synecdoche
this entry is in response to runja's thoughts on art and meaning.
i agree with her that art/creation is some mirroring of a larger more impressive creation--that is, the work of god (whether he/she/it exists or not). however, i disagree that art is most impressive when you know the maker. art in a general way can be defined as making things. beyond objects of utility, why do people make things? is it to communicate with those around them? i doubt it because in close social relations, feelings and ideas can be communicated effectively through direct speech, body language, or shared experience. i think that making things is a result of our obsession with permanence. this also implies an obsession with our own impermanence. we are worried and unsure about what things mean if they are discontinuous or truncated. in this possibly infinite world we partake of such a short time. how do we deal with this reality? i argue that we deal with this through creation of things that express ourselves, works that embody meaning that demonstrate our existences for the rest of the world: ourselves, our friends, our society, and all the people that will experience it in the future. in the act of making, we tell everyone "here i am" and "i am alive." through the creative process the work embodies the creator yet becomes separate. while this relationship is uncertain, the message of the art becomes fused with the art itself and this is how people can relate to it and decipher its lessons. i don't know god or if god exists, but i can get a sense of god through plants, rocks, and the wind. this is the basic philosophical premise of science: through studying god's works we can think god's thoughts and understand. i haven't met ornette coleman but i am intimate with him through hearing his music. so the art is a statement that is separate from the artist. even if the artist will wither away, the art can experience permanence. maybe a relationship with the artist will expose more about how something came to be or more personal significance or an appreciation for those who create beauty, but it doesn't jeopardize the content of the art. people dismiss art because they don't understand it or don't agree with what it has to say. i am still humbled when i see things of beauty, even if it is an egyptian potholder from 2500 BC. to see any human evidence of permanence is cause for celebration.
i agree with her that art/creation is some mirroring of a larger more impressive creation--that is, the work of god (whether he/she/it exists or not). however, i disagree that art is most impressive when you know the maker. art in a general way can be defined as making things. beyond objects of utility, why do people make things? is it to communicate with those around them? i doubt it because in close social relations, feelings and ideas can be communicated effectively through direct speech, body language, or shared experience. i think that making things is a result of our obsession with permanence. this also implies an obsession with our own impermanence. we are worried and unsure about what things mean if they are discontinuous or truncated. in this possibly infinite world we partake of such a short time. how do we deal with this reality? i argue that we deal with this through creation of things that express ourselves, works that embody meaning that demonstrate our existences for the rest of the world: ourselves, our friends, our society, and all the people that will experience it in the future. in the act of making, we tell everyone "here i am" and "i am alive." through the creative process the work embodies the creator yet becomes separate. while this relationship is uncertain, the message of the art becomes fused with the art itself and this is how people can relate to it and decipher its lessons. i don't know god or if god exists, but i can get a sense of god through plants, rocks, and the wind. this is the basic philosophical premise of science: through studying god's works we can think god's thoughts and understand. i haven't met ornette coleman but i am intimate with him through hearing his music. so the art is a statement that is separate from the artist. even if the artist will wither away, the art can experience permanence. maybe a relationship with the artist will expose more about how something came to be or more personal significance or an appreciation for those who create beauty, but it doesn't jeopardize the content of the art. people dismiss art because they don't understand it or don't agree with what it has to say. i am still humbled when i see things of beauty, even if it is an egyptian potholder from 2500 BC. to see any human evidence of permanence is cause for celebration.