Aesop still has charm, though ^^At the higher levels of that art form, if a narrative has too explicit a moral, it's regarded as a defect.
Aesop still has charm, though ^^At the higher levels of that art form, if a narrative has too explicit a moral, it's regarded as a defect.
A pipe can be:A cigar may sometimes just be a cigar but if it is it isn't art.
Reading books to young children is less about the story amd more about the closeness of the parent and child. It is about sharing time, listening to words and learning them, participating together in the book's events. A well written childrens story envelopes parent and child in an imaginative time of being together. There are hundreds of wonderful children's books that build the parent child bond and at the same time encourage a love of books and reading in the child.Take children's books as an example (one I have to interface with @ this moment in my life).
The best have lessons. If there's no moral, no point, just pretty drawings or some stupid rhymes it's low art (in my eyes barely art @ all)
Canvas, bedrooms, and murderous bandits are recnet aspects of our human past and unlikely to be influential in evolutionary genetics. i think humans have some innate (genetic?) deep seated, attachment to forms and shapes from which we get dopamine responses.Creativity shows imagination, imagination is what makes us human (animals may have a little but nowhere near as much)
If a guy has some imagination on canvas, he may have some in the bedroom.
If a poet can talk his way in your heart he may be able to talk his way out of being murdered by some bandits (and his wife being kidnapped and raped)
There's no much more practically useful than imagination and creativity. That's why the best of them thruout history has special status.
One bricklayer is as good as another but how often do you get a Leonardo Davinci? In the past men were largely expendable, those without much imagination or special skills were liable to get recruited to go off to war somewhere but if you're a decent creative, now you've got protection, patrons (and your wife(s) as well) and if you're good enough you'll never have to toil in the fields or battlegrounds.
To not see how imagination is evolutionarily advantageous is a failure of imagination.
For sure. For instance I live a pretty socially isolated life (outside my family) but I appreciate music.Canvas, bedrooms, and murderous bandits are recnet aspects of our human past and unlikely to be influential in evolutionary genetics. i think humans have some innate (genetic?) deep seated, attachment to forms and shapes from which we get dopamine responses.
so for all this,Art is and should be useful, useless art perhaps is a sign of status (like the useless grass-only 'garden' of royalty past that has morphed into today's modern lawn)
People sing songs to kids because song & rhyme sticks in the head better than spoken commands. Armies used to march with a band even tho on first glance one might think it would be better to put an extra weapon in the drummer's hand.
Beauty is sustenance, without beauty people lose their will to live. In times of dire lack art can keep one going, can mean the difference between life & death. So yeah it is of the utmost practicality.
It's not about teaching us something like school where we can pinpoint the exact information we gleaned & write an essay on it, it's more ethereal than that & more important. So like you said it doesn't transmit 'directly' but it does transmit, if it didn't it wouldn't be art.
Art is nutritious that's why it exists, obviously it's harder to quantify that magnesium content but no less real.
this distinction is false, it is purely social. reading your examples of what art is and isn't is all over the place as to use value. you claim: beautiful gardens are bad. beauty is necessary and good. warfare that support those who have the gardens is good. structure in material structures material (surprise) but only for nursery rhymes, not for beautiful gardens.Again I'm separating proper art from pop art or art to show off, I agree those have little to no ability to nourish.
i didn't mean literally one spear lmao, while you seem to think dnd bard spells exist in real life. this is completely absurd.One spear no good against a band of bandits, if they see you're armed they'll kill you immediately, but maybe you can bribe them with quick wits (probably not but force 100% won't work if you're outnumbered 5 to 1, life is not a kung-fu movie)
When did I say beautiful gardens are bad? And are you saying all art is purely social? Obviously that's wrong as most art is enjoyed privately (books for instance)this distinction is false, it is purely social. reading your examples of what art is and isn't is all over the place as to use value. you claim: beautiful gardens are bad. beauty is necessary and good. warfare that support those who have the gardens is good. structure in material structures material (surprise) but only for nursery rhymes, not for beautiful gardens.
Especially when you misunderstand it, in reality it's a very simple claim, art is evolutionary adaptive, just as is attraction to beauty generally. If it wasn't it wouldn't exist in all culturesit's kind of a mess man.
What scholarship?it's also based on claims outmoded by modern scholarship.
It has to be attractive is some way, could be in an ugly kind of way (like horror)art doesn't even have to be beautiful.
My mom is selling her home & getting rid of a ton of stuff so I'll probably take a few hundred photos of art & short stories I made when I was a little kidWhen kids do art in elementary school and we put it on our refrigerator or shelf, it is art in the best sense because it creates an emotional response in the parents even after several years. My wife has a significant amount of such things that are getting to be 30 something years old.
so how did you learn to read againWhen did I say beautiful gardens are bad? And are you saying all art is purely social? Obviously that's wrong as most art is enjoyed privately (books for instance)
cultures neither share a notion of beauty, nor do they have the same idea of art, nor do they use the same material, nor do they share the ideal of use value that you want front and center, nor is this even consistent within genres of the cultures themselvesEspecially when you misunderstand it, in reality it's a very simple claim, art is evolutionary adaptive, just as is attraction to beauty generally. If it wasn't it wouldn't exist in all cultures
the one i have a goddamn degree inWhat scholarship?
i prefer the word intensity, but not even that covers all art. some of it is very much uninvolving, for a lack of a better word, with that being the pointIt has to be attractive is some way, could be in an ugly kind of way (like horror)
I learned to read when I was 5, since about 7 I've read to myselfso how did you learn to read again
That proves art isn't adaptive?cultures neither share a notion of beauty, nor do they have the same idea of art, nor do they use the same material, nor do they share the ideal of use value that you want front and center, nor is this even consistent within genres of the cultures themselves
Ah, hence the usernamethe one i have a goddamn degree in
I mean I don't care much what art students care about, art is for the masses, IMDB ratings I look @ above what the critics think. It's not really for art students to tell me what art is.you could like just read my first post in this thread, it outlines what modern aesthetics care about
Uninvolving? Can you share an example?i prefer the word intensity, but not even that covers all art. some of it is very much uninvolving, for a lack of a better word, with that being the point
so how did you learn to read againI learned to read when I was 5, since about 7 I've read to myself
yes? is your question whether i don't think so? when did i say it wasn't?That proves art isn't adaptive?
i have no idea why you're projecting this snobbery. also, i'm pretty sure you're misunderstanding my education. i am not saying the following to show off medals or whatever, it's just to get the education clear, and it's relevant because you obviously have no clue what such education looks like. soAh, hence the username
I mean I don't care much what art students care about, art is for the masses, IMDB ratings I look @ above what the critics think. It's not really for art students to tell me what art is.
that you can't skim a few pages for my username is very promising for this exchange.If you link me to your post I'll read it (can't be assed to wade thru whole thread)
it's hard to find a good word over uninvolving. ranges from alienating to indifferent. a lot of minimalist pieces are in their material not particularly outreaching. carl andre comes to mind. besides that, some ambient works. john cage that i've already mentioned. muzak. their way of artistic engagement is peculiar (sort of an active disinterest) and i love to talk about it but it's a whole off topic tangent.Uninvolving? Can you share an example?
He's one second from being crushed out of existence by the forces of progress.Oh my a new avatar! He's keeping his eyes on the game!
*Yes, I'm sure there's actually somebody who does