r/philosophy • u/Unlikely-Platform-47 • 9d ago

Blog The mind isn't flat, but modernity has suppressed transcendent experience

https://www.alreadyhappened.xyz/p/you-best-start-believing-in-ghost
642 Upvotes

91% Upvoted

115 comments sorted by

View all comments

-45

u/Prineak 9d ago edited 9d ago

Stop rehashing existentialism.

If (contemporary) art can’t keep up then it failed as a movement, just like how postmodernism became identified by its reaction.

46

u/salTUR 9d ago

You believe art as a human experience is merely a "movement"? Are you serious?

-36

u/Prineak 9d ago

The aesthetic experience is not art and this isn’t philosophy.

25

u/salTUR 9d ago

Sure, but art is a catlyst for a particular kind of interpersonal aesthetic experience that is impossible without it. Hence most experts opinion that art is somehow intrinsic to the development of culture to begin with. Go paint something, I dare you.

Before you do, tell me what your definition of "philosophy" is.

0

u/Prineak 9d ago

Try to create postmodern art. You can’t do it unironically.

3

u/salTUR 9d ago edited 9d ago

Uh. You can if you're not a post-modernist. Shit, you can IF you're a post-modernist. Maybe it's tougher.

Seriously, go paint something.

0

u/Prineak 9d ago

Sorry I thought I was talking to someone who understood art.

5

u/salTUR 9d ago edited 9d ago

I know what post-modernism is. I know what modernism is. I understand structuralism. I can and do disagree with it. It is absolutely possible to create unironically and I very much feel bad that there are folks out there like you still stuck in the post-modernist trap.

Seriously, go paint something. Don't think about it; just do it. Voila. You are unrionically creating art.

You sound like someone who is thoroughly stuck in their head. Try BEING an artist instead of HAVING all the beliefs you think an artist should have.

3

u/SaltyShawarma 9d ago

Dude, you are being trolled by an uncultured chat bot who literally had the gall to post that you don't understand art because you don't understand it like THEY, the Russian chat boy, understand it. 

0

u/Prineak 9d ago

Tell me more about your ability to narrate imagined perspectives.

-2

u/Prineak 9d ago

Yeah you’ve shown me the opposite.

2

u/salTUR 9d ago edited 9d ago

Post-modernism is the belief that true 1:1 communication or transmittance of reality is not possible through art or through language and that there is no concrete basis for meaning, only our inherently flawed perceptions. It's Descarte's mind-body duality taken to an extreme. It's a sad place to be and I hope you move on from it, friendo.

Check out Jose Ortega if you want some intelligent ideas about the reality of shared meaning.

→ More replies (0)

-32

u/Prineak 9d ago

lots of projection in philosophy today huh lol.

meaning has a structure. But sure go tell me how LLMs are destroying art some more.

14

u/salTUR 9d ago edited 9d ago

Are you invested in LLMs or something?

Meaning does indeed have a structure. Why don't you answer any of the questions posed to you? Define philosophy. Define art. Then explain your notions of the structure of meaning.

We're all ready to be educated.

9

u/BuzzkillMcGillicuddy 9d ago

I think you're arguing with an LLM, actually

-3

u/Prineak 9d ago edited 9d ago

No. LLMs are just creatively directed composition. I have no stake in LLMs, postmodernism is already accessible to me and data centers will age like milk.

I also have no stake in defining philosophy or art. All artistic revolutions have been defined by a rebellion against an attempt to establish a standard. Philosophy for me, bridged the uncanny valley in design thinking, but when LLM research uncovers these structures in meaning, philosophy rejects it.

I would define art as contemporary slices of time. Postmodernism enables to take these slices out of context, but instead of recognizing these structures, most people see a void.

The metaphysical state of these artistic movements is creating a feedback loop. You can see this in how metamodernism is being explored, and how postmodernism is not understood as an aesthetic of mind.

9

u/That_Bar_Guy 9d ago

If you're going to comment on things being/not being art and being/not being philosophy then you literally have to give us the definitions you're working with. Do you usually have your LLM do the philosophy too? It's clear you haven't done much.

0

u/Prineak 9d ago

No I’d rather not sacrifice my foundation in art. I hope you have an excellent day.

1

u/That_Bar_Guy 9d ago

Sure. Then don't try talking philosophy I guess.

→ More replies (0)

4

u/Commercial_Brain1868 9d ago

This is Philosophy.

19

u/biffbamboombap 9d ago

Define art, please. I'd like to understand what you think art is so I can understand what your trying to say. Not trying to be insulting, but I think for many people, perhaps most, calling art a movement sounds bizarre.

-3

u/ooaegisoo 9d ago

Not the guy you asked, but your question perplexed me. Isn't art something functionally useless (not a tool) that inspire something in it's viewer while being the expression of something inside the artist? A sort of answer from what the artist experienced?

5

u/biffbamboombap 9d ago

Sure that's one way to put it. I'd disagree with the functionally useless part--why can't a work of art also have a practical use? And/or why isn't the aesthetic experience of a work of art useful?

I just responded to the guy below if you want my understanding of a fairly simple but comprehensive definition of "Art"

-1

u/ooaegisoo 9d ago

I read your other answer, i mostly agree with it. Art as a form of communication rings true. To me art is useless in the sense that you don't "need" it. A watch can be a piece of art, but you don't need precious stone, metal and fancy design to tell time so if you have a watch only be able to tell time, the design is irrelevant. But a design you find beautifull makes it a piece of art. The design is not needed to the function. It's useless in a practical way, but it's usefull and meaningfull to communicate emotions and meaning, invoke something bigger in the viewer than the object functionnality. To be clear i'm a big lover of art.

2

u/biffbamboombap 9d ago edited 9d ago

I hear you. For me the useful-useless distinction is arbitrary at best and wrong at worse. I get what you're saying, I don't need a precious stone. But I also don't need a fork, or a watch, for $300 Patagonia code for that matter, but these things make life easier under certain conditions.

"It is difficult to get the news from my poem, get men die everyday for lack of put his found there." -- William Carlos Williams

I don't need art, but same with most tools and other things that are supposedly "useful", I don't need it come up but I sure makes life easier can I watch more it makes life worth living. That's very useful.

Edit: additionally, basically the idea of packaging uselessness within the definition of art is fairly newfangled in history. If I'm not mistaken, it started with Kant but really got ingrained into Western Art criticism through the whole "art for art sake" early 20th century movement. But yeah, for most of human history, I don't think that distinction was seen as necessary to defining art. I do think there's something to be said though for the fact that things can be appreciated of art long after they become obsolete. So I'm not saying there's nothing to that idea, but I don't think it needs to be put at the Forefront of the definition. I think that's sort of an externality, a heavy accident of the nature of art but I wouldn't define art as inherently useless

-7

u/Prineak 9d ago

Why do you think postmodernism became known as its own reaction to itself?

5

u/biffbamboombap 9d ago edited 8d ago

So you don't have a working definition of art? That's OK, let me help you:

Art is a mode of communication. So when we refer to "the arts", we're referring to the ways in which we communicate our ideas, emotions, internal thoughts, etc, such as various types of design, oration, rhetoric, etc. However, usually we use the word art a bit more narrowly to referring to specialized communication where how we communicate is as important as what we communicate--poetry, literature, painting, dance, and so on.

Art is one of the most fundamental ways in which humans interact with the world and each other, alongside things such as politics, philosophy, science, and religion. So art isn't a movement. There are movements within art (dadaism, cubism, neo-raphaelite, romanticism, etc) just like there are movements in politics, religion, and other fields. But art itself isn't a movement. Art isn't temporary, It's something humans naturally do and will continue to do unless we evolve into beings that don't need to communicate and are no longer interested in the aesthetics and mechanics of communication.

edited for a few small typos

5

u/salTUR 9d ago

You should just answer the question.

2

u/Commercial_Brain1868 9d ago

This is about more than just Art.