|
- a much needed vacation -
|
Friday, December 16, 2005
|
we leave today for North Carolina, then New Jersey, then Georgia. Praise God, He knows i need a break.
An issue came up at work...so i ask you a question- can you teach art without teaching philosophy? Can the two be divorced?
| |
|
|
3 Comments:
umm--thats kind of a fun question. Art and philosophy. Well, i think the question really comes down to, can philosophy be divorced from anything? I am pretty confident that in tracing the history of philosophy, you are also tracing the history of culture, and therefore art. The periods and changes that occured in the history of art correlate quite well with philosophies history. Sometimes the artists are ahead of the game, other times the philosophers are. But yeah, if you want to teach it well, you probably would want to say that "this piece of art is reflective of this type of thinking that was going on around this time period." But art has something special to it. It goes beyond philosophy. "Art is the proper task of life. It raises its head where creeds relax." Nietzsche It penetrates the consciouse mind far deeper than creeds and arguments can pull off. And it can speak with greater freedom than that of words, one of philosopy greatest limitations. Philosophy ends where science begins. And philosophy begins again where science ends. With art, Philosophy has no such stronghold.
well, i guess it depends on what you consider a philosophy... i guess when i think of someone having a philosophy i think more along the lines of their worldview... which affects how they think about everything (whether they know they have a worldview/philosophy or not). an artist works on a piece of art (painting, book, play, dance, whatever) and his/her philosophy will somehow/somewhere end up in that art (unless they would be specifically trying to keep it out for whatever reason... i don't know). it seems to me that even if an artist doesn't specifically think 'i'm going to show the world my philosophy through my art' that their philosophy will be in the art no matter what because that's how they think and see the world. does that make any sense at all?
Well, I would go so far as to say that Art has had philosophy enmeshed in it a great deal. Look at Plato's Ideal, where he states that art is the lowest form of existence. Then look at the Victorian period, where Art was raised to a pedestal, and what was art was added to (ie. criticism). More than all that, art includes the visual canvas (as if you were looking at Starry Night), but also the physical (from theatre, movies and dance to tattoos), the intellectual (pick up any book and you will find a philosophy in it. I don't care how insipid or childlike the book is, there is philosophy. Suess, Milne, Beatrix Potter, Silverstein all have philosophy twisted into their writing). It all depends on what you are discussing as art. I agree with Andie that an artist paints/sings/quotes/writes the world as they see it.
As to the teaching thing, try teaching any liberal art without a discussion of several of the others, and you aren't teaching at all. English requires you to explain theatre, art (as in painting), philosophy, and history in order to get a decent grip of why you're reading what you're reading. Even Math requires the ability to read and comprehend, both English Skills, as well as utilize history to know who came up with what theorem and why.
Post a Comment
<< Home