Art is philosophised to be the vehicle for expressing the emotions. That by deliberately arranging elements, one produces an outcome that is appealing to the senses. That it is a form of communication between the inner and the outer self.
Unfortunately, for the majority of ‘artists’, it is often the case of airing one’s dirty laundry: proving that their vehicle is in need of an emotional panel-beater and that their inner communication reflects a one sided argument of a deranged id requiring aesthetic adjustment.
Aesthetics is a branch of philosophy that is a reflection on art, culture, and nature that was explored and highlighted by Aristotle, who seemed to have a lot of time on his hands. And today with more time on their hands, people have become more philosophical and defining art has become more problematic as to what is, and why is it, aesthetically pleasing. And because people have the right to perceive the forever-changing world the way they want to, their perception –like the world they keep changing- keeps changing which just keeps adding to the problem.
So what is the meaning of art and does art have to have a meaning? Like the tree falling in the forest, if know body is there to witness it and publish a critique, is it art at all.
History reflects this in its dispute over the precise meaning of stone age cave and rock paintings claiming that beacsuse so little is known about its culture or why they did it. If the hieroglyphs, that were discovered around the same time, 40,000 years ago, were translated correctly, It would be learned that the little man with his heart being ripped out was actually the death of the first philosopher turned art critic and above his head was the first speech bubble reading, ‘Phucking Philosophers of Art Critique, Be Ware!’
This heartless treatment of the ‘Phucking Philosophers of Art Critique’ made people go outwardly silent to reflect more on the ‘within’ and to ask the question more sincerely, “What is the meaning of art and do we really need it? Whatever ‘it’ is!” which paved the way for the ‘Anti-art’ movement that proposed the non creation of art or, more specifically that the cessation of art was in itself a valid art form. The art form of not creating art led to the creation of the ‘Situationists’ in the 1950’s and like the anti-art movement there opinion was disputed. But because they had an opinion, that in it self was recognised as an art form and their art form of not having an art form was recognised as art. The validity of this was disagreed by the majority of ‘artists’ and would only be accepted by them if it were noted to be an opinion of the minority.
This form of reasoning gave birth to a new form of philosophical politics known as ‘Pholotics’, which was a way of phucking with people’s minds by subliminally persuading them to create something that doesn’t exist like a terrorist recession or a new sex position or even a new species of dung beatle playing rehashed versions of old Dung Beetle songs that, when listened to, would infect one with a new flu strain.
Or even to make one question ‘The Meaning of Art!’
*************************************