What is art 'supposed' to make us feel?: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of the Arts » What is art 'supposed' to make us feel? » What is art 'supposed' to make us feel?

What is art 'supposed' to make us feel?

Page: 1 2 3

What is art 'supposed' to make us feel?

EDKJ
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 02, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 3

Posted 06/04/09 - 10:00 AM:	#11
I think art is a method or tool of communication: it is a language.
http://edkj.angelfire.com/

Crackers
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 28, 2009

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 519

Posted 06/06/09 - 03:21 PM:	#12
Art, in general, is "supposed" to make us feel feelings, period.

Mr Ivanov
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 11, 2009

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 4

Posted 06/11/09 - 04:03 PM:	#13
Darthmat wrote: Is art supposed to make us feel something? Is its purpose to create a catharsis of emotions as Aristotle said it did in Poetics? Should it inspire us, make us fear, laugh, cry? Or maybe art is just a platform for the artist to express what he feels. I believe that different art has different purposes. Some art is meant to create a reaction deep inside the audience, and perhaps even change some of their perception, like some books can. Other art is meant to invoke a catharsis inside us, I know music does that for me. Art can also inspire people to create or do something. And other art is just a way for the artist to express him or herself, without meaning or wanting to do any of the above. Sometimes, an artist may not have any intention of the doing the above as well, but ends up doing so anyways. I do not know if art is supposed to make us feel something, but I believe very firmly that every work of art must have a purpose. If I had to formulate it in words, though such an endeavor I find immensely difficult, I would say that art is a connection: a pathway between the artist's mind and soul and the audience's.

DrifterOfTheSun
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 19, 2009

Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 31

Posted 06/23/09 - 03:57 AM:	#14
S.C.C. - Sorry corny content If art doesn't make us feel anything it is not art. What is good art? Good art shakes the soul inside your body, you then feel something like nostalgy, but it doesn't burns you. You are sad and happy, sometimes even tears might visit you. Usually this also happens with artist douring the creation of good art. I will give you an example, so it would be easy for you to understand. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZHw9uyj81g Now listen to that pop song you were listening before.
Before starting an argument, do some research, it might be proven it is right/wrong

Angie
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 27, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 4

Posted 06/25/09 - 01:05 PM: Subject: Art	#15
I love the work involved in creating art and the research that is involved in planning the results that eventually others will see. I get a high when others respond to my work by either being impressed or by hateing it at least I know that they have had a response. There are times my art is a story, an opinion or just a lot of nonsence that is running through my head. Angie

Tribalismist
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 13, 2007

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 2

Posted 07/14/09 - 05:16 AM:	#16
Art is expression of being alive, outside the boundaries of survival instincts and logical action. It being the first language, and by it's very nature (being creative) makes it scientifically functional. Any object we make, invent, discover can be declared art, Art is truly everything. Looking at art, is looking at ourselves, with all of our flaws, qualities, emotions. So? "what is art supposed to make us feel?"... it can make us feel anything, and everything.

oag
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 13, 2009

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 555

Posted 07/14/09 - 11:15 AM:	#17
I think it can almost be summed up in one word, resonance. Art is supposed to resonate with us. For those of you who aren't entirely familiar with the concept: When I pluck a guitar string with a particular note other guitar strings will pick up a sympathetic vibration and ring as well. It won't be as loud or pronounced as the plucked string. The thing is that only certain strings will ring with sympathetic harmonies to certain notes. It is the same way with art. Certain people will resonate loudly and clearly to certain works of art that have no effect on other people. You have to be the string that is set up for the sympathetic harmony. Then you can't help but feel something from whatever it is that the artist has "plucked". I think good art sets up a small resonance with a lot of people and ends up being popular...probably for a short time. I think great art resonates with a smaller portion of the population but much, much more deeply.

BitterCrank
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 01, 2008
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 219

Posted 07/16/09 - 12:12 AM:	#18
We are surrounded by a lot more art and art-resembling objects than Aristotle was. Lately I have been spending quite a bit of time in a hospital building where the management has gone out of its way to hang a LOT of framed art-like objects on the wall. Most of them are at least pleasant to look at and some of them are evocative. (They are much, much better than the decorative stuff hanging on the walls of cheap (or expensive) hotels.) How much catharsis could one stand in one day? Music too is far, far more plentiful today than it was even a century ago, let alone in Aristotle's day. The same goes for architecture, photography, fabric, etc. We are awash in art, and a lot of it is really very good. So, how we will react to any one piece of art becomes a more complex question today. When one of the popes heard Gregorio Allegri's Miserere he ordered the score to be kept a secret so that it would remain a rare and special piece. The plan worked until one Wolfgang A. Mozart heard the piece sung at St. Peters and went home and wrote out the score. Now, anybody can hear the piece anytime, in the shower, on the beach, or at St. Peters. Can we expect that one will have the same reaction to the work listening to it on YOU TUBE while blogging at 3:00 in the morning as one would have at a mass in St. Peters? Another point is that the content of a work of art (whether it be music, drama, sculpture, painting, whatever) usually doesn't just leap off the wall and knock us over. Sometimes it takes an extended exposure to a work to really get it. One lenten season I attended a particularly good performance of Bach's St. John's Passion. I enjoyed the work (hearing this particular Bach piece for the first time) but I know there is much more depth to plumb before I will really have "gotten" the work. There is a particular sculpture that I have seen over and over for almost 40 years that has become more evocative with time.
If you won't fan the flames of discontent, at least don't join the fire department.

ered maks
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 17, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 7

Posted 07/17/09 - 01:32 PM:	#19
Art isnt supposed to do anything. What an absurd idea. Art is impossible, it is an impossible project. No one knows anything about how to do it, where to take it and how to make it. Anything to do with art is uninteresting. Especially artists. Being one myself, unfortunately, i should know...

Cleaver
Don't think of green

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 22, 2007

Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 68

Posted 07/19/09 - 08:33 PM:	#20
This is a very strange question.It's as if maybe we could manufacture everything and say that it will always have some purpose in making everyone feel "something". However, what about making art for nothing? If I drew a sketch, but showed no one, and you never saw it, but I didn't have any reason to draw it, is that supposed to make someone feel something too? If you want to argue art as being the beauty in the eye of every beholder, you've created your own dogma for possibly a near-metaphysical concept such as, "art". Now, one could argue that the artist had "intentions" of making someone feel something. However, one could absolutely feel nothing from the piece or completely just dismiss it while others are enthralled by it. To quantify art into an object and thus-ly see everyone create their own perception of what is felt might be ideal, but it isn't always the case. So is art supposed to make us feel something? My answer: No. Why should art need to do anything?
"The intellect is a cleaver. It discerns and rifts its way into the secret of things." ~Henry David Thoreau

Page: 1 2 3

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