[Deepflow]

I thought I'd try taking a bit of it seriously, to see what happens, and I have nothing else to do anyway!

Originally Posted by Prover

[b]
1. There is art: Why?

Nature makes its own art (as science suggests), objectively; we tap into nature to bring out its art, subjectively.

Why is nature's art objective and our art subjective? Does nature not count as a subject as much as any artist? Can people not take different subjective experiences themselves from nature's "art" (whatever that even means). I think a little expansion on what exactly you mean here would be useful.

Art usually provokes an emotional response by utilizing a shift in the focus between simple and un-simple things by putting them in and out of context. This spawns pattern, symmetry, irony, ambiguity, etc - all the aesthetics.

I'm not sure I agree with this either, art provokes emotional responses in many different ways that you haven't mentioned here. It's not all about context. There's a certain "art" to the creation of characters in a story, and you can sympathise and empathise with these characters regardless of the context. In fact, in character driven novels (for example) then the context will follow the characters rather than the characters being changed by the author's arbitrary shifting of context. That's just one example though, art provokes emotional responses in many more ways than you have said it "usually" does, that's just one technique used by some artists.

Also I think perhaps "complicated" may have been a better choice of word than "un-simple".

If you think about why a big twist at the end of a movie gives us a shock, it's because of a suspension of belief, or a shift of context.

What do you mean here? What does it have to do with suspension of disbelief? If character and plot are created skillfully then it will shock us but not require suspension of belief, in fact it will fit in better than what we thought the ending would have been. It's simple, but you can just say that it gives us a shock because it's not what we were expecting, isn't that all that shock is? Here you are overcomplicating, I feel.

On a larger scale, everything we do and create is a work of art on some level. "Art for art's sake" is partly bullsh*t. The very fact that art feels a need to become more sophisticated and interesting over time is a hint to the underlying concept that art seeks for a purpose.

Art for art's sake is an empty phrase. Art for the sake of truth, art for the sake of the good and the beautiful that is the faith I am searching for.

- George Sand

I don't think that art always feels a need to become more sophisticated, we are past modernism as far as art goes. Art in an old, simple, style can still be popular. More common however would be the combination of an old style with a modern twist, I don't think this is necessarily more "sophisticated" than some of the forms of art of the early 20th Century. Trying new things isn't necessarily always moving towards greater sophistication, but more a reaction against a feeling of exhaustion of contemporary styles, whether the product of this is more sophisticated or not is largely random.

Also, even if that were true, you couldn't surmise from it that art always "seeks for a purpose", as Mr Sand said, art for the sake of the good or the beautiful would be a far more popular opinion than some underlying purpose.

Thus, art contains objective light.

lol what? This is the most absurd statement so far.

When we look at many self-proclaimed "artistic" people, we find a very spiritual quality that has come to be implied with a figurative heart and soul. This type of person probably knows about the paradox seen at the root of our feelings. They have seen a seemingly love-hate duality, until they finally recognized it as it truly was, as a love versus fear scenario (or love with its back turned). Call it the "logic" of love, or in any manner, but both men and women have been putting up with it since Adam and Eve. To put it in one sentence: our expression of art and meaning comes from love.

Here you're generalising terribly about artistic people, and then simply placing your own values of love, hate, and then fear or "love with it's back turned". If you're going to use these words in such ways then you need to define them yourself, how is the reader expected to know exactly what you mean by them? I can't even begin to understand what you're trying to say here without knowing that.

Anyway, I have to go to work now, I only did one of your things as I don't really have time for the others. I hope to see a nice reply tonight )))

toodleoo