Only God can make a tree?: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of the Arts » Only God can make a tree? » Only God can make a tree?

Page: 1 2

Only God can make a tree?

nielsky
utopian

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 27, 2006
Total Topics: 13
Total Posts: 63

Posted 01/27/06 - 07:57 AM: Subject: Only God can make a tree?	#1
Bonsai is an art form, a living art form that is, that has over time gathered universal adherents. From a wide ranging tree species, bonsai artists, if we may call them such, can turn trees in various art forms that are pleasing to the eyes of the beholder. So who says only God can make a tree? There are subliminal issues though about some environmentalist groups who could readily label what bonsai artists do as a peril to the environment. That, to some extent is true, since those who would really want to get the best 'materials', the more skilled hunters have to go to the wilds and hunt for these species. In the process, the so-called ecological balance may indeed been disturbed. It really depends how good hunters could bring down from the wilds as many as they could possibly dig and cut. Some trees made into bonsai have to be dugged up, others have to be cut up, others just cannot go by either way. Who can really defend bonsai as an art form against some rabid environmentalists who never want the ecological balance or the natural environment from being disturbed by men? Thus, must bonsai remain an art form of the years to come. Indeed, why keep trees of over a hundred to a thousand years live in a pot? Is that not being cruel in the name of art?

notquitethere
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 13, 2005
Location: Freefolk- England
Total Topics: 38
Total Posts: 949

Posted 01/27/06 - 05:11 PM:	#2
Some do argue that art is born of suffering, so the cruelty would be justified in a sense. Of course, I don't think a tree has intentionality, and thus it does not mind being stuck in a pot, as it has no mind. The ecological aspect is interesting- the trees are being actively preserved in a stunted form, so it's not as if rare trees are being destroyed forever. It does raise an interesting issue. Is a bonsai tree beautiful still, if many trees have to be destroyed and animal habitats lost to create it? It is is similiar to the question as to whether an ivory statue can be beautiful even though the elephant was poached, or whether a pyramid or great building can be beautiful even though it was created with slave labour. I reckon that it would be so. In a sense, art is amoral. Of course, having said that, our moral sensibilities may prevent us from appreciating something.
"Do not play tennis unless you can prance about daintily on the court"- Nina Farewell [1953] www.danglercomic.com -Doesn't everyone have a webcomic nowadays?

xxuxx
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 06, 2002
Total Topics: 100
Total Posts: 1184

Posted 01/29/06 - 09:22 AM:	#3
Some do argue that art is born of suffering So that's why Andy Warhole shot all those 8 hour long movies of absolutely nothing happening...he wanted his audience to suffer. I get it now. In fact, alot of art makes sense in the light of that exquisite theory. Thank you, you have inspired me to create some art of my own...

Cold Aesthetic Complex
Abstract Machine

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 24, 2004
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 69

Posted 01/30/06 - 05:36 AM:	#4
nielsky wrote: There are subliminal issues though about some environmentalist groups who could readily label what bonsai artists do as a peril to the environment. ... Who can really defend bonsai as an art form against some rabid environmentalists who never want the ecological balance or the natural environment from being disturbed by men? Thus, must bonsai remain an art form of the years to come. Indeed, why keep trees of over a hundred to a thousand years live in a pot? Is that not being cruel in the name of art? I'm by no means savvy on the subject of the bonsai art form, although I do know the basic concept/idea. Forgive me if my lack of knowledge overlooks some basic tenant(s) of bonsai by asking this question: are there any inhibitions to bonsai artists obtaining seeds and farming, as you put it, "materials," in a natural or synthetic habitat? Many animals interfere/assist with the proliferation of vegetation by transporting seeds via various methods: burrs sticking to fur, or squirrels burying acorns (often times forgetting where they hide them, thus spawning new oak trees.) Elements such as wind and water also provide ways to disperse seeds. With this, I have come to think that humans sowing seeds in the earth, (a la Johnny Appleseed,) or in a pot isn’t any different. In addition, the argument by which many vegetarians/vegans justify their diets--that plants don't have the capability to feel pain, [which has been argued on this forum before (http://forums.philosophyforums.com/comments.php?i...)], is pertinent here. Without inflicting some sort of unjustified pain to these plants, especially those grown particularly for bonsai practices (which, if not having been farmed, wouldn't otherwise exist,) doesn't seem like it would be "cruel." It is for these reasons I believe the bonsai art form scrupulous in nature and a harmless practice. notquitethere wrote: Some do argue that art is born of suffering, so the cruelty would be justified in a sense. If you can justify cruelty, is it instead called atonement? I think you're right, cruelty is inflicting any pain on another, it's just that I've never thought of, and found it amusing to read someone talk about justified cruelty. I always appreciate posts that make me consider something I haven't thought of before, even as small as a concept as that. With that said, I believe the notion that art is "born of suffering" to be something more a myth than a truism. In my own experience, I've found myself to turn to art for its therapeutic qualities, whether it be in words, pictures, and other poetic (in the manner of J.S. Mill's "What is Poetry?") means to articulate pains I've felt, however I find the reason for this to be more so a part of a larger concept. Many people use art as a way to express themselves, their emotions, thoughts, and other products yielded from that calculative womb, the brain, in dealing with resistance. Just like in physics, resistance always accompanies change, whether good, bad, desired, or not. Positive and negative changes, even in the creation of "new" ideas or objects, are always based on things previously existing--matter is neither created nor destroyed--things just transform. One can go as far as to think of the expression of suffering though art as relief; gratification in releasing and sharing their feelings with others, making the actual art form comforting: appeasement in alleviation, and communication of emotion, bringing joy to those audiences finding meaning in whatever expressive form a work of art takes. People often say they feel better when they get something off of their chest. This brings me to the concept of the bourgeois individual: the intellectual experience. When we experience emotions of any sort, we become introspective, kind of like the way drugs artificially stimulate your feelings and give people "mind-expanding" experiences. The concept of individualism we feel when we learn that an artist suffers from some sort of affliction is also a myth since we attribute value to that suffering via regimes of signification socially constructed by the pandering tastes of the ruling elite. Similar to philosophical dialogues, as we communicate with others, we're really figuring things out for ourselves, to be circular as NL so eloquently explained: (http://forums.philosophyforums.com/comments.php?id=7038). In this way, it is logical to think that other emotions, besides those causing suffering, can also, and have been, expressed successfully by artists. This change of feeling causes us to discover something new, juxtaposition of two dissimilar things fuses a new understanding; knowing only hot means nothing unless you experience cold, in which case you learn temperature. It's the basic conceptual structure of Hegelian, or even Marxist dialectics. At this point I suggest that art is born of giving emotions meaning through signification and value. Edited by Cold Aesthetic Complex on 01/30/06 - 05:43 AM

Ephemeraltwinkle
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 31, 2006
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 4

Posted 01/31/06 - 12:46 AM:	#5
Quote: Some do argue that art is born of suffering Hi all, I am new to this so go easy on me! I would have to agree with the above quote. Chaos is the essence of all beautiful things created. How can one relate to any subject without expierencing some form of suffering? 'One must have chaos within oneself to give birth to a dancing star' Nietzsche.

nielsky
utopian

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 27, 2006
Total Topics: 13
Total Posts: 63

Posted 02/01/06 - 06:08 PM:	#6
No one disputes the fact that doing bonsai, as an art form, is not limited to the collection of 'materials' from the wilds by way of digging them up, or cutting them. One can start with seeds, which could in fact be "delivered" by natural means as one observer said. Point is, to start with seeds, one has to wait for a long period of time before he sees the configuration of the trunk, its branching, its root base, its tapering, its apex, and all that sort of stuff that bonsai artists do understand by heart. While trees do not mind being placed in a pot simply because they are perceived to have no mind or intentionality, plants to exhibit some behavioral characteristics that could manifest that there may be certain species of trees or plants that could survive in a pot. The concept of cruelty is not viewable from the object subject of cruelty. That is a grossly mistaken view. It is in the doer of the act of cruelty.

SwordStrengthKuja
Balance

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 11, 2006
Location: Purgatory
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 26

Posted 02/11/06 - 12:20 PM:	#7
Bonsai is a tree, not a palette for human hands. Inadvertantly this happens anyway. Humanity makes nothing. Only Edits.
- It is what I'm not satisfied with -

Darcho
Researcher

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 12, 2004
Total Topics: 43
Total Posts: 1110

Posted 02/11/06 - 06:38 PM:	#8
I have a bonsai tree. All I do is cut it in an attempt to try to control its growth behaviour. Am I being cruel to this life-form? Well, that depends, on what it means to be cruel to something. Is an act judged as cruel by the agent, the victim, an arbitrary number of witnesses, or a combination of any three sets of people? Is it required to be a conscious being, or at minimum have a mind, to be able to have something cruel done to you? Is a plant conscious or does it have a mind? Can a natural being without some form of neural system actually have a mind? I am confused. How am I to know whether or not I am being cruel to a plant? Sure my plant bleeds when I cut it, but it does not show any signs of pain. If I am being cruel to it, then it sure doesn't let me know. Which brings me to another question: is it required for a victim of cruelty to feel pain, and can plants feel pain? Until I can find these things out, I am going to keep cutting my plant, watching it bleed, and trying to control its growth, all in the name of art (it is also a relaxing hobby).

Cold Aesthetic Complex
Abstract Machine

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 24, 2004
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 69

Posted 02/11/06 - 07:40 PM:	#9
Ephemeraltwinkle wrote: Quote: Some do argue that art is born of suffering Hi all, I am new to this so go easy on me! I would have to agree with the above quote. Chaos is the essence of all beautiful things created. How can one relate to any subject without expierencing some form of suffering? 'One must have chaos within oneself to give birth to a dancing star' Nietzsche. Why do you imply that chaos is suffering? If chaos is "beautiful," which is usually a trigger for pleasure, how do you relate the experience of chaos to suffering? As for the Nietzsche quote, I like it, although, I interpret it differently than the way you have it used there. As I understand it, the meaning is that new creations/innovations of old things come from disorder, something averse to the normal, "orderly" way of looking at or interpreting something.

Ephemeraltwinkle
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 31, 2006
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 4

Posted 02/22/06 - 01:23 AM:	#10
Quote: Why do you imply that chaos is suffering? If chaos is "beautiful," which is usually a trigger for pleasure, how do you relate the experience of chaos to suffering? As for the Nietzsche quote, I like it, although, I interpret it differently than the way you have it used there. As I understand it, the meaning is that new creations/innovations of old things come from disorder, something averse to the normal, "orderly" way of looking at or interpreting something." Valid point and a good question. I suppose the honest answer would be that I appreciate suffering. I do not consider suffering to be negative. I relate it to chaos purely because I have the same respect for both, the state of chaos and the state of suffering. As for the Nietzsche quote - 'interpretation' allows us to be ourselves. I believe there is no wrong or right. Glad you like it.

Page: 1 2

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.