Boythorn from the SL Humanism group, has taken this very nice initiative to warm up the humanist avatars' senses, hearts and brains before our regular sunday discussion, 2pm at ROMA Humanist Garden.
Fieldtrip: We were trying to find some humanist art... Group photo! And then we came up with some great ideas...
I guess we were a litle frustrated because this gallery didn't exhibit interactive art. We avatars want to do things! We want action!
More group photos...
Boythorn: Gather around Zen. (the green frog)
Then we had a notice from our godfather Torin Golding to hurry over to Humanist Garden for our discussion. I decided to keep my sculpture on.
Torin Golding: lol love it plurabelle! you came as some art!
Me: hi torin, hi everybody
Torin Golding: and some rather phallic art at that ;)
Me: OMG is it?! Never thought of that...
Torin Golding: it reminds me of these statues on the Greek island of Delos that the ancient greeks made http://www.the-bear-den.com/travel/2004_08_Cruise/GreekIsles/phallus_2.JPG
Me: it's actually a copy of a sculpture of Constantin Brancusi from 1924. Brancusi must have seen that sculpture from Delos!
|At ROMA Humanist Garden.|
Me: Oh, there's my sculpture on top of the waterfall!
Torin: yep. seen for miles around now Plurabelle
(I made that blue humanist logo sculpture. Torin added the plywood box, to make it the SL Humanism logo. )
We always start our meetings with a litle this and that:
Doc: Just wanted to mention that I've submitted a machinima to the (American) competition about humanism, my video is called 'Humanism in Second Life' and is posted for your delectation (he!) at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=513iP6x_32I
Boythorn: I saw it - very good.
Doc: partial credit to Sibelius who wrote the musical score
Excerpt from the meeting:
Torin: k. we'll then turn to the discussion topic, which we picked to coinicide with the fieldtrip and based on a very interesting idea that has come up a bit in the past in our discussions tangentially.... We circulated the URL for an interesting article from one of the giants of American Humanist thought, Paul Kurtz at http://www.humanismtoday.org/vol10/kurtz.html ....
where he asks, does art convey knowledge? He comments that often humanists get criticized for being overly concernd with cerebral aspect of humanism and not on aesthetic and emotional feelings..... so he investigate what is the purpose of art, and how can it fit into the humanist and freethinker world view..... which raises alot of questions on its own..... then just this week an artist got lots of publicity by making a 'chocolate christ' sculpture which received condimation from some corners..... including one of the self appointed spokesmen of american catholics Frank Dobson literally calling for the artists head...
Caron: But not as much as "Piss Christ" from a few years ago, I bet!
Torin: so what is acceptable art is also of interest to theists now as well.
Daya: Guess he should have used dark chocolate
Plurabelle Posthorn: white choclate
Torin: in the article Kurtz doesn't so much 'define' art, which we know is very difficult, but speaks on art's purpose. He says arts purpose is to 'heigten the senses, raise the level of taste and appreciation, expand the dimensions of experience."
Morgana: to an extent, art that doesn't stretch one's comfort zone in some way is just decoration.
Ralph: It seems like there are lots of things which Humanism doesn't take a stand on, Skydiving, Beer vs Wine. Why should it have any particular view of art. Isn't that an individual issue?
Pilotflame: Christ claimed bread was his body — why not chocolate?
Lludmila: Chocolate is the food of the gods.
Torin: to use kurtz non-defintion definition, it 'expands dimensions of experience', percieved in a negative way
Daya: Even the nutritionists like chocolate these days, chock full of ecg and anti-oxidants
Crasuss: Judeo-Christian philosophy dictates that pleasures of the flesh are a sin and should be avoided, so to incarnate the Christ as the ultimate in pleasure food-wise is to disgrace the ethos of that religion.
Zen: has anyone seen my chocolate easter bunny?
Morgana: ignoring the question of whether or not he existed, if you do believe he did, you have to believe he wasn't a eunach...surely that'd have been mentioned?
Doc: Depictions of Jesus reveal an unhealthy fascination with religion (and statues made of chocolate reveal an unhealthy obsession with milk chocolate)
Pilotflame: And what wine, the blood a Christ, gives no pleasure?
(Plurabelle Posthorn whispering: Worst thing about secular humanist meetings is that there is so much talk about Jesus and christianity... but the chocolate part I liked...)
Lludmila: Wine was the only safe thing to drink - and it wasn't drunk straight.
Doc: shouldn't humanist art build on positive values about humans?
Torin: another interesting point that kurtz makes touches on ralphs comment- that humanism is a big mansion with many people focusing on different areas of humaist experince- politics, service, atheism, etc- Is there something DISTINCTIVE to humanism, and is anything in art DISTINCTIVE to humanism
Morgana: per the question of why humanists might have a rationale for getting involved in the art world... art is communication. Attempts to censor or keep it all so safe that no one ever has to think or risk being offended.... that seems to me something that matters a lot to us as humanists. it's the media people object to - it's the message. And if one form of that message is censored, aren't the ideas themselves at risk?
Crasuss: To me, art is a concept which can be used as a tool to change perception by challenging it.
Doc: what about self-censorship.... should an artist accomodate the feelings of others?
Torin: and not even 'invoved in the art community'. How do we experience art in our private lives? Do we give that as much attention as the cerebral parts of Humansim? Should we?
Mickey: Do we? I don't know. Should we? Yes of course.
Sees: So there's an aspect to art that tries to tap into a 'universal' meaning. Isn't there?
Crasuss: Does Humanism rely on Idealism or Rationalism?
Sahara: the problem between Humanism and art, is that this last works more on feelings than mind and rational
Daya : Although a peice of music, such as Bach's Mass in B minor was written with a religious purpose in mind, I can certainly appreciate it for it's beauty. I don't have to be "religious" to groove on it.
Mickey: Sahara, so? feelings are part of being human as well as rationality.
Doc: which deals with 'what is human nature'
Morgana: you can be as rational as you're capable of being, but art and philosophy and everything else that triggers ideas are the ways to have a vocabulary of thought large enough to be intelligent.
Boythorn : Kurtz mentions a need to "revivify humanism by relating it more closely to the arts"; however, I think instead we must revivify the arts by relating them more closely to science.
Nexus: Art to me is the expereices that casues us to pause, to think and to feel ... to transcent the moment ...and to experience that which makes us human and call us to humanism ... the power of the human mind to create and to engage... and it is this engagement that art communicates is message .. and that message can be independent of the intention of the artist ... In this way art has a very broad definintion ... and a direct relationship to a broad definition of humanism.
Doc: art involves seduction and structure, as well as a vision
Temple: Is this discussion art?
Torin: sees the kurtz article makes an interesting refute of the idea art = truth
Daya: Here is what Wikepedia has, for what it's worth: The term art is used to describe a particular type of creative production generated by human beings, and the term usually implies some degree of aesthetic value. An artist makes a work of art for various purposes, such as creating an experience for others or as part of a ritual. There is no general agreed-upon definition of art, since defining the boundaries of "art" is subjective, but the impetus for art is often called human creativity.
Boythorn: The differences in perception demonstrates why you must define art from the vantage of the perceiver.
Boythorn: A toilet may very well be art to some, but to others it will not stimulate a change in their consciousness.
Sees: I seem to remember that DuChamp's urinal was recently voted the top piece of 20th century art.
Daya: It might be interesting to explore artistic creations as "memes".
Morgana: infact, I recall a study I read about a few years ago about annoying radio jingles in ads.... apparently, the more irritating it is, the more likely that later you remember the product, but don't associate it with the annoyance. but if you like something, you tend to remember the pleasure and forget the cause of it.
Boythorn: That is why there is a convergence between the changes that can be provoked by art and the direct changes that can be caused by a surgeon.
Ralph: A Humanist postion on Art is like a humanist position on choclate vs. vanilla.
Doc: Pissing off (or pissing on) your customers gets their attention, and they never forget you, but it's not the best approach....
Torin: I dont think there needs to be a humaist position on 'art', but how can one see and experience art as part of ones humanism.
Daya: I like the theme the Ralph has been developing here -- is it necessary for there to be a humanist perspective on every human activity?
Crasuss: I think the very notion of humanism is essentially art in and of itself.
Sees: I'm still not sure that your definition is on the right track. I think that to qualify art needs to be able to speak to more than a single person.
Ralph: I think that Humanists should feel free to disagree about every aspect of art.
Torin: its the left side of the brain that kurtz says humanists dont engage with enough, or have the reputation of not engaging with enough
Crasuss: I think "humanism" should be very careful, because if I understand correctly, humanism is essentially a "live and let live" philosophy, am I wrong?
Boythorn: Art seems very useful as a tool for humanism but I take issue with Kurtz's notion that it should be used to inspire. Inspire is the wrong word. Educate and enlighten would be better.
Torin: yes temple. kurtz makes the explicit point about Leni Reifenstahl (sp?) and her films. beautiful propaganda. Again back to an emotional response.
Doc: Was Soviet realism under Stalin art?
Torin: to some i'm sure Doc. maybe not to those living in it.
Zen: anyone up for a nude chocolate darwin?
Crasuss: I think the reason why it's so hard to define art is because it does not want to be found. The only time art is revealed is for that brief moment before it realizes it's been seen, then vanishes into obscurity. Art does not WANT to be seen. Art is the antithesis of conformity, and humans demand conformity to survive as part of our natural instincts. We demand order.
Ralph: What about Roman Catholic "art" Were those pictures and statues art?
Sees: I was thinking the same about Gothic Cathedrals. Spires reaching to the heavens, men small in the giant naves.
Crasuss: A statue is a statue. Whether that statue is art or not depends on what the perception of the person looking at it determines it to be.
Plurabelle whispers: My humanist logo sculpture is not art...
Crasuss: Yes, my back hurts. And I'm hungry.
Torin: these benches are not the most comforrtable
Sahara: actually I'm sleepy, very late my side ...
Mo: Art is also manipulative, at times.
Torin: yes mo
Torin, our good godfather, always has the meeting minutes posted to the group an hour or so after the meeting. If a member you can get the whole minutes from a notecard giver in ROMA Humanist Garden.
Freethinkers of all kinds are welcome to our group!