this post was submitted on 18 Jul 2024
147 points (92.0% liked)

Asklemmy

43755 readers
1266 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I guess this could have just been a shower thought as well...

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] imaqtpie@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate art more than most. But there's an exclusionary aspect that exists with art, wherein only some people can truly appreciate various aspects.

In contrast, nature is more universal and primal. Everyone, regardless of language or culture or education, can appreciate natural phenomena. The beauty of nature speaks to us on a fundamental level, whereas the beauty of art requires a certain degree of acculturation and intellectual effort to grasp.

Furthermore, human art is a reflection of nature and indeed a part of the beauty of nature, as you say. However, that inevitably positions it as a subset of the all encompassing beauty of existence as a whole. Artistic works are small mirrors reflecting back aspects of reality in interesting ways. But because they can only ever represent fragments of the greater whole, they are somewhat less awe inspiring.

Often, works of art can prompt us to engage with the beauty of reality, so I'm not condemning them in any way. I'm just saying that the representation can't be better than the real thing, even if humans wish that it were.

[–] Infynis@midwest.social 9 points 3 months ago (1 children)

But it's hard to argue that they could exceed the beauty of the thing that they reflect.

Only if you're looking for objective value of paint on a canvas, or words on a page. What I think is beautiful about art is the way it makes people feel, and the complexity of the human context that allows that. Just this week, a story caused my fiancée to have a breakthrough in her CPTSD therapy. That's a unique kind of beauty

[–] imaqtpie@sh.itjust.works 5 points 3 months ago

Indeed, I agree with you on that.

[–] MindTraveller@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 months ago

Nah, thanks to piracy everyone can watch TV and movies for free. If you're a poor person who grew up in the city nature is a lot less accessible.