the sound of silence

[jurica]

Since witty rose spirits with his explanation of Cage's use of 'imitation of nature', I should mention that it's not realy Cage's invention.
Machinists (I'm not sure what's the name of that movement in English) imitated sounds of machines and sound of urban centers.
Before them, clasics tried to write down on sheet music we make when we talk, laugh or cry.
But! some belive the music itself started as an attempt to imitate sounds of battle against animals, and relive the whole thing in tribes when danger was far away.

Every sound we hear, indeed has a pitch, volume, duration and can, therefore, be considered music. A sort of ready-made music.

Look trough other arts, and you'll see similar tendentions toward ready-madeness:
-in fine art we have conceptual art
-in literature we have xeroxs of letters, portions from newspapers, quotations of other works or, for example, commercials
-in comics there are photographs, xeroxs etc.
-in experimental movies they often use old commercials, movies etc. and re-edit them
...

All art is imitation of reality. Sometimes it is simplification, somethimes it is generalization, somethimes symbolization... But it always relates to reality.

[witty_owl]

Jurica, you asserted that all art is an imitation of reality; sometimes simplification, generalization or symbolization.

While I agree that much art is this; do you not think that art can also be an explanation or interpretation of reality. Much abstract art is also a departure from the common view of reality to give a new "angle".
I think that sometimes when the abstraction goes far enough away from the "conventional" reality that a new reality is created!? That is sometimes art can create its own reality. What do you think?

Regards, Witty Owl.

[jurica]

do you not think that art can also be an explanation or interpretation of reality.

* * *

That is sometimes art can create its own reality. What do you think?

there's no doubt in my mind that art can, should and does explain and interpret reality... great art tends to give you a new angle, a new pespective towards things. perhaps even builds empathy?

but i don't think art has ability to create new reality. i remember thinking that it does, but, unfortunately, i don't think that anymore.
the problem here is to define 'new reality'.
when i think about it, i take very materialistic view: there are some scientists who belive that casuality (order of events where cause always precedes the efect) is not 'god-given', that it's not always how things happen (i think J.S. Mill was the first philosopher who said that), but they think that our brain works that way, and therefore, we can't comprehend that sort of events.
that's why i think art is strictly related to reality. it is created in reality, in our brains, and our brains only consist of memories, emotions and needs that we all have in or around us.

'sense of wonder' i think can only be achived when we are given different perception of things we percive ourselves.

there's, ofcourse, more to say about this, but my post is long enough as it is, i think...

[George.Wright]

Owl, i would say that the actual art of creation was the first abstract art. When shape took form and gases compressed to create galaxies. The shadow of the crack that the light shone in, the black holes, the hot planets, the formation or mutation of man from the first primates. The mating of angels or gods and men etc, etc
Art is not really a thought, it is an imagination, a force much more powerfull than mere thought..... it is the antithesis of the fall of man.
Georges