Author: Patricia Oxley

“The north side of wall (i.e. U.S. facing side) shall be aesthetically pleasing in color, anti-climb texture, etc., to be consistent with general surrounding environment,” the proposal said.

‘The awareness of death engenders potentially debilitating terror that is “managed” by the development and maintenance of cultural worldviews: humanly constructed beliefs about reality shared by individuals that minimize existential dread by conferring meaning and value.’

http://ernestbecker.org/resources/terror-management-theory/

This seems to me to be a plausible account of the way we feel about art (remember how we celebrate and preserve art works e.g. Emi’s stuff and Asia’s stuff and Abi’s stuff) (but also remember that within this theory we are still left with the question about how we assess stuff as worth preserving – what criteria we use) and about the anxiety we feel when our ideas are challenged ( vide the vituperation there is in discourse on art)

But how would you go about assessing whether or not this account is true?

What use to us is there of this insight (if it is an insight, i.e. a truth)?

Can the subjective feeling we get when we look at a piece of art that moves us – the very particular feeling be cited as part of a discussion of the viability of this theory/insight?

How can this be linked with Gell’s theory of art as agency and living presence?

It strikes me that this idea is very useful when it comes to why we make art.  However, can it tell us anything about the criteria which we use to hierarchise art, that is, to assign more value to one piece of art over another – prizes/prices/criticalattention.preservation etcetera.?

The reference below seems relevant – I can access it online at Leeds Uni library

Journal
European Review of Social Psychology
Volume 21, 2010 – Issue 1

On graves and graven images: A terror management analysis of the psychological functions of art

Abstract
We present an existential account of the psychological function of artistic activity derived from terror management theory. From this perspective, artistic creation and response alleviate concerns with mortality by affording opportunities to bolster cultural belief systems that provide death-transcending meaning and significance. We review research showing that reminders of mortality exaggerate people’s responses (positive and negative) to artworks that bear on their conceptions of death, cultural ideologies and symbols, and bases of meaning. We also review research on the interplay between the motives for terror management and creative self-expression. We compare a TMT analysis to alternative accounts of art’s function derived from uncertainty management theory (e.g., van den Bos, 2009 van den Bos, K. 2009. On the psychology of the uncertain self and the integration of the worldview defence zoo. Psychological Inquiry, 20: 252–261.
[Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
) and the meaning maintenance model (Heine, Proulx, & Vohs, 2006 Heine, S. J., Proulx, T. and Vohs, K. D. 2006. Meaning maintenance model: On the coherence of social motivations. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10: 88–110.
[PubMed], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
). We conclude by recommending that future research examine whether immersive aesthetic engagement is psychologically beneficial because it provides temporary relief from the awareness of death.

Dear Webmaster
I applied to join Rational Painting some days ago. I keep logging on to the site to see new people being welcomed everyday. Unfortunately I don’t seem to have been accepted.
I wonder whether this is because the process takes a long time or whether my application was not acceptable.

Here’s hoping because I love the prospect of seeing discourse on art that stands up to critical analysis.

 

This is my email to Rational Painting,  It shows what I would like to see – a way of assessing discourse on art for its truth value/for its use value.  for example, ‘this painting is too narrative’

can I begin to develop such a thing?

Is my motive merely me looking for some smart reply to things said to me which I didn’t like?

the whole of this site is a rambling  bin/silo? where I keep connected/unconnected? ideas/thoughts/propositions about what art is and aesthetic judgements for a later date when I can begin to pull strands together.  this is the micro-bin where micro thoughts etcetera can live against the day of resurrection

m1: an analogy is strong force and weak force in gravity theory – some art aesthetic ideas are like the strong force, others are like the weak force, but both are forces and have equal status in that they are forces.  It’s pointless to argue against a force just because it’s a weak one.  Where can this idea go?  In the bin!

cf with terror management theory

Is it all intended to stave off the terror that we don’t matter at all?

https://savvypainter.com/podcast/observational-art-invented-imagery-langdon-quin/

 

in the podcast Langdon Quin talks about something that puzzled me and explains his own eexperience

I remember standing in front of a painting and my tutor coming and saying ‘this is wonderful’ – words to that effect and inside I am thinking – this is nothing to me – what is my tutor seeing

why can’t i see it

and all questions related to the emperors new clothes

 

Quin says:

 

‘Many of them (artists) I didn’t understand when I was a young man bonnard/bernard is an example of somebody who cam to me later in life.  he only became impressed by bonnard/bernard in later life

Antrese Wood the podcaster says she also would ask what’s the big deal; and asks Quin to elaborate.

quit says he cam e to bonnar/bernard through thinking about cezanne and asking what was missing in his own painting.  he says his position now came about thinking about surface  tension between  two and three dimensions so that things would sit in space yet at the same time assert themselves on th surface.  he had been concerned only with things that were sitting in three dimensional space but then came to be interested by people who could show something sitting in 3d space but also bring it back to the surface

and he says this was a huge revelation to him ‘oh this is what painting is really about’ it was a breakthrough for him.  he said he understood cubism intellectually but did not have any feeling fort emotionally but then as he started to see cubist ideas manifest themselves in

painters likecezanne and bonnard. it became more meaningful to hom

his ability to flatten form and then open up a space next to a flattened form then close it up again

just make a breathing two and three dimensional space. You come to different artists at different times. It happens over a lifetime.  you coe to a realisation about your own work and then you see another artist and you say ‘ah, that’s what he or she is about and thats what i want to find out more about

 

they both say it takes a long time..

Pat what then about a critic curator who is not an artist

cos they are saying understanding an emotional appreciation and valuing of an artist  is gained via ones own work.  but is it not critics and curators non practicing who control the value attribution to artists?

 

a feeling inside  in the stomach a buzzing excitement that relates to a scene a feeing within the scene

it is colour and representation

it feels peaceful in a long quiet day

it is anticipation

it is peace

it vibrates quietly

it is beautiful

you can see some of it in bonnard

maybe its the shimmering fleeting consciousness of experience

it reminds one

it is where i want to go to be

what would Lacan say?