yet . . .
Do you feel a responsibility as an artist to challenge domestication, to lead your audience away from the easy concepts which structure their everyday lives? Perhaps art is necessary to remind us that domestication is a process with intangible boundaries. In that sense, "nature" could be the grey area which defines the vague periphery of our thoughts.
I shall turn that around and lob it back to you: what is easy and what is hard? When does art which plays with perception become more about perception than art?
As an example, is John Cage hard, easy? Is it art? Is it music? Or does it fall flat and become more of an attempt to prove the boundaries of what perception has patience for? Is anything which tests perceptual boundaries art? If so, is there an audience for it? ...and if not, should that matter?
Re: Art and Nature
I hope nobody comes away from this thinking that I don't appreciate nature art. I have my own "romanticized" perceptions or views however you prefer. Even if I am a willing participant in the hunt.
I love Japanese surf
Chinese Karst
Purple mountains
Ducks on the wing
Intervention and Flow
Posts: 49
(12/3/01 2:35 pm) Reply
Re: Art and Nature Nous
Quote: Sorry to have put this off, Wanderer, with your mind around, I am always forced to eat my Wheaties before posting....and usually, I'm too spacey to find them in the first place.
The feeling is mutual.
Wanderer Intervention and Flow
Posts: 55
(12/9/01 3:16 pm) Reply
Art and Nature Nous Sorry it took so long for the response.
Quote: I guess I'm not certain that Nietzsche thinks using art is a cathartic tool is a good thing...especially not when it serves the purpose of society and the "culture" he opposes...I'm a bit unclear as to whether you are proposing or opposing the idea as well.....?
I'm trying to determine if there is a good side and a bad side to the process, and whether the process is necessary and unavoidable. I wouldn't want to reduce the question to a matter of right vs. wrong.
Quote: The effort on the filmmakers part was so transparent that I felt like a chump sitting there sniffling.
That movie is one of few that bring me to tears. Sure, it is transparent, but that does not make it less honest. Schindler's List is another example, as is Dead Poets Society. They all get to me, but not in very subtle ways.
Quote: what is easy and what is hard?
What is hard is what is least accessible to the population. What is easy is what is most abundant and in accordance with the population's expectations.
Quote: When does art which plays with perception become more about perception than art?
I'm not sure how to answer that question. I think all art is about perception. All art is self-referential, to the extent that it calls attention to the fact that it is not what it is representing.
Quote: As an example, is John Cage hard, easy? Is it art? Is it music? Or does it fall flat and become more of an attempt to prove the boundaries of what perception has patience for? Is anything which tests perceptual boundaries art? If so, is there an audience for it? ...and if not, should that matter?
I think art that is explicity directed at challenging dominant concepts should not be punished any more than art that is explicitly directed at propogating dominant concepts. Whether or not an audience exists for any particular artists is a matter of will and luck.
Edited by: 
Topic Commands
Click to receive email notification of replies 
Click to stop receiving email notification of replies