From: E. Shaun Russell (e_shaun@uniserve.com)
Date: Sat Apr 15 2000 - 21:56:03 MDT
scerir@libero.it wrote:
>Can I add something to my original question?
>
>I think that (real, true) works of art (paintings, sculptures, etc.) last
>for ever and ever. Meaningful. Timeless.
>
>That is, in my opinion, a sort of supreme, old, extropy.
This is true...many poets, musicians, artists etc. have spoken about their
own immortality being secured in their art; the unfortunate part is that so
far, none have been able to see that immortality. But I wonder how much of
it is a bona fide desire for some kind of immortality, and how much of it
is mere prestige.
The other thing that should be noted is that this "timelessness" is by no
means specific just to art...it is inherent within the creation of concepts
and perspectives. The underlying desire for "immortality in name" is shown
by scientists and philosophers as well --one example being the naming
process of some discoveries.
>
>As a qualitative (but not merely subjective) information the work of
>art travels, in time, interacting with people, preserving the secret,
>the magic meaning.
I'm not sure that most art interacts; I think it is rather the individual
interpretation that makes a work of art valuable. I find no value
whatsoever in the "Mona Lisa" though admire some of Da Vinci's "lesser"
works. There are two aspects to art: the objective --the artist has an
absolute state of mind when his art is created...if one could make a
neuromolecular "movie" of an artist's brain over the span of his creation
(not to mention, have the ability to interpret it), one could conceivably
understand the objective value of the work in question. The other aspect
is the subjective --without having the aforementioned objectivity, the art
connoisseur either makes guesses at the artist's state of mind, or develops
a wholly individualistic interpretation.
>Science laws are quantitative, objective, but not final.
Hmm. But we have to assume that they are valid until proven otherwise. A
statement such as "carbon is the base element of the universe" may not be
final (we've only explored an infinitessimal portion of the universe to any
degree), but it is presumably correct until it is proven incorrect. Tying
this back in with art, the artwork may be "final" (unless it is destroyed),
but the interpretations never are.
On a final note, I personally believe that art and science are deeply
related on the fundamental level of "concept." They both possess the
catalyst of creation and discovery, and the desire for integrity and purity
is crucial to both. I have yet to see any work of art or science detract
from this.
-------------------------------------------------------
E. Shaun Russell Extropian, Musician, ExI Member
e_shaun@uniserve.com <KINETICIZE *YOUR* POTENTIAL>
Hear my music at: http://www.mp3.com/eshaunrussell
-------------------------------------------------------
"The creation of the future is in the creation of the present"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:28:01 MST