On 1/18/2021 at 2:54 PM, whYNOT said:
Most certainly, the second. “…forming all kinds of concepts”. The reason we find art, all art, valuable is that it yields to one’s mind the meeting between reality and man’s consciousness–as typified by a specific artist. We catch an insight into his re-created world, a particular view of existence which is supremely significant to he/she. Whether one is in metaphysical accord or not with their depiction, one gains and takes away from their creation for one’s own purposes (by conceptualization). Here is a corrupt or bleak or impotent or petty view of life and man’s mind - there is the antithesis: I.E. existence is knowable and valuable, and man is able to know it and appreciate it. But the bad/ugly/trivial/etc. do exist in others’ minds and actions and it’s a denial to not conceptualize those as well. Strength of mind depends on the confidence to stay true to rational convictions, not be subjugated to any random input from any other, artists’ works in particular.
A “good author”- especially the good Romantic Realist, while not exclusively - doesn’t try to make it easy for the reader, imo. His plot and characterization needs to be authentically realist if we are to believe his narrative. He puts across the competing, dark forces against e.g. reason and individualism, freedom and success and so on, which readers can relate to from their experience, creating that necessary “tension” which his protagonist, whose acts we identify with, eventually overcomes through conviction, independence and rationality. (Or succumbs to by futility and weakness, in other depictions). For myself I look for that “tension” in art. I think like in all things real, one needs a challenge from artworks to have to conceptually grapple with, or the art may become prosaic or sentimentalist or ornamental. That personal effort put in by reader/viewer is what gives a work its ‘sticking power’ in a mind. The darkness, of imagery and writing (and music) can ‘fit’ my moods on occasion, all the while resting in the knowledge that shadows don’t exist without light. Penetrating questions, Jonathan.
I enjoyed reading this a lot & look forward to having some of these experiences while viewing art.
So the gain, in this concept-formation sense, is only a gain to the extent that you manage to form a concept on the basis of the fictional work? Is this something you do from having reflected on fictional events and integrated them as you might do from events in daily life? Or would you describe this process of forming concepts from fiction as more like a redirection of focus in reality that you then use to collect future material or observations which you previously didn’t notice but now do and use it to form a concept you otherwise wouldn’t have?
Semi-related:
Does a work that resonates (or that one is in metaphysical accord with) always strike one as realistic? and a work that one is not in ‘metaphysical accord’ with strike one as unrealistic? Rand’s books are a great example. Some say they’re completely unrealistic fictions both in terms of characters and events, others do not and are inspired. So the former (those that think Rand’s characters are unrealistic) would definitely not form any concepts on the basis of the fictional events, the latter might? And so with other works, a similar pattern follows, regardless of whether the fictional events are or are not metaphysically possible?
When we’re reading or viewing art how would you know that what is being represented is useful material for forming a concept? An example is on the nature of evil: is evil maniacal, potent all the while being sharply conscious, focused and brilliantly intelligent (like a Bond villain) or is it a sweaty forehead, droopy eyes and a smear whose default mental state is blur (Jim Taggart)? Since fiction is not reality, how would you know when to take fictional material and use it for the material of a concept and when not to?