Nature and Art

<p>Fred, how true that is for so many of us "artists" "musicians"</p>

<blockquote>

<p>« Le monde est bleu comme une <em>orange</em> » (Paul Eluard)</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Art is a human creation. Nature, for all its beauty, has little desire or need to consider the world a blue orange. It's process and reason and creations are impressive to behold, but not art. </p>

<p><<<<em>since there is no one agreed definition then we must open up to the possibilities of my Nature as being art.</em>>>></p>

<p>It is certainly interesting to consider, and there is much to be gained from, this discussion which your proposal began. But it is possible to establish or at least to suggest there is no agreed or singular fixed definition of art without opening ourselves to <em>every</em> possibility. Surely, though we won't specifically define art in positive terms, we may be able to suggest some things that art is not. Example: we may not be able precisely to define what love is yet I'm pretty sure it's not hate. We can exclude the possibility that nature is art (or at least many of us can) while simultaneously saying we do not want to pin it down to one and only one specific definition. While some art, for example, is frightful, art is not fear. While some art is ugly, art is not the ugly. While some natural objects have been declared to be art, art (IMO) is not nature. Art may be in some ways like nature, it may in some ways or in some sense be created like nature is created, it may in some ways and in some senses make us feel as nature makes us feel. None of that tells me that art is nature. It's kind of like marriage not being love and psychology not being consciousness.</p>

<p>Fred, I may be coming from this from an angle that has not yet been understood, or not well communicated on my behalf. Let me try:<br>

If we can agree that all life has some sort of energy that drives it (keeps it in motion, gives it LIFE) when i say life i don't necessarily refer to living, ie a rock is bound by energy as is the planet, the solar system etc.<br>

If that energy is universal , we could conclude that the energy is one, we could conclude that as individuals we are also one. the notion of the the center is everywhere, yet the circumference is no where.<br>

Here is the bit i am trying to get through. if that same energy created what we call Nature, including us humans, and us as humans create art inspired by nature (i use the term nature as everything in the universe, living or not that is not in itself man made), then why cant we deduce that nature then by definition of something that has had an external element / energy create it, not also be considered art? do we know that the creator of all things in life weather it be deemed god, science, big bang or whatever does not have consciousnesses? did not have intent? did not want us to be inspired to mimic copy and photograph? why should we limit our response to only view it from a human perspective.<br>

To take your view that love is not hate, I would argue they are the same, just different perspectives of the one emotion. relationships that are built on love descend into hate so often, yet strangely love still remains.<br>

I get a very strong sense that most commentators take the view that nature is nature and nature inspires art, I understand that, I am suggesting that even though art is expressly human in how its defined, how its created and is considered a human social and cultural trait. maybe its a narrow viewpoint. maybe nature is the only true art. perhaps we as humans are living art on the worlds canvas.<br>

Someone once said, all the worlds a stage and we are merely players. Perhaps I am saying all the worlds a canvas we are merely models.</p>

<p>j.d. wood >>> "intent ..."</p>

<p>Intent = superstition.</p>

<p>Whose?</p>

 

<p><<<<em>Intent = superstition.</em>>>></p>

<p>I would find it so helpful if something like this were explained, rather than simply declared.</p>

<p>+ 1! Fred.</p>

<p>Richard, I was watching a spider create his web the other day, seemingly as painstakingly and methodically as an artist involved in creating a major work, as an engineer conceiving a device or as an athlete or musician in systematic training. To human eyes, a finished web is a rather intriguingly beautiful object. We marvel at its form as well as at its function, just as some are impressed by the sleek form of a manmade modern aircraft or the expansive parabolic shape of a major concrete dam for hydroelectric energy. Do we call the web art because it is a product of nature (like the spider), or do we simply call it a product of evolution (how long did it take for the millenia of spiders to evolve that design and to assure themselves of a method to survive?). I think it is agreed that the spider has no notion of making art in what he is doing. On the other hand, art often has no practical purpose, other than to pose questions, to show things in the way one human sees them, to express emotions or fantasies or to explore unknowns (of which there are plenty for the humans to think about). Does nature generally do that? Whatever controls nature's works, if indeed there is any control at all, is for me somewhat like the reason the spider builds intriguing patterns or the many billions of snowflakes each possessing a distinct pattern. Nature just looks like art to the human being, partly because we are part of nature and it teaches and inspires us. Simply.</p>

<p>Richard, piggy-backing on Arthur's points, I find it helpful to consider the (sometimes and sometimes subtle) differences between purpose and intent. </p>

<p>Evolution has purpose, loosely, the survival of the fittest. Photosynthesis has a purpose. There is a purpose in a spider spinning a web. In Philosophy it's the final cause, the teleology, the end something moves toward as opposed, for instance, to the material cause, which is the thing that starts it off.</p>

<p>I see intent as a more active and conscious part of decision-making. I don't think a plant makes a decision to grow toward the sun. Its growing toward the sun fulfills a purpose and could be said to show a purpose. But it does not show intent . . . or consciousness.</p>

<p>A plant could have consciousness like a unicorn could exist. But until I'm shown evidence that either is the case, I will remain skeptical.</p>

<p>Anthropomorphizing natural processes (which are different from human decisions and conscious actions) may be a form of art in itself (poetic, metaphorical) but it's not logically or philosophically sound, IMO.</p>

<p>Alan K. Thanks for that! Not a far-fetched thought. :-)</p>

<p>Fred - You have a good point RE turning off inner dialog -- need to take a break for a while to charge your creative batteries. I think it is wonderful that you have the talent and skill to illustrate AND accompany your internal dialog. But, can you dance to it!</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Arthur:"Art is a component part of a culture, whereas nature is a component part of the physical and biological universe, a material that has no purpose-role in art until used or adapted or perceived by man, as one of his subject matters for his creative thoughts."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thinking of this and my cave art comments I think we have to examine the conditions of being one-with or fully engaged with nature and being the cultural <em>owners</em> ofnature. We romanticize and idealize it yet our attachment to it is minimal. Psychologically totally different than early humans for sure and even some contemporary societies. I think we still find in our biology a thread, though tenuous, that we instinctively -- in the literal sense -- keeps hold of nature.</p>

<p>Alan, I didn't mean turning off the dialogue to be about taking a break to recharge my creativity. It was about creating itself. I was actually talking about NOT illustrating the internal dialogue and not having one to accompany. I mentioned singing out but, sure, dancing will do fine as well. Luis and I have often talked about photographing others (and it could really be photographing anything) as a dance, also as a performance, but that got us in trouble with a poster of yore -- LOL. I think if you do a search, you'll find a thread here on the performance aspect of photography.</p>

<p>Fred - found it! Great stuff! I think about the idea of a <em>gestural</em> or "Action Jackson" equiv. photography. Like to think that the camera itself performs too. Mine does!</p>

<p>No. Art is a human-centered concept. Nature is what it is, regardless of whether anyone is there to appreciate it or not. It just exists, and sometimes it's downright ugly... And so is a lot of human Art! I find this statement absurd (don't know if it is Williams or not). It's utter ridiculousness lies in the fact that Words are poor carriers of meanings, culture and times alters perspectives and understandings of language. Nature displays all the intelligence of an artist and none of mans' inspiration for being artistic or creating comes from his own making, it is all inspired by the world around him, and most of it is found in Nature, so on this foundation I think Nature has the qualification of being Art De Facto. Oh and while we are on the subject, The workings of Atomic level Chemistry is also Art, it depends now on how one defines his own perspective on what is creative beauty.</p>

<p>I was in the middle of editing the above when the software told me that I had run out of time. So if your self-disciplined enough, don't read the above, (of course you will) here is my edit. Allowing the emotional reaction to speak instead of thinking about what I should say: Here is the non-emotional text.....<br>

No. Art is a human-centered concept. Nature is what it is, regardless of whether anyone is there to appreciate it or not. It just exists, and sometimes it's downright ugly... And so is a lot of human Art! I Words are poor carriers of meanings, culture and times alter perspectives and understandings of language and how we use it. Nature displays all the intelligence and qualities of an intelligent design with artistic innovations and much of mans' inspiration for being artistic or creating is inspired by the world around him, and a lot of it is found in the natural world. </p>

<p>Chris, while I cannot associate the brilliance of natural evolution, reason and its physical wonders with the word art, or perhaps even of some intelligent design (chance and other evolutionary parameters have to also be considered), I agree that art is a singular* human act and concept. For this, your own abstracts taken from nature's subject matter and the work of many of us are proofs of the attractive pull of art objectives on the human mind.</p>

<p>* maybe it will be shown some day that some animal also possesses the same intent</p>

<p><<<<em>Nature displays all the intelligence of an artist . . .</em>>>><br>

Any intelligence nature might display seems to me a projection of man onto nature or simply a way of trying to understand or relate to nature. For me, attributing intelligence to nature is a case of anthropomorphism and possibly anthropocentrism. I generally find the latter even more objectionable than the former, since we're talking about a universe much greater than man and of which man is a small part.<br>

Some of the nature-is-creative ideas expressed throughout the thread approach a kind of Creationism or Intelligent Design theory. I think God as the ultimate artist is an interesting way to think of God but it doesn't much affect my own thinking about art since I don't find much to recommend either Creationism or ideas about Intelligent Design. I haven't been convinced here that nature is <em>de facto</em> art. I'm also unclear whether the claim is that nature is art, an artist, or both. That nature may inspire (man to make or appreciate or direct attention to) art doesn't make nature art . . . or an artist. <br /> <br /> Could the word we're looking for be "Muse"?</p>

<p>Funny, a man walks into an art gallery and sees a painting by someone; it's a painting of well let's say a bed of roses by a musky river bank somewhere in Holland. It is selling at auction for 5000 something. Our man buys it, he thinks to himself; beautiful as he admires the aesthetics and forms and symmetry and creative genius. He calls it art, the curator calls it art, his friends congratulate him on a fine art piece, everyone says "art". OK, I walk into a field next to a bed of roses by a musky river bank somewhere in Holland. It's free, I call it oh problem what do I call it? A bed of roses accidently evolved from Deoxyribonucleic acid strands through random mutation? Or simply a bed of roses in a field? Or do I think to myself, beautiful, as I admire the aesthetics and forms and symmetry and creative genius. And I call it art.</p>

<p>Chris, you are seeing things my way. <br>

Arthur - You say that art is a human concept, I don't agree, it is just that humans have placed a word to try to describe it. Humans use to think that Love and other emotions were attributes of humans, we now know after further study of animals that this is not the case. I think human think to much inside the box, and like to pidgeon hole words thoughts and concepts to meet our own view of the world. Most often we are proved wrong. The world was flat. and how dare you think otherwise lest you be a heretic.</p>

<p>Chris, I'm afraid I don't see the humor in that story. What I do see are the many differences between a photographic or painterly rendition of a bed of roses and a bed of roses. I generally don't think of photos or paintings as mere representations. Obviously, we say "it's a painting of a bed of roses" but it is as much NOT that as it is. It is, or at least much good art is, transformational of its referent. When we look at Monet's water lilies for example, it is convenient to say it is a painting of water lilies, but that doesn't begin to describe what it is. Now, to be fair, neither does "bed of roses" really describe the fullness of the experience of roses in nature. But the point is that the experiences are so very much fuller than their descriptions and so very much NOT the same. Think about all the things a painting or photo of roses DOES NOT have that the actual experience of them in nature DOES have. And think about all the things a painting or photo of roses CAN have that the actual experience will likely NOT have. Then think about all the art that is not representational and that is not just OF or ABOUT its subject or referent but is a product of the expression and intent of its MAKER. Nature has no MAKER, IMO. Art does.*</p>

<p>*Even if the maker is someone who just brings our attention to something.</p>

<p>Chris and Richard,</p>

<p>Question for you: Can beauty exist without art? Perhaps that is a question that might help to differentiate art of the human and the beauty or fascination that can be found in nature.</p>

<p>When Chris looks at nature in a certain way (viewpoint, choice of time and atmosphere, light, presence or not of shadows to enhance what is being seen) and finds it beautiful, is it nature or Chris the creator of that communication, an albeit fleeting (the particular viewpoint or ambiance will change) moment of beauty until he passes onto another subject matter?</p>

<p>I think art is an emotional response, less about the object and more about the person. But art is just a flimsy word that is incapable of articulating a very big concept. Nature communicates only what the onlooker is willing to see and feel, an array of fleeting emotional responses then ensues and it is up to the onlooker to translate his/her feelings into words or visuals in a way that is never truly satisfying, but at its best, adequately enriching. </p>

 

<p>Sorry Arthur forgot to answer your question directly. Yes Beauty can exist outside of Art, when I watched our kittens being born and then growing up, we often described them as being beautiful, when at even two months they all slept huddled up together, it was so beautiful to watch. But this is clearly an emotional response, and I would not turn to my wife and say: Hey, that is so artistic. But really I do emphasize that art is too big a concept to be pinned down into a realm of philosophical analysis. Nature exists and man has admired it for thousands of years in the same way that man admires his own creations, both contain and express the same values and aesthetics that are found in Nature. <br>

Oh and Fred why is that excellent image of an elderly Jewish man in the Idolatry gallery? It's a great image, I love the way you took it. Ironically the very first thing that the eye was led to in that image was the opposite of idolatry, the hebrew word blessed on his tallit (BaRuCH). I was surprised given the context of the gallery in question. Idolatry is defined as the worship of a false god, which in turn implies the existence of a True God, given that you appear (if I am wrong please correct) not to believe in a creator, how do you define your gallery of images entitled "Idolatry"?</p>

<p>Chris, thanks for asking. I didn't think too much about the title. It just came to me for that <a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=686739">group of photos</a> as I was going through my portfolio a while back. I suppose it is meant in some ways ironically, maybe provocatively, a little bit tongue-in-cheek, and not necessarily literally. For me, the narrative tie was different kinds of worship but even that doesn't work as well as just a visual and visceral something-or-other I perceived. I think of titles to be questions as much as answers, so the fact that it led you to question and ask is a nice touch, and I certainly appreciate your attention to it.</p>

<p>I don't believe in a God but I do find religion fascinating, especially in terms of ritual. I can be very moved by another's devotion. I know the word "idolatry" is often meant pejoratively and, again, I used it as much to question my own feelings about things and less to put religion down <em>per se</em>. The reason I included the sexy guys along with the men and symbols of Judaism and Christianity, and also the pictures on the wall of sexy guys, is because I, myself, have felt a sense of idolatry in the way I and other people I know relate to sex and particularly to those we think of as sexy. Of course, I'm putting together a lot of these thoughts now that I've been asked, so it's a sort of analysis in retrospect. Not all this thinking, believe me, went into the original choice of the title. The one color photo seems to belong visually and even rhythmically though it would be harder to make a narrative case for its inclusion.</p>

<p>While I admire many religious people, I also deplore much about religion, so I have to be honest and say that, on some level, I see all religion as a form of idolatry (in the sense of being false, and false compared not to a true religion but to no religion). I have those feelings, somehow, along with a sense of wonder and intrigue as well and certainly with both a respect and hatred for some of the power religion has had through history.</p>

<p>I find religion's symbols and transcendence ponderous subjects for photos.</p>

Art is a way of perceiving and communicating. Nature is a subject that can be perceived and communicated thusly, but

other such subjects exist.

<p>I look at nature as <em>God's canvas</em> and He has produced many beautiful works of art.</p>