RE: Non-overlapping magesteria
February 18, 2015 at 1:20 am
(This post was last modified: February 18, 2015 at 1:33 am by emilynghiem.)
[quote='Parkers Tan' pid='877742' dateline='1424226308']
And what of art created solely to express the artist's inner feelings? How do you measure that?
Science can measure the wavelengths of the golds in Wheat Field with Crows -- but can it take measure of the desperation of a suicidal artist?
I would ask the artists to express their thought process
when they created their art.
If you want to quantify it, what about the stages of grief and recovery,
and asking if the mood or the purpose of expression was anger, depression, denial and projection, resolution, peace, etc.
Could it be classified in terms of conflict:
man vs man, man vs. himself, man vs. nature, man vs. machine, etc.
individual vs. parent, individual vs partner, individual vs. institution,
individual vs. inner struggle or identity, individual vs. authority
individual vs. collective society/humanity, etc.
I used to think this was pure craziness, after sitting through an "Art History" class where the professor swore that art originated from
expressing religious themes of either SEX or DEATH (eros or thanatos)
and kept showing the repetitive themes.
I would expand on that same concept and find common patterns.
And instead of theorizing what art means, why not ask the artists.
There are only so many themes or stories, patterns of conflicts or processes/stages. Surely these can be categorized if you were as crazed about it as art historians and critics trying to analyze everything...
[quote='watchamadoodle' pid='877760' dateline='1424227282']
On the other hand, science already has equations. Why do we need religious symbolism and myths (except for their charm)?
Hi watchamadoodle
^ Some people relate to their ways better, like their cultural identity. ^
(My mother didn't understand forgiveness in Christian terms, but when a Buddhist monk explained it in terms of equal compassion for all people,
whether they treat you good or bad, then she understood the concept indirectly and agreed to it, since that is her native system and how she thinks)
Also, one system may miss some things that another describes better.
Like how some language has such a perfect phrase for something
(ex: deja vu in French) that everyone borrows that and adopts it.
Buddhism teaches compassion on a broader level than just neighborly relations, so it has benefits in teaching respect for all life on the planet.
I like the term "karma" better than "sin" because karma is clearly situational, while sin can sound too judgmental in blaming people.
Christianity is more specific on how to address trespasses between neighbors and focus on human relations specifically. (And Constitutionalism addresses political relations and process.)
Different people and audiences respond to different approaches.
And what of art created solely to express the artist's inner feelings? How do you measure that?
Science can measure the wavelengths of the golds in Wheat Field with Crows -- but can it take measure of the desperation of a suicidal artist?
I would ask the artists to express their thought process
when they created their art.
If you want to quantify it, what about the stages of grief and recovery,
and asking if the mood or the purpose of expression was anger, depression, denial and projection, resolution, peace, etc.
Could it be classified in terms of conflict:
man vs man, man vs. himself, man vs. nature, man vs. machine, etc.
individual vs. parent, individual vs partner, individual vs. institution,
individual vs. inner struggle or identity, individual vs. authority
individual vs. collective society/humanity, etc.
I used to think this was pure craziness, after sitting through an "Art History" class where the professor swore that art originated from
expressing religious themes of either SEX or DEATH (eros or thanatos)
and kept showing the repetitive themes.
I would expand on that same concept and find common patterns.
And instead of theorizing what art means, why not ask the artists.
There are only so many themes or stories, patterns of conflicts or processes/stages. Surely these can be categorized if you were as crazed about it as art historians and critics trying to analyze everything...
[quote='watchamadoodle' pid='877760' dateline='1424227282']
On the other hand, science already has equations. Why do we need religious symbolism and myths (except for their charm)?
Hi watchamadoodle
^ Some people relate to their ways better, like their cultural identity. ^
(My mother didn't understand forgiveness in Christian terms, but when a Buddhist monk explained it in terms of equal compassion for all people,
whether they treat you good or bad, then she understood the concept indirectly and agreed to it, since that is her native system and how she thinks)
Also, one system may miss some things that another describes better.
Like how some language has such a perfect phrase for something
(ex: deja vu in French) that everyone borrows that and adopts it.
Buddhism teaches compassion on a broader level than just neighborly relations, so it has benefits in teaching respect for all life on the planet.
I like the term "karma" better than "sin" because karma is clearly situational, while sin can sound too judgmental in blaming people.
Christianity is more specific on how to address trespasses between neighbors and focus on human relations specifically. (And Constitutionalism addresses political relations and process.)
Different people and audiences respond to different approaches.
