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

Page: 1 2 3

What is art 'supposed' to make us feel?

Darthmat
Iconoclast

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 16, 2008

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 3

Posted 11/16/08 - 05:14 AM: Subject: What is art 'supposed' to make us feel?	#1
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.

Bo
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 16, 2008

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 1

Posted 11/16/08 - 05:27 PM:	#2
I know this may sound a bit thick, but in all honesty I don't think art is 'supposed' to make us feel a set something. I would see the 'feelings' invoked by art, as an emotional reaction. Made manifest in the 'audience/individual' through an amalgam of both, the direct influence the art has on the disposition of said 'audience/individual' and the personal conations that then inflicts. So I would say the feelings invoked by art are all personal to the 'audience/individual'. So then if something â€˜definedâ€™ as â€˜Artâ€™ invokes a set feeling/reaction then I wouldnâ€™t see that as true art. You see even if the â€˜artistâ€™ intended the â€˜art workâ€™ to invoke a set feeling/reaction it could never retain that initial intention, because true art is open to interpretation and misinterpretation alike. Therefore the feelings invoked by art canâ€™t make an 'audience/individual' feel a set something, because art and interpretation are both void of boundary. I hope that made sense ^_^ Anyway I mite well be wrong, but thats my view on it. Edited by Bo on 11/16/08 - 05:48 PM

Tra
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 11, 2008

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 35

Posted 12/11/08 - 12:40 AM:	#3
I was in a gallery the other day, and I couldn't help but feel taken advantage of. The artist is able to use the ambiguity of art, to create a piece of art that may or may not mean something. I think art could be a powerful way of communicating that which cannot be fully expressed with language. But I felt like a lot of it was just name dropping and pretension. On the few paintings that were explained, the message coveyed seemed shallow. Never mind, I'll keep trying.
Shooting for clay

TheThoughtfulOne
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 04, 2009
Location: Evansville, IN

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 69

Posted 05/31/09 - 05:13 PM:	#4
It's both the envision of the creators feelings and how they want others to feel what they feel.
I am what I am, but what am I? - Me

Altair
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 09, 2009

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 16

Posted 06/01/09 - 11:15 AM:	#5
I don't believe that art strictly can be defined, however I think art can define the society. Any form of art, whether it's visual arts or litterature, whether it's music or something else, the response from society when published, can define the society. Can art make us feel, or do we feel the art in a special way, concerning circumstances, etc.

Incision
Professor

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Jan 04, 2008
Location: Utah

Total Topics: 23
Total Posts: 862

Posted 06/01/09 - 10:21 PM:	#6
Darthmat wrote: Is art supposed to make us feel something? [. . .] Or maybe art is just a platform for the artist to express what he feels. Perhaps the distinction between expression and causation should be emphasized. A sentence expresses anger; a punch causes it. I suggest it's more appropriate for art to do the former. It might have therapeutic value, but if it's limited to purging our anxiety and improving our moods, then that's all it has.

StaticAge
Fearless Vampire Killer

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 18, 2009

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 298

Posted 06/02/09 - 04:48 AM:	#7
It is good sometimes to look at other aspects of our shared culture and then get back to art. So, like language, art is a way to say things, but the words do not have some value that extends beyond what we make of it. If you don't know English, the word "horse" is not going to be able to stand for any specific meaning. And likewise, art is not some magical way to always make someone respond in any specific way. But, then, like Tra mentions in the post above, there is an ambiguity that is played with in art. If you go back to the example of hearing a language you do not share, sometimes even though we may not understand the words someone is using, we can still pick up on the message because we pick up on gestures and body langauge. We share a world with lots of other people, and many of this world's features are shared in other ways than just one way of expressing them. Sometimes we can "get" what someone is trying to say or do, and sometimes we don't. Sometimes "not getting it" might even be what we find enjoyable in experiencing a work of art.
"All that your hand finds to do, do with your very power, for there is no work nor devising nor knowledge nor wisdom in Sheol, the place to which you are going." -Ecclesiastes 9:10 "Overpower, overcome." -The Cro-Mags

vernpeace
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 30, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 5

Posted 06/02/09 - 12:01 PM:	#8
Art stimulates alpha brainwave activity and is an effort at balancing the beta mind virus! Edited by Incision on 06/02/09 - 01:15 PM

Vinni
sentient.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 18, 2009

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 18

Posted 06/02/09 - 12:29 PM:	#9
I think the idea that art is meant to evoke catharsis is most correct. It should be specified that catharsis, in accordance to Aristotle's teachings, ultimately must make the audience healthier. So, a tragedy is art when the finale makes one feel healthy, not necessarily immediately happy. A good cry comes to mind.

zio
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 10, 2009

Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 16

Posted 06/04/09 - 01:03 AM:	#10
Visual art as a form of communication, where words fail to suffice or as an interpretation of a thought. Line, color, form all hold a pre-established connotation in our minds. although those connotations are often disparaging at times. Also Art functions as a record of the current ideals held by each civilization. Although I have also felt some artworks to be pretentious, they at least carry the imprint of that one person and his way of thinking and how he relates it to the world.

Page: 1 2 3

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