Harmonising possibilities of art

[Sunny]

Oh, Nina, have you started this topic to learn others' opinion or to confirm your own? 
Please, don't be offended, I'm just joking!
As a matter of fact, I'm grateful to you for your disagreement. 'Cause I've entered this discussion not just to say but to listen. So I'm really looking forward to learning your own point of view (as well as that of yours, Lue Sha).
It's not a secret to anyone that truth is always revealed in a dialogue rather than in a monologue.
It's going to be exciting!

[WalkAbout]

In the cemetery-like stillness of this forum I guess this topic should be revived...  

So is art really useless? Yes. And science proves that love is useless, too. But can we live without love?..

I disagree with both phrases and much strongly... Art is not useless, and science doesn't speak about love. Art doesn't prove, art shows. Science doesn't speak about love, but about chemical mechanisms of attraction. Science knows its limitations, art knows its limitations. There are two sides of the same coin - human brain, human intelligence, people strive for better future. Science influences art, as art influences science. One without the other is like a coin without it's heads or its tails. It doesn't work this way. Many an idealist dreamed of a world either fully ruled by science or by art. Sometimes paraphrased as brain and heart, or logic and emotion - but actually these two just can't be separated completely. Yet through emotion - art - you can easier and faster reach to the emotional core of another person, this is why I hoped art can unite people. But it seems I too was (and am still ) an idealist - the more I read others' inputs and think it over it seems impossible for art alone to unite people.

Science... What is it? Indifference of logic and cruelty of bare facts.

Not so easy Cruelty of bare facts...facts are indifferent. What you infer from them - is not cruel either. Only the way it is used can be cruel or not. Emotional colouring has nothing to do with either logic or facts. Facts are facts - they just are. Science deals with what there is and what there might be, of what there were. It is not cruel - it is not emotional. Is sun cruel? It is cruel when you're in a desert, but people in more or less milder climate tend to love the sunshine. Does it make the sun cruel? No. Does misusage of atom make the atomic research cruel? No. It is just human tendency to blame other people in bringing bad upon their heads - but when you allow bad things happen, is it indeed the weapon that is cruel or the one who ordered the weapon to be crafted in the first place, upon your silent consent? Isn't it taking responsibility off yourself?

And it states that to give a birth to a child you need not love, you need not even a partner. And it gives answers to the very question where we came from through cloning, various attempts to create even our Universe, and so on and so forth, but who knows where these answers may take us?

Throughout human history - how many pairs actually were in romantic bonds before they had a child? In villages people just got married for survival - in my country women were treated as a resource for child bearing and house, as well as field, work. In other countries for many, many centuries it was basically the same. Only the privileged classes - to whom belonged all, ALL our writers until the Revolution - such a thing existed. Is science involved in it? Of course not. It wasn't science who started it - it was mother nature. Actually, science is just science.  There are many a different people that claim its results to be one or another way.

..who knows where these answers may take us? Nobody. Who knows the future? No one. All you can do is open your mind and start acquiring the skills necessary for understanding what happens now, and what it might lead to.

[godgott]

It's very interesting topic.
When have I more time, I write my opinion (hope) 

[Sunny]

My dear Nina! Now I see, at last, what caused such a storm of disagreement  And I will not argue with you. Almost 
In many points you are actually right. But, you see, as you call yourself an idealist, so I call myself a romantic. So I often throw myself to the extremities. But my only excuse is that I do believe in what I say.

Art is not useless... Well, it is! And I for one have tons of examples of those who manage to live without it and not suffering at all. And for them I in person is quite "crazy" buying books, adoring paintings, listening to music (more "serious" or "classic" one) etc.
And here I contradict myself: yes, I can't live without art. I can't imagine my life without art.
Here are two poles. And the truth, as always, lies somewhere between them.

As for my word cruelty... Maybe, I chose a wrong word. My English is not so perfect, you see. But, telling you the truth, in my native language I would use the same one - "жестокость". But I must explain. By this I never meant to accuse scientists. My attitude towards science is not so bad, actually. As I've already said, I graduated from a technical university. And although my field is not so profound as yours, being "just" building technologies, I simply can't deny science as it is.
I called the facts cruel, because, as you've said, they just are. We can't argue them, we can't close our eyes on them, there's no hiding from them - they just are.
While the art is much more loyal. Art gives you the right to find soothing, to see consolation, to find joy in itself. Even if this very piece of art evokes quite a contrary emotions in others.

Now, love. You're too categorical in stating that no love existed among common people. And - here I would disagree with you entirely - being actually more oppressed by their economical and social situation, they were often much more free to choose their partner than representatives of the priviledged classes. Yes, they chose their husband/wife to survive. But does this totally denies the existance of feelings? Yet again, the main thing is what you mean by the word "love". And this very meaning depends on many personal characteristics. It's not necessarily "a whirl of feelings" and Love eternal    You see, the science of history is not so "bare" and "cruel".

  ..who knows where these answers may take us? Nobody. Who knows the future? No one. All you can do is open your mind and start acquiring the skills necessary for understanding what happens now, and what it might lead to.


And here I can't find even the sma-a-alest objection  Just adding one detail: we ALL do have responsibility for what we do.

Oh, I just wanted to say a few words, and here I am again... I'm sorry, but this topic is really VERY interesting to me.

Monika, it would be really great to learn your opinion!


 

[WalkAbout]

And here I contradict myself: yes, I can't live without art. I can't imagine my life without art.
Here are two poles. And the truth, as always, lies somewhere between them.

I think this "in between two poles" is, actually, accepting that there are different people - and they are normal in this difference. 

As for my word cruelty... Maybe, I chose a wrong word. My English is not so perfect, you see. But, telling you the truth, in my native language I would use the same one - "жестокость". But I must explain. By this I never meant to accuse scientists. My attitude towards science is not so bad, actually. As I've already said, I graduated from a technical university. And although my field is not so profound as yours, being "just" building technologies, I simply can't deny science as it is.

Hey, why diminishing your field of study? Where this "just" came from?

I called the facts cruel, because, as you've said, they just are. We can't argue them, we can't close our eyes on them, there's no hiding from them - they just are.
While the art is much more loyal. Art gives you the right to find soothing, to see consolation, to find joy in itself. Even if this very piece of art evokes quite a contrary emotions in others.

Here I again will stand my ground  : art, actually, can be not only soothing and finding joy in itself, but it also can be disgusting, directly offensive, cruel, diminishing, discriminating - isn't it cruel? You can't hide from it either, because art is a reflection of society, it reflects on society, it is busy with society, it's an integral part of society and it serves the society, being a self-reflection of sorts - and you hardly can get away from society, because you are a mere part of it. Saying that science is cruel is the same as saying the world is cruel - if you can't get away from something, if you can't close your eyes on something - does it imply it is cruel? Art might - and might not - let you dwell in the world of make-believe, but does it make it less cruel? As with everything it seems to depend on by whom and for what purpose it is being used. Does the possibility of closing your eyes onto what pains you the most make it less painful, make it less cruel, if cruel it is? No. But by watching it you can find a way to fix it - or perhaps find that your thinking was wrong - albeit sometimes being painful, this process has nothing to do with cruelty.

Art gives you the right to find soothing- I just can't get this phrase. Can it be rephrased into Society gives you right to find soothing in art? Because art the way it is is no authority, the way I see it, at least, since it needs to be understood and decoded before actually "speaking". 

Now, love. You're too categorical in stating that no love existed among common people. And - here I would disagree with you entirely - being actually more oppressed by their economical and social situation, they were often much more free to choose their partner than representatives of the priviledged classes. Yes, they chose their husband/wife to survive. But does this totally denies the existance of feelings? Yet again, the main thing is what you mean by the word "love". And this very meaning depends on many personal characteristics. It's not necessarily "a whirl of feelings" and Love eternal    You see, the science of history is not so "bare" and "cruel".

Sadly [or happily?  ] I'm far from being an expert in the field of love, yet however categorical I may sound my statement is actually based on scientific research I've been reading these last years. In the bonds of patriarchy women did not choose their husbands as such - they were given away, and treated as workforce in the first place, rather than a woman as we now - in most countries - are blessed to perceive, with our freedom, however limited it still might be, at least in certain spheres, and laws standing behind us, even if not fully and not always. They had none of it. "If he beats you - he loves you", ha?.. By the word "love" I think people normally mean something else than Stockholm Syndrome. Brrrr, I still shiver upon recalling the things I read. Makes my soul bleed terribly.
And as for privileged classes... I can't speak for really high circles, since I do not descend from any, but when my grand-grandparent married outside his class of merchants he and his family were ostracised, yet nobody was killed or thrown out (well... almost thrown out xD but - he chose love rather than class, after all... and, actually, I'm proud of his choice), or beaten to death, or.... shall I continue?..  And, also, higher circles had more horizontal - and even vertical - mobility, thus being able to find ways of dealing with "parental wish" for their marriage.

..who knows where these answers may take us? Nobody. Who knows the future? No one. All you can do is open your mind and start acquiring the skills necessary for understanding what happens now, and what it might lead to.


And here I can't find even the sma-a-alest objection  Just adding one detail: we ALL do have responsibility for what we do.

Oh, I just wanted to say a few words, and here I am again... I'm sorry, but this topic is really VERY interesting to me.

Haha, I guess here we're well too much alike, I also write what seems to be full-fledged treatises xD I sincerely hope I don't sound snotty or something - at times I know I might sound like this, yet it is far from how I view things (and feel while writing them). 


Mooooniiiikaaaaaaaaaa? Where are you?

[Sunny]

Here I am again and ready - and willing - to say another "few words" on this topic   

First of all,
 

Hey, why diminishing your field of study? Where this "just" came from?

I never, ever diminish it! I love it and understand all the responsibility this very field of study has before each and everyone! But you can be taught to be a good builder, or engeneer (considering a necessary application of some amount of brains, naturally  ), yet you need a real vocation and LARGE amount of brain to become a physicist, for example. I know that there are exceptions, especially in our modern reality, yet still I've got a deep respect for those who are trully devoted to science.

Here I again will stand my ground  : art, actually, can be not only soothing and finding joy in itself, but it also can be disgusting, directly offensive, cruel, diminishing, discriminating - isn't it cruel? You can't hide from it either, because art is a reflection of society, it reflects on society, it is busy with society, it's an integral part of society and it serves the society, being a self-reflection of sorts - and you hardly can get away from society, because you are a mere part of it. Saying that science is cruel is the same as saying the world is cruel - if you can't get away from something, if you can't close your eyes on something - does it imply it is cruel? Art might - and might not - let you dwell in the world of make-believe, but does it make it less cruel? As with everything it seems to depend on by whom and for what purpose it is being used. Does the possibility of closing your eyes onto what pains you the most make it less painful, make it less cruel, if cruel it is? No. But by watching it you can find a way to fix it - or perhaps find that your thinking was wrong - albeit sometimes being painful, this process has nothing to do with cruelty.

Art gives you the right to find soothing- I just can't get this phrase. Can it be rephrased into Society gives you right to find soothing in art? Because art the way it is is no authority, the way I see it, at least, since it needs to be understood and decoded before actually "speaking". 

I will stand on my ground, too.  Art gives you the right to find soothing!
And it is not cruell. Not in itself, no. And not only in a make-believe world. You see, naturally, art does reflect our society. "We get those classics whom we want and sometimes those whom we deserve". I can't remember whose words these ones are, and I'm afraid that the quotation is incorrect. Yet still... So, art reflects everything what takes place in our society, without any doubt.  But you CAN  close your eyes on it. Yes, there are plenty of examples of disgusting, offensive, diminishing - whatever else? art - but does it actually influence you? I for one belong to those who have a certain academic interest in new tendencies in art, but will never return to the works of authors (artists, musicians...) which I don't like. Yes, they do not cease to exist because of my dislike - and why should they? If there is a book, a painting, a melody... there obviously are those who respond to its appeal.  But in art you can choose and without any pain, actually. Why? Why should anyone try to fix anything he/she doesn't like at all? Is it to find out why somebody claims it to be a true piece of art? Well, here let me give you an example of Surrealism. Sometimes there are no sense at all in what some consider to be the very depth of wisdom and truth  And there are many a process in society which doesn't concern us at all. You simply can't care for everything
While, being a ... part of society you without any doubt can't turn your back on this society. And the same with science - however stubbornly you close your eyes on any law of nature, it EXISTS AND HAS ITS INFLUENCE.
Just a small example: physical and chemical processes taking place on atomic power plants. For me as well as for millions and millions people they are like parallel plane, too. We do not see all the depth of these processes and - strictly speaking - do not care for them. Yet, in 1986 all the world was obliged to recognize all the severity of consequences of these processes - or, it's better to say, of the loss of control over them. While no piece of art will ever intrude your life with such a cruelty.
Art gives you the right to find soothing
Here we get to the very beginning. What art is for you? And for you personnaly?
For me ART IS AN AUTHORITY. I do not mean the way of creation, but I mean the result. It's not for society to decide what gives me soothing. It's not for society to decide where I find the answers for my questions. But art - if you take it not like a field of science, but like something lying in a parallel plane, something existing according to its own laws, something not rational and often spontaneous - gives you a lot, if you are ready to comprehend, if you are ready to understand. And here it is: it's for art to propose and for you to respond.
Lacrimosa once gave me more than all the books and studies I had had in my life. It was like a missing part of a whole which put everything to its right place. So was it society which allowed me to find this last part of a puzzle?

Sadly [or happily?  ] I'm far from being an expert in the field of love, yet however categorical I may sound my statement is actually based on scientific research I've been reading these last years. In the bonds of patriarchy women did not choose their husbands as such - they were given away, and treated as workforce in the first place, rather than a woman as we now - in most countries - are blessed to perceive, with our freedom, however limited it still might be, at least in certain spheres, and laws standing behind us, even if not fully and not always. They had none of it. "If he beats you - he loves you", ha?.. By the word "love" I think people normally mean something else than Stockholm Syndrome. Brrrr, I still shiver upon recalling the things I read. Makes my soul bleed terribly.
And as for privileged classes... I can't speak for really high circles, since I do not descend from any, but when my grand-grandparent married outside his class of merchants he and his family were ostracised, yet nobody was killed or thrown out (well... almost thrown out xD but - he chose love rather than class, after all... and, actually, I'm proud of his choice), or beaten to death, or.... shall I continue?..  And, also, higher circles had more horizontal - and even vertical - mobility, thus being able to find ways of dealing with "parental wish" for their marriage.

Oh, well, you already know my point of view on this question! 
I don't doubt the authority of the research you've read. I've seen quite a few of them myself 
I'll tell you just this: the further the history (from our time, I mean), the more imprecise science it becomes. But, still being a science, it never takes the sphere of feelings into account. It just states. So no research will ever tell you if there existed love between such forced couples or they were obliged to co-exist.
Yes, the rights of women were poor. And never seldom they were asked their opinion on their future. And too often they were given to their husbands like some goods in a shop. But - I still insist - this does not mean that there existed no love in those time. However - yes, you will find no trace of it in no textbook, or scientific research. 
And there were not many examples like that of your grandparent of those who were ready to refuse all they had for love 
My words are not bare. I've studied the history of my country but tried to find not only an "academic" version of it, but also a "folklore" one - from those who still remember it. And I do doubt that traditions of our countries differ a lot. 
By the way, is not the statement "If he beats you - he loves you" palpitant in our days, too? Have you never met such examples in our contemporary society?..

Haha, I guess here we're well too much alike, I also write what seems to be full-fledged treatises xD I sincerely hope I don't sound snotty or something - at times I know I might sound like this, yet it is far from how I view things (and feel while writing them). 

Oh, no, in no way!
And I'd like to thank you for such a really interesting topic!
Well, let it be just a dialogue, actually (although I still hope that anyone will join it), this discussion is a real pleasure to me!

[WalkAbout]

but do have a short question, what do you think of relation between art and libido?

I guess I've found something interesting this morning, it's from Jung:
According to Swiss psychiatrist Carl Gustav Jung, the libido is identified as psychic energy. Duality (opposition) that creates the energy (or libido) of the psyche, which Jung asserts expresses itself only through symbols: "It is the energy that manifests itself in the life process and is perceived subjectively as striving and desire." (Ellenberger, 697)

So, I guess, indeed, they have the same root, which is psychic energy that feeds both libido and art. But here it goes vague for me, since I never asked myself this question. It looks like you can convert this energy either into sexual desire or into art or any other activity that demands psychic energy (in contrast to, for example, some routine like pencil sharpening). Or psychic energy that is generated for libido goes into art?.. That's some food for thought, I think... If I am correct, it was you who found much sexual appeal in some religious piece of music, so, I think Jung has an answer for it, since he researched the topic of libido and religion, and, if I recollect properly, of art as well. Anyway, I'm very much interested in your opinion, on how do you feel it, because you are an artist

[Sunny]

Oh, well, here I am. I've decided to put my question here, because it is so closely connected to the question "What Art is?".
Today, looking through "Lacrimosa at Facebook" I've met a very curious discussion about music and its lyrics, where there appears a thought that sometimes even loving the music some stop listening to a particular band for the reason that their lyrics are awful/intolerable/offending etc.
That's the very thing which tortures me... Oh, no, not just in music! It's about any field of art.
You see, we've got too many examples of books, music, plays, films... which are admired by the lot, yet are - no, not obscene - immoral. Provoking. Too careless of what influence they will have on others.
Any examlpes? Oh, well, just a few small ones. And well-known.
Marquise de Sade in literature. Not that it opened something new to me. It's just disgusting. I was squeamished to read even the first book to the end.
"The Night Porter" in cinema. Has anyone doubted that there were such cases as depicted there?.. But for me personally it's repelling. And giving a strong sensation that it's playing with things that better should not be touched.
Black-metal music, however melodious, yet crying loudly about things so terrible that even if said they should be at the very least whispered...
And so on, and so forth.
Am I a fool? Marquise de Sade, for example, has survived the ages centuries...
Oh, too many words, again... But the question is quite simple:
I would like to know your opinion on the existance of such masterpieces in art - if anyone is eager to share it, of course. That's not the question of beauty, but of morality.
Are there any line, any unspoken boundary in art which should not be crossed?