The Degredation of Art

It is a Japanese theatre, presented through singing and dancing. It can be bizarre at times but it does make you think.

A Japanese fight scene from a Kabuki performance.

 

Sorry I poorly worded the question (although I'm glad you mentioned these things).

The thread title is the degradation of art. Based on Neitzsche's thoughts, and the examples Lemex just gave, how can we safely say that art is either becoming nonexistent or at the very least, failing Nietzsche's idea?

 

Wow, that's seriously fascinating! Thanks for sharing those two videos. I really enjoyed them.

I'm not sure. Sometimes when I'm feeling pessimistic I feel that we are failing art. I suppose with the popularity of stuff like My Sister's Keeper, and hearing people react to the morality in books like that (not in those exact words mind) then there is something to say the potential audience of a work that can pitch a complex philosophical problem unpretentiously. I like Robert Frost's poetry for just this reason.

The idea the murder mystery genre is always so popular is also another reason to be sort of hopeful, because it seems some people genuinely get a kick out of trying to solve the mystery before the detective does. People are not necessarily idiots, and seem to enjoy theorizing.

However, there is also a lot of brainless faff in our culture now too. And outside of small, specialized audiences at least here in the west there are few people who seem interested in something so obviously serious and consciously philosophical. Wagner is still being preformed, but it's being attended by opera fans, which I imagine is a seriously limited amount of people.

 

You should watch Birdman

 

I've never heard of that. What is it?

 

A movie.

 

It's basically Michael Keaton (who played in the Tim burton Batman movies as Batman) playing a version of himself- a washed up actor, famous in Hollywood for having played the superhero "Birdman," who is now directing and starring in his own Broadway play. The whole movie is one long shot in NYC and is essentially an "art vs entertainment" story.

I just read the synopsis for My Sister's Keeper and that is pretty profound.

 

Birdman sounds good.

A lot of people trash My Sister's Keeper as basically sob-worthy chick-lit. Honestly, though, if it inspires people to talk about the issues it raises then I can only celebrate it as wonderful, and worthy of respect - it is doing much more for us than most of the things that have became popular recently.

Things like My Sister's Keeper and The Fault in Our Stars really do deserve more credit than they get for raising these issues and inspiring conversation.

 

Question for all.

Do you think it's possible that most entertainment pieces, including current ones, can promote thought? Essentially, are Pale Fire and say, Harry Potter, fundamentally different (in terms of stimulating thought) from on another, or are they just at different places on the same scale?

I think most of us here agree what's popular is what sells, and what sells is what flourishes, and what is popular is determined by the masses (ie the lowest common denominator).

So, I'm wondering, is art actually failing humanity, or are certain individuals who require more, intellectually, than what Disney has to offer, the ones who are really suffering here?

Is it possible that the few are being short changed in the interests of the many, but that art, in the interests of the many, is prevailing?

Personal example. Taylor Swift can't sing. This is a fact. Listen to her isolated live feeds. Hell, if you have a good ear, just listen to her voice on the radio. She cannot sing and her voice is woefully mediocre. Her hooks are are mind numblingly addictive, and the lyrics, in my humble opinion, are a joke. Yet, people LOVE her. And if you read why, someone, somewhere, is taking her "messages" to heart. I put "messages" in quotation because I can honestly not find any, but purportedly they do exist, and they are benefiting her fans. So, she is not art to me, but she is art to her fans. Let's add in a fun hypothetical detail, so that we don't automatically default to "see, told you, art is subjective." Let's say it's a proven fact that I am smarter than her fans. My brain functions better. This is an objective statement. But let's say there's only a couple of hundred thousand people, all smart like me, and who think she is not art, whereas maybe there are a hundred million fans who think she is art. Based on that information. Is she art or is she not, or is it still objective? Personally, i think even applying what you wrote of Nietzsche's philosophies, there's an argument for both answers.

 

I like to think that Nietzsche's ideas apply much more generally then simply relying on older art. The conversations the artist spawn in others is the 'art' Nietzsche refers to, and this is what is 'degrading.' Like Lemex said, some creations aren't recognized right away and are stuck, failing to become art. Of course that can change, but only through the masses will. Edgar Allen Poe for example was a great artist and genius, but unrecognized for most of his life. Of course the genius is subjective, but at the same time it gives us insight onto ourselves and we derive the the strength to 'will to power' from that.

Hard as you try, you can not run from reality. The fundemental properties of the Dysonian state will always win, no matter how dominant the Apollonian state becomes. The dangers of believing in the Apollonian state as the constant, and not the other way around, ironically deludes the strength of the Apollonian counterpart. Basically by ignoring the Dysonian counterpart, they let it take over without anyone noticing. To get greatness in art, these two must strife, but by separating them, the Dysonian becomes Dysonian barbarism, killing the Apollonian. This is what is happening in society today. The masses are satisfied with the Dysonian (sex, violence) with the only Apollonian parts to be based in ideals and virtue. The result is backward art, and as we care less and less for the Apollonian counterparts which don't delve into the depth of reality, we are satisfied with simply receiving the face value of Dysonian art, held under the veil of the false Apollonian ideals.

 

Talking of music: -

 

I don't even know what to say

 

These terms i’m using like, degradation of art, don’t refer to the value the individual accepts the piece to be. It refers to the insight people recieve from viewing someone’s creation and the perception of this insight as it references the ‘will to power.’

The ‘will to power’ is unavoidable. It is what we perceive as free-will. We are subject to this will inescapably so. To this extent their is no wrong, their is no truth, their is only our perception of value. So Nietzsche agrees with you, on every point. If all you wanted to do was watch porn all day until you die then Nietzsche would say, ‘go for it.’ But most of us don’t want that. most of us have ideas about what we want to be and become and do. Art is the only tool humans have for gaining the strength to accomplishing those things. (This includes studies like sciences, which like art, are interpretations, because to Nietzsche, there is no objective truth.) We believe that the ideals we hold fit into this mold, but this is a misleading and hopeful lie. And I can say this without knowing what it is you want to be or do.

The degradation is a stunted growth, a stale state, eventually turning into a devolution of the original concept which gave the people strength. Our will’s are distorted by the concept of ideals and virtues, the christian doctrine, and morality in general. This is what Nietzsche noticed when he studied the Greeks and German culture. This is what is happening again today.

Society builds a world onto itself and that is the relation we use to even speak about such subjective things like art. We get ideas, become them, grow from them, and spread them around. This adoption by the open mind is the transformation into the ubermeinch and the purest state of becoming humans have.

It's hard to understand this guy... really hard. I often go back and review this information, and still I think my understanding is lacking the full intention that the great Friedrich Nietzsche tried to pass on. I definitely know now that if I try and explain it in a couple of pages, it doesn't work in my favor. Progress doesn't speak about some objective ideal or truth, it's about your personal progress and your goals and the progress towards those goals. This is what is being stunted, stopped, and possible even reversed. The ideas we are choosing to adopt go against this notion and because of that hurt yourself in the process. This guy is no doubt a genius recognized by many as an amazing individual, don't let my inadequate tongue take away from that.

 

I don't think religion is what is holding back society anymore. I think it's more from unfettered capitalism, which has created a subsequent philosophy of that values actions in terms of arbitrary and inaccurate measurements. Education, social relationships, artistic contributions, etc. are not valued at their worth to society, despite their economic and non-economic contributions. That said, capitalism has taken over for much of what religion used to provide, so in that sense he isn't wrong.

 

Objectivity exists, but objective truth implies intrinsic knowledge. The problem in this thinking, that we are able to directly view this objectivity and completely comprehend it even though our conscious was born as a byproduct of it, is fundamentally incorrect. It would imply an intrinsic truth in the depth of our minds. We can close the gap, getting closer to objectivity, but it is impossible to ever get more than closer. Because we are forever trapped behind the perception of our existence. And science defined, fits Nietzsche's definition of art perfectly.(including the Dionysian*** and Apollonian states) It is used, a tool, just as much as art is used.

The un-satisfaction of the values that most of us attach to recent art is the very much what Nietzsche spoke of. It isn't helpful to you, and does nothing for your goals, that is what unsatisfies you. you feel shorted by the little growth that happened during your interpretation. you think you aren't doing it for such reasons but that is a part of the lie most everybody has swallowed. Although there are different strokes for different folks, they are always strokes and always for folks. You can't avoid the 'will to power.' You can disguise it and dress it up real pretty, but that is mostly doing yourself a disservice. In fact that 'dressing up' is what Nietzsche was talking about and a part of this problem. The terrible nature of the Dionysians will overwhelm the Apollonians unless you let them fight. Only through their struggle can we get closer to what we want and what we're really trying to become. Rather than believing we absolutely know for sure what that is already. And we do this as a society just as much as individually, perhaps even more so on the former.

Let me creep you out a little bit, using what Nietzsche had to say about all artist, just to give you some insight to his genius:

"The artist is perhaps necessarily a sensual man, generally excitable, susceptible in every sense to stimuli, meeting the very suggestion of a stimulus halfway even from afar. This notwithstanding, he is on the average, ... actually moderate, often even chaste. His dominant instinct demands this of him: it does not permit him to expend himself in any casual way. The force that one expends in artistic conception is the same as that expended in the sexual act: there is only one kind of force." -Nietzsche

 

Honestly im not sure im convinced by anything Nietzsche is saying either. It just sort of sounds like "someone's ideas" to me.

While I do think modern art is slipping, nothing yet said convinces me that Nietsche was on to anything.

 

Likewise. It is the problem with philosophy- if an idea is abstract and couched in pomposity and flowery language- you can justify horseshit just as easily as a sensible, considered proposition.

 

Nietzsche seems to be restating Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle, which basically says that when you observe something, the fact that you are observing it changes its behaviour. Thus, Nietzsche seems to be saying that the objectivity that we perceive in the universe is flawed because the consciousness through which we perceive it is a product of that universe. But whereas Heisenberg is merely making a caveat to accepting the results of any experiment, Nietzsche is making a point about the unreliability of everything.

But, while my observation of traffic patterns (Heisenberg) may affect those traffic patterns, it will provide me with information to increase my chances of avoiding an accident. Shrugging my shoulders and saying that I'd better not observe it in case it affects (Nietzsche) it won't.

 

Please go on to Wikipedia. What you are describing is in no way Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.

 

Well, if this is the case the Uncertainty Principle is confirmed through observation and experiment and applies a limit to the precision with which the physical properties of a particle can be known. It is very specific. It cannot just be arbitrarily extrapolated to add credence to unrelated theories. If Neitzche was making this false connection then all I can say is

 

Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle, which basically says that when you observe something, the fact that you are observing it changes its behaviour.

In quantum mechanics, the uncertainty principle, also known as Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, is any of a variety of mathematical inequalities asserting a fundamental limit to the precision with which certain pairs of physical properties of a particle known as complementary variables, such as position x and momentum p, can be known simultaneously. Introduced first in 1927, by the German physicist Werner Heisenberg, it states that the more precisely the position of some particle is determined, the less precisely its momentum can be known, and vice versa.

When I observe another car on the road, the photons of light by which I observe it are insignificant to the ton of metal that is rolling down the road. Were I to observe a microscopic particle, I would have to do it by bouncing some other microscopic particle off it. That would tell me either its location or its speed, but either would be affected by the non-trivial impact of the observational particle. Thus, by observing the particle, I have changed its behaviour.

I'll accept that I've restated the principle in a less "precise" manner, but it's comfortably within the spirit.

Also, I'd better amend my previous post - since Nietzsche died before Heisenberg was born, he couldn't have been "re-stating" what Heisenberg said...what I meant was that they were saying much the same thing from different perspectives.

 

I'm sorry but the uncertainty principle has no bearing on traffic patterns. It just doesn't. None at all. Not one bit.