Realism in Art

[Parklife]

Which may bring up another interesting take on thing. If life can no longer be termed 'realism' or seen as the real, perhaps art is the only medium which CAN project realism. Ironic perhaps, that something intrinsically idealistic (aren't all forms of art idealistic?) is the last vestige of realism. The only avenue in which to portray it.

French philosopher Jean Baudriallard described us as in "Hyper-reality". Everything is more real than the real. We have plastic flowers that are more real than the organic ones you buy in the store. We have Flamingo restaurants in Wisconsin (a place no flamingo would dream of visiting). Everything has become 'created' reality.. generating a surrounding that is more real (or to use the lexicon of today - Extreme(!!) Reality). It's the more, better, faster, happier real!! Buy yours today!!

Perhaps art is realism's last stand.

 

[bridgeburner]

It’s become a strange meditation device for American sentimentalists who can't let go of the pre-Freudian idea of childhood as a sexless paradise garden befouled by serpent adults.

Yes and yes and yes, again!

I know this is somewhat off topic, but it really resonates with me. The idea that the "normal" human state is somehow pure and gentle and high-minded is a lovely fantasy, but it is still exactly that: a fantasy. It is nowhere more evident than in the current American idealized vision of childhood and children.

Humans are violent, selfish, sexual creatures. If we weren't, we wouldn't have any need for laws to curb those impulses in us. We'd have no need to teach children to behave in a socially acceptable manner.

I am not by any means suggesting that we do away with laws or that we revel in our bestial natures. I do feel quite strongly, however, that to deny that our bestial natures are as natural as our higher natures, is the worst kind of folly.


--B

 

[Pure]

I'm re-posting this, since the view is being reiterated in the present thread, often. The writer is widely recognized and skilled and articulates the view very well. It's not necessarily my own, though I see its appeal.



For Comment

Interviewer: Previously you've pointed out that there is a difference between what is shocking, and what is offensive. Is it okay to do both with respect to writing? Is it okay to be offensive?

Author: You have to ask yourself: what is offensive? Everyone has their own different list of what is offensive and what is not. I don't think there's anything offensive that you can do in writing. There's nothing you can do that's going to offend me in a book unless it's really stupid writing and it's a really stupid idea for a book or you've got moronic dialogue or stuff that really rings false. That will offend me. But in terms of subject--you can write about pedophiles, someone who slays thousands of people, a corrupt politician--none of that is going to offend me. But if you really handle it poorly on an aesthetic level, then I'm going to be probably more upset. But I don't think there's any topic you can touch that's going to be offensive to me.

Interviewer: Just the way that it might be presented.

Author: Yeah, it is really, ultimately, about presentation and it's also about, at least from my point of view, style and how you present your material. I think it's very hard because of how we've been pulverized by visual images to be genuinely shocked by what we read in a book. I find it very rare to come across something where I'm gasping. I might gasp at some kind of revelation that happens in the book, but it's rarely a scene of sexuality or a scene of violence that makes me freak out. It's usually something more subtle than that.
---

bee ready; reference to follow in due course.

 

[bridgeburner]

Perdita,

Yes. The repercussions of violence are what most people are concerned with. It's certainly where the art derives from in the films mentioned.

I was at one time a huge fan of Harry Crews. I still love some of his earlier works but the more recent are derivative and seem only to be poor copies of his older works. I wrote a review of his book A Feast of Snakes which is quite violent and horrific in any number of ways. The point for me was that Crews could make the reader care about these nasty, violent, ignorant and vicious people. It's like looking closely at a fly. An ugly, annoying, dirty little insect which has a beautiful irridescence to its wings. The book isn't about the violence or the sex, but about the people who commit these acts and why their lives are the way they are.

The violence has to mean something or stand for something or make the reader think, otherwise, it's no more artistic than watching video footage of a slaughterhouse.


-B

 

[bridgeburner]

Perhaps art is realism's last stand.

I think this may have always been true. How else are we to look at reality? You can never see the ground you actually stand upon because your feet get in the way. Similarly, reality is hard to see because we're in the middle of it. It takes art and the abstract to jolt us out of position so we can actually see.


-B

 

[bridgeburner]

Thanks, Pure! I'm completely on board with that. Wish I'd been articulate enough to say it myself!

-B

 

[Pure]

hi parklife.

you present points well. I will examine a few of them.

pl said:
Are you only discussing realism in the sense of violence or realism as a whole? Reason I ask is that the first post deals with realism and it's effects on the artistic value but most replies have dealt with violence and sex shown in graphic lights.

Well, we contributors will choose directions. It may be unfortunate that the thread title contained an 'ism', for it spawns talk of, and probably doomed efforts to deal with, that and other 'isms' like 'romanticism.'

I understood a focus to be on graphic violence, and I wished it to include graphic sex. There are probably other aspects of 'realistic' treatments of topics, like for instance the 'story endings' problem, I'm leaving aside. But I suppose sex and violence, because they were glossed over, become marks of 'realistic' portrayals, as people get deeper into things. We don't want the 'fade to black' as the couple heads for the bed, or the guy takes a bullet.



PL: A few thoughts:

Does graphic violence or sex for that matter even equal realism?? If realism is the accurate picture or portrayal of events, is the dissection of those events any more 'realistic' than other forms of idealization (if we take idealization to mean the opposite of realism). Perhaps the graphic depiction (a la Deniro's last stand in Taxi Driver) of violence is as much a distortion of reality as anything. The details are too vivid, too prominent.

The realism of a depiction depends on its intended object: so if the passage is to deal with a brutal murder, then the 'graphic details' of bleeding etc. are relevant, and show 'accuracy' of depiction, as opposed, say to just saying "John took a bullet in the head, and fell to the ground. His body was found the next day."

The last point about DeNiro seems to suggest all selection might be idealization. Every portrait, even on film selects. I see no point in having 'idealization' mean 'selection of some details or other' (as always happens in a finite work). But you do raise a difficult point about possibly something being 'too vivid [and]too prominent'. After all, instead of 'fading' as the couple head for the bed, we could get to 'blow by blow'. Why not highlight every bead of moisture on her pussy lips, every involuntary anal contraction, etc. Like Masters and Johnson, have a dildo- embedded camera to show the 'sweating' of the vaginal walls.
That's 'too prominent' I guess, but it's a judgement call.




===
PL: Which may bring up another interesting take on thing. If life can no longer be termed 'realism' or seen as the real,


do we know that? how so?


perhaps art is the only medium which CAN project realism. Ironic perhaps, that something intrinsically idealistic (aren't all forms of art idealistic?) is the last vestige of realism. The only avenue in which to portray it.

Seems just like a play on words. What does 'art is the last vestige of realism' mean?


French philosopher Jean Baudriallard described us as in "Hyper-reality". Everything is more real than the real. We have plastic flowers that are more real than the organic ones you buy in the store.

There is something true here, but it's sensationalized. It's true that we think the fake red strawberry jam is more real than actual grayish strawberry jam. And you know the make up ads that say, "apply this so that the real you will show". The 'hyper reality,' though is not (so) real; strawberry jam made by any usual method, without special ingredients, 'really' is grayish.
The Woo movie scenes are, I think it's obvious, 'over the top' and 'hyperreal'. Cops shooting from two guns while in an acrobatic spinning flip and bad guys taking 30 bullets on the way down.

Thought provoking posting, though. An interesting read.

J.

 

[Guest]

Which may bring up another interesting take on thing. If life can no longer be termed 'realism' or seen as the real, perhaps art is the only medium which CAN project realism. Ironic perhaps, that something intrinsically idealistic (aren't all forms of art idealistic?) is the last vestige of realism. The only avenue in which to portray it.
French philosopher Jean Baudriallard described us as in "Hyper-reality". Everything is more real than the real. We have plastic flowers that are more real than the organic ones you buy in the store. We have Flamingo restaurants in Wisconsin (a place no flamingo would dream of visiting). Everything has become 'created' reality.. generating a surrounding that is more real (or to use the lexicon of today - Extreme(!!) Reality). It's the more, better, faster, happier real!! Buy yours today!!
Perhaps art is realism's last stand.

Sorry, I'm behind in this so am posting somewhat in response to the above.

Park: this is getting very philosophical and I’m not sure we’re all reading/using the same terms here, but you keep giving me ‘real’ stuff to think on. Re. art as the “only medium which CAN project realism”, I think of one of Hamlet’s most famous bits from his advice to the Players, i.e., that art holds “a mirror up to nature” (nature being life, or reality as we are dicussing it).

The world is now so multi-layered, including our consciousness. ALL is seen though so many lenses, including our own personal vision. I see a bit of news item on TV and I know the station and network are presenting something edited and focused in a certain way. Originally some individual chose to film an event through his/her eye and camera lens—but what was “really” the event itself?

We have meta-drama and meta-fiction all about us now. Is there really a meta-reality, or do we only imagine it through drama and fiction (and other arts of course)?

Then when one comes to understanding sexuality and gender we need tools such as literary criticism and the ever-evolving psychologies.

So I’ve said nothing here really, but wanted to let you know I hear you.

Perdita

 

[Guest]

Have you ever seen any of the paintings of St. Sebatian by the great masters? They're horrifying and brutal. A near-naked man bound and pierced by arrows, bleeding, suffering, dying for the glory of God. You can't look at Titian or El Grecco or Caravaggio and say that because the subject matter is gruesome, the paintings are consequently not art.

BB: again, sorry for a late reply, but I appreciate your posts and contributions to this dialogue so want to reciprocate a bit.

Re. the above of course I understand your point, but I feel it necessary to point out, as I tried to do re. the Sh're ref. earlier, that we cannot really compare something like the above works in our present context (2003 or this thread). Perhaps we (21st c. us) are shocked by St. Sebasian's death or what happens to Titus's daughter, etc., but that's because we have labeled this or that art as "realistic" vs. modern or abstract, etc.

The artists you mention above were not considered "realists" in their time. St. Sebastian was an emblem to people (still is to many, particularly to gay men since the Oxford movement of the 19th c.), not a beautiful living body shot through with arrows. Titian's Marcyas (sp?) being flayed alive is not to be equated with a a scene from "Pulp Fiction". El Greco's 'characters' are very unreal (no one looks like them, not even then).

I'm sorry if I distract anyone, I just hate to see these false analogies made in the midst of a worthwhile discussion among literary folk.

bye, Perdita

 

[bridgeburner]

Not at all, Perdita. I don't thing you're the least bit off track.

I agree with you that the martyrdom of St. Sebatian does not equate with Pulp Fiction. I didn't intend to suggest that. My sole point was that the mere presence of blood or violence does not negate a work's artistic value. We've since then moved on to the issue of "reality" and realism which is a different, although, related issue.

As you point out the artists who painted St. Sebatien weren't trying to portray his death in a realistic manner. They wouldn't have seen any point. Realism as a movement was still eons away. Rather, by their stylized visions they convey the horror of his death, the exalting of his flesh and the beatification of his soul. A holiness to which all men might aspire. An evil which all might hope to shun. No realistic picture of a slaughtered man would offer these opinions. It would simply be gore.

My mind is wandering a bit here as I think about the kinds of realism we see today in photographic art. When is a photo merely a recording of events and when does it become art?

I keep thinking of some of the photos that came out of the Vietnam war. Particularly the one of the young girl running down the road with her dress nearly burned away. It wasn't staged or arranged. It's a photo of a real event. It's horrific and it's real, but I think it's also art. It wasn't a picture about that one girl but a picture about the atrocity of the war itself.

Good lord, the more my mind turns the more it seems that anything can be argued into "art", but I don't really believe that. Who was the judge who said he couldn't define what was obscene but he knew it when he saw it?

arrrg. brain melting into jelly....


-B

 

[Guest]

Bridge, glad you understood what I meant, and I think I understand you too. Rather frustrating 'talking' this way, i.e., typing in spurts.

I recall when Saving Private Ryan came out and there was so much talk of the realism of the battle scenes. Having a brother who was in Vietnam and living through the aftermath of his experiences* the talk then disturbed me. (*my bro. was 18 and was one of a few survivors of his entire platoon; he deserted after and my family helped get him to Mexico).

My main thought was that unless one actually has the experience of war (armed combat vs. smart bombs, etc.) I don't see how any art or technology can depict the realism of "the thing itself". As with sex, one might actually have it filmed but if one wants eroticism or, heavens, love, then it takes more than realism.

I cannot watch graphic rape scenes in films, simply can't. But no matter how well done or artistic the film I cannot understand why rape has to be graphically portrayed. If one is intelligent enough, and hopefully humanely empathetic, then "knowing" of the rape should be enough; or having it suggested or whatever. That's just my opinion. I would compare it to death or murder on film, i.e., one knows what they mean without having them graphically portrayed.

Well, that's my small point, now I've lost track of my neurotransmitters (comes w/middle-age).

anon, Perdita

 

[ffreak]

Sorry, I had this big long list of points praising everyone who has participated and TWC experienced an outage just as I hit the submit button. Couldn't get it by going back so I lost what I typed. Oh, well.

Let me say that I am really happy with all the participation and the points being made. And I mean everyone.

Destinie - please rant as long as you want. You are very eloquent and make good points. I think it is ironic that we will parade school children through an art museum where there are plenty of examples of the naked cherub and bared breast, yet if someone conducts a relatively private showing (the art buying community) of anything other than a copy of something from the masters showing the same subjects it raises a stink. p.s. I would be happy to attend a showing of your work - critics and media be damned.

Parklife - I agree with everything you said except minor points to do with story structure. Happy endings are only one type of resolution. I define conflict as the main character not being able to just do what they want - without overcoming obstacles. That effort drives the plot. But I agree that the author should strive for those more personal connections with the reader.

BB - Yes it is the repurcussions that are most important.

Perdita - Please continue to watch over us and keep us on track (even me).

This thread is a great read - and your thoughts are doing us a lot of good as writers (at least it is for me).

 

[Guest]

photos and art

BB-

Great minds really do think alike. I was coming to this thread to bring up the issue of ultimate "realism"- photos or "reality television/movies".

I don't think that we would argue that Ansel Adam's photos are art. They are incredibly real. He also projected his psyche into the photos through lighting choices, cropping and a myriad of other technical details. Perhaps some of his photos were even "more real" - a trash can or RV in the corner- but he cropped them out. Does that make them any less real? Does it make them art?

I would not classify the photo of the teen girl running as art. That is just me. Is it compelling? Certainly. Is it real? For sure. But, I do not think that it took that photographer in particular to devise that composition.

*I digress*

I would hazard that what makes something art is there being a creator of the art. There needs to be a deliberate choosing or not choosing involved. Even Jackson Pollack for all his paint splattering cropped his paintings to capture something.

Reality, in general, is gray. It is our selective cropping of reality that distills the vibrancy, whether in film, words or sound. It is our beating back entropy so to speak. It is courageous.

b

 

[ffreak]

There was a point made (and I'm sorry I don't have the post in front of me to give proper credit) about specific movies being about violence and not anything else. I disagree in that the violent men being depicted still had a motivation for the violence - be it revenge for killing a loved-one or retaliation for an attempt on their own life, etc. I do agree that these modern special-effects driven films spend so much time on the violent scenes (especially those repeat the same action 7 times techniques) that they leave almost no time for the development of the plot. In fact there are some commercial action films that have no more worth in my opinion than a 2nd rate porn film.

 

[ffreak]

Bridgett - I was typing as you posted. I like your definition of art requiring a creator of the art. In the viewpoint of God creating so much beauty in nature, perhaps we gain so much satisfaction in the creation of art because the act itself feels so Godlike.

(Ok, that sounds too arrogant. I mean that we hold the life and death or creation and destruction of our creation. If we try to create something and it is not what we wanted, we do not let others see it - destroying it. But if we like what we have created and want to share it, then we get a thrill when it is accepted and even liked. English is not my second language, really. I think I'll just stop while I still have a head)

 

[Guest]

There was a point made (and I'm sorry I don't have the post in front of me to give proper credit) about specific movies being about violence and not anything else. I disagree...

Eff, you missed my response to Madame Manga who stated that the depciction of violence could be an end in itself (citing Woo and Peckinpah). My disagreement w/her was:

Madame, I don't know Woo but I know Peckinpah and others 'known' for their depiction of violence. I think perhaps Dest. meant violence as "the thing itself" (das Ding an sich, as in Kant's noumenon, not Wallace Stevens' poem). Well, at least I do.

Even if an artist is focusing on a point deeply related to or instilled in violence, the point is not the violence, it cannot be (except in a distorted mind, or in abstraction). I truly cannot imagine violence being an artistic end in itself.

 

[Pure]

Perdita said,


I recall when Saving Private Ryan came out and there was so much talk of the realism of the battle scenes. Having a brother who was in Vietnam and living through the aftermath of his experiences* the talk then disturbed me. (*my bro. was 18 and was one of a few survivors of his entire platoon; he deserted after and my family helped get him to Mexico).

My main thought was that unless one actually has the experience of war (armed combat vs. smart bombs, etc.) I don't see how any art or technology can depict the realism of "the thing itself".

For a battle or a war, I don't think there's a 'thing in itself.' Hence your point that it can't be depicted. After all, the 'victors', not to say those who survive and go on have a different view than those losing or dying: the famous (anti) war poem speaks of
'the old lie--dulce et decorum est pro patria mori" (sweet and fitting it is to do for one's country). One might say that view of war, kind of a WWII propaganda film approach, is NOT realistic, it's prettied up, and slanted for ulterior purposes.

So probably the mucky and depressing and stark movies are closer to... what.
Example, Paths of Glory compared to The Green Berets. All one can say, is the horror is "most people's experience"; after all some one may feel yippee ki yay, I'm John Wayne the hero on the battlefield. So the more real movie approaches being a better predicter of experience for most people.

It's the same with sex, it's probably more like in Belle de Jour, than in a hollywood romance. The view is more subtle, darker etc. Closer to ... well. Just say one is moving from overoptimism and oversimplification toward complexity, and the reality of sex is probably towards the complex end of the spectrum.

Some have spoken of selection as focussing attention on something. That seems right, and the something may not have been noticed in general, or by anyone. So approaching the 'thing in itself' is, again, not a good metaphor; the 'more real' thing is actually being constructed, in part, hough 'discovery' is often the word used.

The 'non realist' artist, is of course free to pick something and celebrate it; to show soldiers going to a glorious battle led by a dashing figure of a goddess in armor. The art that 'celebrates' has been mentioned. It's one type.

It's easier to say what realistic art flees from than what it's moving toward, the closest I can say is toward more accurate anticipation of futre experience. If you're sending the kid to war, they will be better prepared by 'paths of glory' than by 'green berets.'

J.

 

[The_Fool]

Random thoughts from skimming this thread again:

I am unclear whether the original discussion should concern realism or detail. To me, realism is related to plausibility and similarity to real life. Detail provides defining information to further clarify the artist's imagery. There is such a thing as too much detail.

Art is concerned with expressing a "defining moment." That defining moment may be a violent act or it may be a protaganist's actions associated with violent act both as the victim and as the perpetrator. Or it may have nothing to do with violence at all.

Defining the quality of art is a subjective decision with values changing from person to person and from time frame to time frame.

No representation of life is objective. It is always colored by the artist's perceptions. Artists are mirrors to life, but imperfect mirrors.

Real life is always more horrific than any representation. No action recorded as fiction is worse than what happens in real life. Second-Hand accounts of actual horrifying events are never as degrading, degusting or horrifying as living through that event.

The charge to the artist is to represent life. All life can be represented and should be.

Artists are know for interpretations not for truth.

There is no truth.

Fool

 

[ffreak]

Aw Fool, there is truth in everything. The artist may simply isolate and show us the particular truth that drove their creation.
Of course, that means there is also truth in your statement.

(I am NOT running for Governor in California. Sides, I don't have enough mud on the other guys. There's, like, a drought, you know.)

I think that the moment can expose the artistic worth of something - even something violent. As an example: the Pulitzer prize winning photo of Jack Ruby shooting Lee Harvey Oswald. The picture tells so much more than the shot. In fact, we never see the bullet. But we see everyone's expression and each is so vivid. The burning child in Viet Nam - nuff said. But sometimes art asks questions instead of providing answers. The National Geographic picture of the Afghan girl with the striking eyes has sold a ton of books because her portrait simply draws you in and you want to know more (info: this is the same woman found and rephotographed by NG after the Taliban were ejected).

In these cases I think realism is art. And you're right. The details are not the realism, they simply support it. And too many details can cover-up the art. (assuming that you would never use my breviloquent contributions as your example - right? )

 

[Guest]

... There is such a thing as too much detail.
...
Art is concerned with expressing a "defining moment."
...
No representation of life is objective.
...
Artists are mirrors to life, but imperfect mirrors.
...
Artists are know for interpretations not for truth.

There is no truth.

A thinking fool; I like it, him. Perdita

Better a witty fool than a foolish wit. [12th Night, III.i]

 

[Guest]

Eff: I disagree w/some of your examples. The photographers who caught Ruby or the Vietnamese girl were lucky and fast. The truth is in the images they captured but it's not art; it's very fine technique and luck. Truth alone does not make art, nor beauty.

Realism is not art. I am not art. Making love is not art. Love is not art.

Perhaps I'm not getting what you are saying, but per your words this is my response.

Perdita

 

[destinie21]

Fashinably Late

BB: again, sorry for a late reply, but I appreciate your posts and contributions to this dialogue so want to reciprocate a bit.

Re. the above of course I understand your point, but I feel it necessary to point out, as I tried to do re. the Sh're ref. earlier, that we cannot really compare something like the above works in our present context (2003 or this thread). Perhaps we (21st c. us) are shocked by St. Sebasian's death or what happens to Titus's daughter, etc., but that's because we have labeled this or that art as "realistic" vs. modern or abstract, etc.

The artists you mention above were not considered "realists" in their time. St. Sebastian was an emblem to people (still is to many, particularly to gay men since the Oxford movement of the 19th c.), not a beautiful living body shot through with arrows. Titian's Marcyas (sp?) being flayed alive is not to be equated with a a scene from "Pulp Fiction". El Greco's 'characters' are very unreal (no one looks like them, not even then).

I'm sorry if I distract anyone, I just hate to see these false analogies made in the midst of a worthwhile discussion among literary folk.

bye, Perdita

I'm late but at least I'm here. I'm just here to agree. Art has to be taken in with respect to the timeframe for which it was created. For goodness sake "good" catholics still wear the crucifix around their necks. Can you get anymore violent than nailing a person to a cross? with a crown of thorns and a speared side no less.

 

[The_Fool]

Oh ffreak,

You caught me in a serious mood. That really sucks....

A truth is discrete. It is White. A Falsehood is discrete. It is Black. Interpretation is continuous. It is a qualified judgement at best, a bad guess at worst. It is gray. Using fuzzy logic, True is 1, False is 0 and 0<Maybe<1. True can only be true, false can only be false. Maybe can true, false or undetermined. Maybe is subject to quantifiable error.

You state that there is truth in everything, I'll give you that. Within the context of a specific framework there are truths. You stated the artist may isolate a particular truth that drove their creation. My contention is that once the artist has plucked that bit of information out of its framework, that bit of information may or may not be truth any longer, because it may require the specific framework to be properly defined.

I'll give you an example. A conversation takes place between Person A and Person B. Outside of that conversation, Person B replays some of those words to Person C. Outside the context of the original conversation, those words can be subject to interpretation. A meaning can be derived that is completely opposite of the original intent. But the words remain the same.

Art and Artist are two words that I have trouble defining. I think we all do. Not in determining what they mean, but in determining what fits into the specified bucket. Violence or its lack are not what compels that judgement. Level of skill at the craft, The ability to touch the audience and originality of interpretation are better indices.

I want a drink.

Fool

 

[Guest]

Re: Fashinably Late

For goodness sake "good" catholics still wear the crucifix around their necks. Can you get anymore violent than nailing a person to a cross? with a crown of thorns and a speared side no less.

Dest, just some clarification. Since the Vatican Council II of the late 60s the RCC (outside Rome at least) has been turning away from a focus on the crucifixion to the resurrection. In the first centuries of the church it was not the violence of Christ's death that was emphasized but his Life and actual teachings. (In contemporary theology one can read much about the 'scapegoat' theory, e.g., Christ as the sacrificial lamb of the old testament vs. the new testament 'word'.) It is why altars no longer face a crucifix as you describe. As for "good" Catholics that's a very relative term.

Perdita

 

[Madame Manga]

There was a point made (and I'm sorry I don't have the post in front of me to give proper credit) about specific movies being about violence and not anything else. I disagree in that the violent men being depicted still had a motivation for the violence - be it revenge for killing a loved-one or retaliation for an attempt on their own life, etc.

No, that's not what I said. I said that violence could be an artistic end in itself. I don't mean that the violence in a John Woo film has no context--of course it does. I mean Woo's violence is front and center: that the *major* artistic statement is the purity and catharsis of violent action, expressed in what most critics call "a slow-motion ballet of blood and bullets" or something of the kind. He finds beauty in the extremities of combat; he is by no means unique in that. (I just re-read Beowulf; I am thinking also of Ovid and Miyamoto Musashi.)

I am not a philosopher, so I am not following much of this discussion. I usually find, however, that my attempts to define 'art' or distinguish it from any other human endeavor only end up expressing my own prejudices. ;-) Art is not an absolute; it's a human attitude, and so ultimately built upon sand.

I do believe that truth exists and that it is immutable. It doesn't proceed from human action or thought, though we can sometimes grasp hold of bits of it. Life isn't truth. It's the way we blunder through the world. Sometimes a glint of truth will show through the garbage heap of details, words and images that make up our experiences. The art I crave is the art that is at least seeking for truth, but IMO art is just as capable of obscuring the truth as otherwise.

MM