Art, discovery or invention?: Philosophy Forums

Art, discovery or invention?
To what extent can we speak about art as a discovery or an invention?

Art, discovery or invention?

Mike23
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2009

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 1

Posted 09/25/09 - 03:53 AM: Subject: Art, discovery or invention?	#1
Hi all, Some time ago, I came across a discussion of whether mathematics is an invention or a discovery and after having thought of it for some while, I was wondering if one could answer this question with regard to art. For my part I would say that art which comprises several areas as music, literature, paintings and sculptures can't be answered using yes or no. Oftentimes artists say that art is a form of expression. Some might get inspired from certain things that were already there and thus one should speak of discovery. Michelangelo ones said: “Every block of stone has a statue inside it and it is the task of the sculptor to discover it.” However, isn't art also an invention of human mind? Had it already existed before mankind came on earth and called it art? What is your opinion about this issue? All answers welcomed Regards Mike

mark73
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 22, 2009

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 86

Posted 09/25/09 - 05:06 AM:	#2
I think a word gets its meaning from how its used. So for instance we say something is discovered when it already existed before humans (or when it is an aspect of the human organism that was "designed" by nature, such as our eyes), such as humans discovered oxygen. The word invention is used for something that came into existence through human action, such as humans invented cars. Now I think an important distinction needs to be made between the work of art and what art conveys. The work of art itself, such as the statue or the poem, is an invention. However what the art conveys may certainly be a discovery (either the artists or the discovery that some other human made). For example there is visual art that challenges our visual perception (im thinking of that painting or drawing where you see a man go up the stairs that appear to go up for ever in a loop). This certainly conveys something we did not invent, namely our own perceptual abilities. this is something we discovered. The quote by michelangelo I think is misleading. Michelangelo was a first rate artistic genius, but he was not a philosopher. His statement itself is very poetic but literally untrue. He is misusing the word discovery, perhaps for aestheic reasons. People simply do not use the concept in this way (or at least not today in our language). And the meaning of a word comes from its use.

jsidelko
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 08, 2009

Total Topics: 30
Total Posts: 264

Posted 09/25/09 - 05:33 AM:	#3
Both. Some artistic preferences are innate, e.g., appreciation of symmetry, originality, etc. Other preferences are learned, e.g., artistic styles. We create art and we find art among things we did not create. In both cases, our preferences are partially determined by innate and learned preferences.
thanatos

nelvan
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 14, 2008
Location: USA

Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 101

Posted 09/25/09 - 08:58 AM:	#4
Mike, I think some art is more like nature than others. Jewelry already exists in nature (precious stones). Some one simply decided to wear it and it became art. Later they shaped the stone to perfect it. The more straightedge a work of art, the more human it is. The more organic, the closer it is to nature. So a cathedral with is straight lines is more human but its arches are more organic. Something like a wigwam is even more organic. Music is more abstract therefore more human because it resembles language more than visual art. For example, symbols are used in visual art to resemble language. Symbols are not concerned with photographic representation but are simplified. And yet if one has heard a rain drop creating a rhythm or a bird singing, I suppose that is where the idea of music came. Literature and poetry is the most abstract, therefore the most human like or unnatural.

mark73
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 22, 2009

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 86

Posted 09/25/09 - 11:08 AM:	#5
Do we EVER say I discovered this painting (not one you bought but one you painted yourself)? We say I made this painting or I painted this painting. You cant just give new meanings to established words. This results in conceptual confussion so commonly found in philosophy. There is something important to say here about art but the proper words need to be used. I attempted that in my first post.

laurawalton
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2009
Location: Texas

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 4

Posted 09/26/09 - 11:24 AM:	#6
Hi Mike! Are you asking about art in general or specific artworks? I'm not sure how to respond without a little clarification :-) If you're talking about Art as a concept, then what you may be asking is this: did the principles of human-perspective aesthetics exist before humans? For instance, is the Golden Ratio really some kind of universal law that has applications outside the realm of what's pleasing to humans? That's one of tough ones, that's for sure, involving any amount of perspectivism, observer/observed conundrums, metaphysics, etc.. If you're talking about specific artworks, then what you may be asking is more along the lines of: where does insiration come from? Do ideas exist in some unexplained plane or mode of being, only to be "channeled" or "picked up" by an artist or scientist who is prepared to manifest them? That's also tricky! but is a very different question than the former.
"The philosopher Didactylos has summed up an alternative hypotheosis as 'Things just happen. What the hell.'" --Pratchett

tastytreats
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 1

Posted 09/26/09 - 11:43 AM:	#7
in my opinion, the will to create is from an individual's discovery of whatever inspires the individual artist to then create (or invent if original) whatever art they need to.

liquid knowledge
confused certainty

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 30, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 2

Posted 09/30/09 - 08:13 PM:	#8
Interesting question, but as a basis, my opinion is that "art" is whatever you want art to be. Whether it be already in existence, or a new creation. Though I can see where the contradictions lie with this, it really does depend on word choice. My beliefs are similar to Emerson in his quote, "Love of beauty is taste. Creation of beauty is art."
"Be like water; able to be murky and confusing, as well as translucent and clear - a fountain of death, and a fountain of life."

Tiger Singleton
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 30, 2009
Location: Southern Oregon

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 10

Posted 09/30/09 - 08:20 PM:	#9
"Creativity does not come from originality, it is remembered through collective possibility" ...a little esoteric I know. But at its core you may find truth.
Daily Insight for the Soul... www.PawUpClose.net - home of PAW Daily

Goaswerfraiejen
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 04, 2006
Location: Canada

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 427

Posted 11/19/09 - 12:42 PM:	#10
Neither. It is a cultural practice that has developed over time. Its roots may well lie in an entirely different practice (e.g. sympathetic magic, decoration, etc.). Frankly, I think that this is the best and most historical of the explanations of art's origins.

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.