The other day in my philosophy class we discussed art. We had basically agreed that art was an attempt to communicate through the creation of something using visual, audio or other sensory experiences.
Then it was suggested that nature itself was art. At first I thought that nature is often the inspiration for art, or the subject of art, but in itself, it is not art. However, the more I thought of it I realized that maybe I was wrong. Maybe it is art. I found this to be an interesting concept, because normally we think of art as something created by humans. Obviously, humans did not create the world.
God did.
So is the natural world a work of the Master Artist? Does God seek to communicate something to us through the created world?
Yes, I think that I can accept that. So yes, nature is art.
Tags: aesthetics, all, art, Christianity, commentary, creation, faith, God, nature, Philosophy, religion, teaching, thoughts, world
a whisper in the wind 
September 14, 2010 at 7:55 am |
If we are our creator’s imitators, created in his image, it would follow that he would be the greatest in all endeavors, including (or especially) the Arts.
September 14, 2010 at 5:30 pm |
We may, occassionally, need a little help in interpreting.
September 15, 2010 at 11:28 pm |
I would submit that art is not always merely a matter of communicating something. Sometimes it is something that is created merely for the purpose of inciting some sort of a response, be it positive or negative, simply something to be noticed. (I often wonder if the beauty of cloudscapes, rainbows and sunsets might fall into that category.)
Sometimes it is a deliberate process of creating something to achieve a particular version of or type of end subject matter. (That’s something where I imagine understanding the science behind some creations of nature could be a means of better appreciating what some could consider to be that form of art in nature.)
Sometimes it is merely functional design with some form of esthetic kept in mind during the process. One could probably use the example of the after affects of a burn when plants and flowers spring forth from ash that were actually helped out by the process of burning for that. Wild as a fire may be, they do seem to run pretty deliberate courses whether man tries to direct their courses or not. Some post fire “gardens” are absolutely beautiful though.
What is to be considered “good” or “bad” art, now that is the discussion that opens up the proverbial can of worms.
September 16, 2010 at 6:27 am |
It is possible that I have a broader definition of communication. The attempt to provoke a response through a constructed medium would still qualify as communication to my understanding.