Thinking about Art I - Exercises for Understanding

Very painful thoughts.
Do you know the story of Ellen Keller?

Yes, I do. I'm also interested in some neurological cases that affect perception of the reality.
But my focus is not on those poor suffering human beings but on the meaning of Art and its function and Universality. What do you think about? Your opinion, please!

Art can take any kind of form, and I am confident that no matter what a persons disability or ailmaint is, there will always be some form of art perceivable. Art, however, is also flowing along the market forces of supply and demand - art forms directed at seeing, hearing and otherwise non-impaired people will always be dominant. So at the core of the matter we'd have to ask whether the potentially beneficial art truly is available to those in need of it.

There's a current movie Le Scaphandre et le Papillon which has this topic (a fashion editor suffers a stroke and is then locked-in to his body)...

Thanks Tristero. I haven't seen the movie nor that it talked about these things.

Yes, the market is something that affects Art, what Art is and what is not. I want to think beyond the market. I intended to make another entry about that in the future. To me, there is not always a direct relation between what the market is offering and looking for, the prices some pieces are offering, and the artistic quality of the work, or what Art is. I mean, a brilliant piece of literature is not offered in auction except if antique... and is still Art.

I think that all humans, despite their physical difficulties need different forms of artistic expression, visual, hearing, touchable, or not. So, the core of this exercise is to reflect about what Art truly is, and what forms of Artistic expression are more universal than others... these things are very far away from the market of Art.

Thanks a lot for commenting.

Art is a vehicle by which we appreciate and/or transcend that which we take for granted. If I were deaf/blind/mute, I suppose the vibration of music would move me. I wonder if colors have temperature: warm, cold, in-between - I think they do. There are so many examples of people with limitations that simply must create - Ray Charles, Beethoven, Chuck Close - that I have concluded long ago that art is a process, like breathing, that keeps us alive.

Thank you for asking these thoughtful questions, Teo!

Thanks a lot for your thoughtful comment Kathy! XXXX. The examples you mention are brilliant examples of the transcendence of Art among people with disabilities related to the perception of the world as the majority of us see it. Brava! Yes, I like the questions you pose, about the temperature of colours and the vibrancy of music. Deaf people say that they enjoy the vibrancy and rhythm of some songs.

But not everybody understand Art, nor certain forms of artistic expression... this will be another entry,YES :D
.
My questions in this entry came because I keep thinking this thingy.... I need to ask you more questions. Attention attention PLEASEEEEEEEEE HERE I COME AGAINNNNNNNN :D

Do you think that there is an FORM OF ART THAT is more universal than other? Visual Arts, Tactile Arts? Literature? And which forms among them? One that would pass the test of any person with major disabilities like blindness or deafness? Think intently and tell me.

Hmmmm.... I'm partial to music as a universal artistic expression, and dance is often associated with each culture's music, e.g., folk music and dance, polkas, waltzes, American Indian pow wows... So many rituals involve song and stylized movement - but music seems to be everywhere.

Happy Friday, T!

beautiful conversation, i give you my small contribution (in english !!)
I think : Art is universal.
Its source is in intuition.
Intuition is the revelation of occult process, cosmic and universal.
The cult of True, the Good Beautiful, go to the knowledge of law. ...
This reliance is a human being feels the need to express the inexpressible.
Poetry is a major vector.
All the tools made by human creativity in the service of art are important for the expression thereof.
The body is the tool of the dancer.
The sound of his instrument the way for the musician.
The color and pigment for the painter.
The light for the photographer's.... all good to say, reveal and express harmonies or désharmonie glaring.
We are only vectors of a fragmented process, the work does not belong to us.
The first work is oneself,
A person with a severe disability can still feel his feeling "that lives in the other", "that lives in him" and express it with the medium or the tool he has at his disposal.

i hope that you understand me a little, scuse me for bad english (translator...!!.//!}} }}

@ Revcodes. Thanks again Kathy. I agree with you that everybody, even animals, understand or like music. In fact, some painting or sculpture or even architecture needs to be understood to be appreciated (conceptual, some abstractions, etc.) , or be beautiful in a traditional way to be appreciated. Most melodies attract attention just when played, no matter who is playing or who is listening to.

@ Feelin. Don't worry about the English! Thanks a lot for making the effort. I love the way you've put what Art is, and how disabilities will only force humans to use any medium at their disposal. Just a great answer. Yes, I think Art is Universal, but I think that there are forms of art that are more universal than others since they still exists even if the person is deaf/mute, blind or both, and are aappreciated by people who don't need any a-priory knowledge of concepts (like music)..

@ Everybody. This entry was born because I posed these very same questions to myself. And somewhat I've reorganised the podium of the Arts afterwards, not what Art is. That is why I asked you. I thought that Literature is the most universal form of Art, followed by music.

Literature can be read by a blind (in Braille, recorded books, by somebody else), can be read by a deaf/mute, or by a person who has another mayor disability. Music cannot be heard by a deaf person at all, and vibrancy is not music itself, just a reverberation of the main rhythm of the music on the surfaces of the room where the music is played. Moreover, painting, drawing, architecture and sculpture are mostly the reflection of an organisation of the space, visual of course, of people who have no disabilities. Blind people say that our cities are crazy, and they would have them organised very differently, for example.

I thought hat if our society was formed by a majority of Daltonic people, aesthetics and the theory of colour and beauty would be different, therefore our aesthetics and theory of colour aren't that Universal after all. But Literature would still be the same, a poem have the same impact on your soul. Nobody can see or hear for us, but everybody can read or have a book read to us.

By posing the questions in this blog entry I just wanted YOU to make the same exercise and see if YOUR conclusions were similar or not.
Perhaps I didn't pose the question clearly enough.
Perhaps you feel differently.
Feel free to add your opinion on the matter. OOkee?

Thanks a lot. More entries on thinking Art very soon