Emotionalvs Intellectual art

[obseq]

after perusing artists' websites the other day, i found one that mentioned her affinity with the emotional putpouring that sometimes emerges from discovering art.

she went on to mention in her personal statement, that art can only have an impact if and only if it arouses some emotional response as opposed to that of intellect.

so for those of you out there.....do you subscribe to either the "emotional" or "intellectual," (or both?) in your art?

[emosher]

I really think it would have to be both. They are so completely tied to one another anyway (despite what we often think). If you see a piece that makes you think about something in a new way or provokes new thought is that really free of emotion? And if you discover a piece of artwork that strikes an emotional chord aren't you prone to intelectualizing it?
Sometimes the key is to get a response, any response at all.

[obseq]

Originally posted by emosher
I really think it would have to be both. They are so completely tied to one another anyway (despite what we often think). If you see a piece that makes you think about something in a new way or provokes new thought is that really free of emotion? And if you discover a piece of artwork that strikes an emotional chord aren't you prone to intelectualizing it?
Sometimes the key is to get a response, any response at all.




i would think that most would be apt to saying "both," but that is why i was taken by suprise to read an assertion that *only* striving for an emotional response is the true way to create art.

i have seen arguments for strict formalism but not for an entirely emotional approach to making art.....

being the devil's advocate on this would be interesting to say the least.

[redrajah]

Originally posted by obseq
i would think that most would be apt to saying "both," but that is why i was taken by suprise to read an assertion that *only* striving for an emotional response is the true way to create art.

perhaps her words are emotional and yours, intellectual...

[emosher]

I would be willing to accept that the emotional response may be that specific persons way of judging the value of an artwork (but who can really do that anyway?).
And so, she is stating that the only really good work is that which provokes a truly visceral response. Therefore even intellectual or conceptual work as long as it creates the emotional response (even if it is paired with an intellectual response) is a success.
Based on that work that is purely intellectual may not really be categorized as "art" but may function within a different category.
I think it is the "only if" statement that is confusing, because that implies that it couldn't have both...

[Georges]

Although I fail to recall the details (names, dates, etc.) I learned of a railraod foreman, via Public TV, who accidentally had a blasting spike shoot through his brain. He survived with one amazing injury - the connections between his emotional and reasoning centers were severed!

His case was well documented for the time (late 19th or early 20th century) and reinacted for the TV program. If reality was anything like the portrayal I saw then I would be quick to aver that this tie should never be severed: in individuals or in art.

Besides, Intellect's parents are Fear and Desire...

[fritchie]

Georges - I vaguely remember that program also. Upper Midwest, I think, maybe Michigan, but I remember nothing at all about the symptoms you describe. Possibly I saw only snatches. BTW, what’s the origin of your quotation, “Besides, Intellect's parents are Fear and Desire...”?

[amsierra]

It is not E vs. I. It's E is I. Emotion is intelligence. There is no intelligence without the emotional. (See fascism for further demonstrations of intelligence sans emotion.)

Art without emotion leaves us cold, cold, cold. Just as art without intelligence does not hold our attention, or if it does it's vulgar. (See popular media for further demonstrations of emotion sans intelligence.) It also feels manipulative, exploitative.

The artist who brings these two essential dynamics into elegant, clever, poignant, real interplay is the genius.

That is what we, the audience, are unconsciously seeking to connect with. The schlock is a bandaid to our yearning for real art, just as junk food is imitation nutrition.

Ana

[fritchie]

We're taking about rumors here. Just what DID the artist say? She may have meant that no emotional content leaves the work vacuous, and I agree. Obseq, do you have the original reference? I understand if you don’t want to make someone’s words public without notice, but you see where we are now, without the context.

[obseq]

Originally posted by fritchie
We're taking about rumors here. Just what DID the artist say? She may have meant that no emotional content leaves the work vacuous, and I agree. Obseq, do you have the original reference? I understand if you don’t want to make someone’s words public without notice, but you see where we are now, without the context.


Fritchie,

I don't really think that this amounts to discussing a rumor without a source. I merely posted a summary of what the artist's personal statement described--I felt that her opinion was straight forward enough to post here without really needing an exact quotation. My original post was not intended to dissect that specific artist's words but to dissect the idea that I gathered from it.

My only objective was to toss another perspective into the fray to generate discussion simply between practicing art with or without emotion exculsively.


My appologies in advance if this might have irked anyone.

[fritchie]

I clearly don't want to pick a public fight, and I may have written with less that the greatest discretion, but let my quote Aurora from earlier in one of these threads: "A wrong word leads to a wrong mental picture." What we have been discussing in this thread is your impression of the artist’s statement and nor her statement itself.

As far as it goes, that is fine, but to be fair to the original artist, she (I assume from the content) may have given you an impression different from one she wanted.

[sculptorsam]

Clearly, there are people who believe one's emotional reaction to a work is paramount. I think obseq was alluding to the larger issue of emotion vs. intellect, and for that I do not believe we need the particular's of one artist's statement at all. This discussion so far has been quite broad in scope, as I think most people interpreted the question as a general one. Unless the artist in question wanted to join the fray, I don't really need to know their exact wording.

Just my two cents to try and bridge the gap.

Sam

[amsierra]

It's an interesting question and you can take various sides or not. I think the perception of the artist statement in question was just a launching point for a lively discussion. Thank you for the opportunity to express my views! Ana

[June Ahrens]

I think its an interesting exercise to explore E vs/is I.....I also wanted to throw out another sub thought. Where does one place "Art Therapy" in the mix of emotional /intellectual expressions of art. Doesn't it have an emotional compotent, and can it not be done intellectually? Curious as to what you all might have to say !

[mbigger]

Wow !! if you all are realy concerned with this "emotional stuff", stop being a sculptor and paint watercolor landscapes or, even better, Maine harbors.

[Georges]

For Fritchie: Although it's a pretty generic idea, I said the thing about fear and desire. I can clarify it and say that fear and desire are the binary drivers of our hardwiring for survival. Intellect then becomes a "tool/strategy" evolved to aid us both in wish fulfillment and danger avoidance.

But this discussion in general, though fun, is moot since amsierra accurately makes the point that they are inseparable.

The real question for me is: Must art move me in a way I cannot examine with logic? Afterall, logic is gibberish without a foundation of palatable assumptions. And isn't Art's most noble role to challenge not our logic but our assumptions? How can it do that without appealing to an emotional, intuitive or gut reaction?

But this line of thinking leads many artists to mistake shock for epiphany and nonsense for originality ...

[Araich]

Originally posted by Georges
...Must art move me in a way I cannot examine with logic?
Yes. Because it is primarily a visual experience, and speaks to a part of us that we are not directly able to analyse.
What images are passed about deep inside our brains, and what emotional associations are drawn, is completely beyond the reach of our conscious logical conclusions.

Meaning that you can just like it, and not really bother defending your position. Because it is valid, no matter what some 10,000 word essay might try to tell you. http://www.artwise.com.au/images/spineyes.gif

[fritchie]

Georges - I had to look up your amsierra reference (http://sculpture.net/community/showthread.php?s=&postid=896#post896). To me it’s one of those “yes and no” issues. Yes, emotion is a form of intelligence, but no, it’s not the same as intellect. And I have to say I think she is wrong when she says There is no intelligence without the emotional. (See fascism for further demonstrations of intelligence sans emotion.)

Art without emotion leaves us cold, cold, cold. .... As one of my favorite subjects in college was math, I have to say that math is purely “intellectual” as that commonly is understood. It relies on clearly stated postulates or assumptions, and inconsistency with those assumptions, in a purely logical (= intellectual) way creates failure in the math.

HOWEVER, the mathematician himself or herself is human, and both emotion and intellect reside equally in that person. Emotion, as you say, generally is a significant driving force in math as in all other human actions.

[fritchie]

And Araich, I have to say I think you are wrong also in saying What images are passed about deep inside our brains, and what emotional associations are drawn, is completely beyond the reach of our conscious logical conclusions. The virtue of intelligence (= logic) is exactly as Georges said - to let us pursue the implications of an emotional feeling within our heads before acting on it, so as to choose a good action.

Intellect, in the way it has been used here, as a synonym for logic, can analyze any form of emotion to some extent or other. Following Georges still again, the foundation of a logical thinking process is a set of assumptions.

What (some) good art does is challenge the viewer’s common assumptions, the basis of his logical reaction to that form of art. Good art extends earlier assumptions, or replaces them entirely. We may or may not realize this consciously, but our emotional side sees it, and that typically is the source of a deep interest.

[fritchie]

Has this discussion gotten hot! Georges -
How can it (art) do that without appealing to an emotional, intuitive or gut reaction? -

I have contended as long as I can remember, and certainly as long as I have been actively sculpting, about 15 years, that sculpture is a language, or at least it ought to be used that way. This concept ran freely through the earlier ISC discussion forum, which Russ probably has archived somewhere.

I see in the best art, but certainly not in all art, an internal logic. In fact, I think a sculpture fails when it does not follow its own implied logic or when it seems to have none. Georges’ comments, in a couple of places above, clarify this idea for me. Probably the central characteristic of a language is that it has a syntax, a relationship between parts, and when this syntax is violated, communication fails.

I think art without a logical basis, in the sense used here, is a failure. Everyone above is correct in saying that sculpture, and art in general, typically first catches our emotional side. But if it then says nothing, if its internal assumptions and syntax are violated, it fails.

[Georges]

Sculptors cannot avoid logic. Why? Because of gravity.

Every artform and media has its limitations - dimension, stasis, point of view, etc. Sculptors, like dancers, must contend with gravity.

A stone bird will never fly. The illusion that it might is supported by the flow of its form, the texture of its surface and the fact that what it represents can, actually, fly. The stone bird flies only in the mind of the artist and the viewers. This phenomenon can be termed "sympathetic magic" or "language".

But the stone bird will never fly. It is far too rigid and heavy. It must perch somewhere.

This logic is intrinsic to the artform. The assumption it relies on was accepted by each of us after we dropped our binkies from our high chairs a thousand times to test it. Gravity happens every time. A stone can only defy this through sympathetic magic.

[Aurora]

I'd like to touch upon intuition for a moment. Maybe it is not emotional and intillectual, but rather intuitive and process.

Intiution tends to be a vehicle of doing something but not sure why (at the present moment). I think when a person has a big artist statement and moves from logic to creativity, it loses the mystery and fluidity. My best work tends to be when I'm not sure why I've done it and it later brings strangers to tears. It is not until much later that I understand it.

Oddly, when I ask children what they think, they tend to get past the intillectual much faster and give me the best epihanies.

Just a thought

[Georges]

True. Look at Elizabeth Catlett's work "Protest". The figure has both fists upraised - one slightly higher than the other. .(You can see it near the end of this flash slideshow on sulpture.org) (http://www.sculpture.org/documents/catlett/cat_small_sshow.html)

I immediately felt the anger, pride and nobility of this righteous warrior.

But my 7 year-old daughter took one look and said: "She's climbing a mountain."

[fritchie]

Georges = Sculptors cannot avoid logic.. True, in the way you discuss it, but the sculptures I was alluding to lack internal logic. In another phrase, somewhat similar to one you used elsewhere recently, they are nonsense and in my opinion fail as sculpture.

[fritchie]

Aurora - I’m not sure just how to treat intuition. I think it covers logic as well as emotion. Math was my favorite subject in college, though not my major. Probably the principal activity in college math is learning proofs of theorems (logically precise statements about some area of math) and the concepts on which they are based, and then generating proofs on one’s own. In math research, the principal activity moves to creating the actual theorems and the ideas they deal with.

This is a completely logical activity, but my experience, repeatedly, is that I had an instinctive feel about whether or not I could do a proof. Generally I was right, but on occasion I was wrong. I think that is a fair test of instinct, and the subject was not emotion at all, but purely logical.

I think of instinct as a mental shortcut, not typically understandable, but generally right. Its subject can be emotion , logic, or probably any combination.

[Aurora]

Morning Fritchie (and everyone else of course)


Fritchie quote:
"I think of instinct as a mental shortcut, not typically understandable, but generally right. Its subject can be emotion , logic, or probably any combination."

I see, so intuition is somewhere in the middle of emotion and logic. If a person was working on a intuitive level, then they would be working from both logic and emotion.

So we are back to square one....can a purely intellectual piece be art. Can a purely emotional piece be art? It might be only defined from the eye of the beholder. Does an intellectual piece evoke an intuitive emotion in the viewer?

Or am I getting off the topic?

[Georges]

Where does Epiphany, Grace or Enlightenment fit in? Most of us have had the experience of art "coming through" us rather than being "made by" us. This parallels the "discovery" vs. "invention" debate in mathematics.

Is art simply the shining of light into shadowy corners of our collective conciousness? Is the appreciation of art simply the successful assimilation of what has been shown to exist within that conciousness?

If we look at the brain as the plumbing that directs and filters the water's flow rather than the actual source of said water then neither logic, animal instinct nor emotion is at the center of this discussion. Only the clarity, freshness and soul-sustaining properties of the water.

[fritchie]

Georges - Deep as always. You're giving us another koan here. I've had that experience myself, several times, of "art coming through me rather than from me". Even when I don’t have a specific feeling, I generally consider that the source is elsewhere.

I was going to say something else in regard to recent discussion, and will continue with it here and then get back to your Epiphany, Grace or Enlightenment.

It occurred to me after posting the comments on emotion and logic being the elements of intellect, that intuition also is an element, and that people argued a decade or so ago that abilities underlying fields such as dance, music, art, sport, and presumably also mathematics, chess and so on, are additional elements.

These arguments, which as I recall were offered to support changes in IQ measurement, have validity. The brain is a complex machine and as Georges reminds us here, Creation is not simple.

Is the brain, and the human machine which supports it, a transmission device instead of a creation device, or is it both? Each person has to find his/her own answer, and his/her own path following or paralleling that answer.

[fritchie]

Koanic problems often require bifurcated answers. I’ve just reviewed a small part of this thread, and it is wandering all over the place. That’s not bad, as it relates to the basis of our work, but it’s equally important to remember “I’ve got to finish that sculpture by deadline, and I’ve got to pay those bills tomorrow.”

Thinking about something, and doing something, tend to reflect Eastern and Western approaches. I hope I’m not offending anyone by saying this, but Today is as important as Infinity.

[K.N]

This topic is really misleading if not understood properly, in my humble opinion. Firstly this debate is not new, it began as a heated debate between two very influential artists; peter paul rubens and nicolas poussin, which has rippled throughout the history of fine art. the distinction suggested that emotion be linked with colour and intellect with line.
my foundational belief is that both are inseperable, but to which side you're inclined towards can vary as opinions vary, becuase of individual temprament. i would be more inclined to associate with intellect rather than to condescend to create Art for emotion.
emotion in art is like rhymes in the song, it attracts you, catches your eye, but as you look into it and delve deeper, it is the intellect which you fall in love with.

[amsierra]

K.N. you are delightful! You write:
emotion in art is like rhymes in the song, it attracts you, catches your eye, but as you look into it and delve deeper, it is the intellect which you fall in love with.

And you walked us right back to the consummate emotion, love, which is at the deepest level. Emotion catches our eye because it's familiar, interesting, complex, a challenge and intertwined with the intellectual. It's what we connect with. And yes, I agree that there is an intuitive process at work. The intellectual aspect is the problem to be solved, the imagination that provokes and elicits, and the process that makes us turn our heads inside out. All meaningless, however, unless it is compelling in some way.

You are absolutely right! They are inseparable, I agree. I enjoy the dance.

[MountainSong]

I tend towards the emotional side myself in weighing artwork.
Not solely emotional but there needs to be a quotient of it in the work otherwise it is likely to read as commercial work which is approached mentally and not emotionally.
Heart and soul is what give art the capital A. Intellect of course is desirable too and in many ways a well balanced piece of art will have both. Intellect in use of materials is critical often and beyond the concept much of the actual work is carried out more from a place of intellect than a place of emotion.
But if only one can be present it should be emotion, (imagine the pureness of a childs drawing) because without that the object is likely to turn out a model, commercial, replica, contrived, etc.
In many ways emotion or work that emotes is the diference between art and object. Perhaps this is what she meant.

[fritchie]

Boy, K. N. sure reached way back for this thread - June, 2003 - but it reflects much of what has been said elsewhere recently: the nature of art, or more specifically sculpture. I haven't reread much of the earlier thread, but I stand by what I wrote in at least the last couple of posts. Art is complex and something I, at least, do not fully understand, but at base level it IS communication, a mix of logic and emotion, not to exclude instinct or brain processes.

[evaldart]

from my experience the brain likes to write checks that the body then has to go get cashed with no i.d at the thickest bullet-proof window in the worst part of town. If I let my body lead it will rattle around in the pile, emerge dragging stuff and then the brain can do its knob-turning, button pushing tape-measure snapping and guage setting. The whole process is accompanied by wrath, joy and sorrow at various intervals throughout. In the end some blood has been shed, some muscles torqued, some tetnis battled-back, some fair scandanavian skin has been u.v'd, but the brain feels fine. So I know whos really working around here.

[K.N]

Some good varied points mentioned, all based on what we mean by art. For me art is a skill in which an artist communicates a certain message through a creative medium. That’s quite broad so i’m sure no one will explicitly reject this definition. i find that extended emotion makes up for the lack of intellect been able to express in an artists work, simply to make it more accessible to our audience. art is personal and the truths we experience are obscured when we try to articulate them for other people. let me explain; if im eating a sweet theres no way you can experience the same taste as i am simply by me describing the taste and because i lack to put this experience across it is natural to exaggerate emotion inorder to make up for it. but the question i pose is ; 'is it right to sacrafice intellect simply to make our art more accessible? if so how far do we go?'

[fritchie]

Intellect can get this message across just as well as emotion. Think of literature, for example, or ordinary conversation, where words are used to convey the experience. We use analogy, and assume that readers have had similar experiences and can bridge the gap between memory and the new experience to be communicated.

All the same, verbal (word-based) communication frequently communicates both logic and emotion, so whether the object at issue is sculpture or writing, the content can be similarly partitioned between these two extremes.



.... let me explain; if im eating a sweet theres no way you can experience the same taste as i am simply by me describing the taste and because i lack to put this experience across it is natural to exaggerate emotion inorder to make up for it. ....

[MountainSong]

Earnest Hemingway used intellect in his writing in place of emotion, they say to brilliant effect….I’ll let you know what I think when I get done decoding it.

[obseq]

This topic is really misleading if not understood properly, in my humble opinion.

Welcome to the Community, K.N.

I'm not quite sure if you are referring to the topic as presented in this Community or in a general sense.
I originally submitted this as a point of discussion after reading an artist's statement that advocates the emotional genesis and subsequent response of art as the "correct" and "true" means of approach.
I find this sort of hyperbole equivalent to nothing more than irresponsible correlative thought.

Pantomime some whimsical circle with a pair of hands long enough, wax obtuse importance about oneness, (and descriptors of the same ilk, ad infinitum/ad naseum) and it's expected to be accepted without question-- Why? Well, apparently, this fits all under a veneer of "emotion."

The emotional response in art isn't the product of some poorly-crafted axiom--
That willful response stems from the (definitively) sublime pleasure of self.

Sigmund Freud wrote extensively on that uncanny phantom which quietly lulls us into a featureless understanding-- That which simultaneuously renders any given array of lines, light and the absense thereof into something we simply recognize within both ourselves and our experiences.

...More
(Or decidedly less, depending on your tendencies)

[Elphick]

Please excuse me for not having read all the previous posts - pushed for time right now, but will read them all later.

I have always beleived that, in my very humble opinion, if art has any value whatsoever, it must lie in it's ability to provoke thought. Can the thought process be totally separated from the emotional side of things? I don't think so.

Just my opinion. I fancied chipping in for change, is all. :)

[Merlion]

I also have not been following the details of previous posts. I'll make my comments brief.

... she went on to mention in her personal statement, that art can only have an impact if and only if it arouses some emotional response as opposed to that of intellect.

so for those of you out there.....do you subscribe to either the "emotional" or "intellectual," (or both?) in your art?
We know that some good art touches the heart and evokes in us some emotional response. Others reach for the head, causing us to think and giving us a new world view. But for works of art to be great, they have to touch both the heart and the head. This is what makes them great, and this is not a case of either or.

Perhaps this is like what we hope for in finding a partner for marriage.

[Aaron Schroeder]

I've abstained from this thread because it's one of those either-or, one or the other, make a choice kinds of threads. I get really uncomfortable choosing sides. However after reading through everyones post, I realized that I dealt with this subject in graduate school and came to a conclusion that put my mind at ease. What seems like a line that divides the intellectual from the emotional is upon closer observation just a phase transition in the way the brain copes with incoming data. Reality happens,to fast,to soon, for the intellectual mind to access, acknowledge and respond to in a timely fashion. By the time our ancestors figured out what was going on they were usually dead or missed an opportunity for procreation. Those hardwired through natural selection to respond to highspeed incoming data at the slightest que survived, procreated, and passed on their abilities. One day, at some distant point in the future, almost all deer will be spooked by head lights, fast moving objects and car/deer collisions will happen less frequently. Roads and cars are naturally selecting the emotional reality of future deer. The same with humans. When in graduate school I did a number of experiments to showcase the point where the brain stops tracking coordinates of unfolding events and shifts into cloaking incoming data with quality. An easy to visualize example is the point when turning fan blades turn into a spinning blur. Up until you understand what blur means, your response to that stimulus will be emotional ( alot of folks will feel curious and investigative, some will feel a natural fear ), only after witnessing the fan blades slow down or speed up will you be able to intellectualize about the actual parameters of the fan. I think much of the conflict between emotional and intellectual responses to stimuli has alot to do with group prioritization and social dominance. Some will wish to exploit the the feel of blur while others will wish to demystify the nature of blur. Whose agenda will prevail and whose genes will replicate and dominate. I recently saw mel gibsons apocalypto and it was a real eye opener. The mayan calender,the architecture, the ritual sacrifices, all a show to manipulate the feelings of the people to keep the ruling families in power, those folks developed their super astronomical mathmatics and kept it a secret to manipulate and dominate. Any ambitious genes wanting to compete would have to demystify the prevailing norms and propose an equally compelling substitute ( didn't happen , until the conquistadors ). I not real sure I'm making much sense here with this rant( it's late ), I'm just wanting to put my weight behind the idea that the conflict between emotional and intellectual is artificial and only exist because it's political.

[fritchie]

Aaron - I really like your observation aboutr the relative speed of emotional and intellectual (rational) responses. Emotion undoubtedly grabs people's attention first in a sculpture as in other objects/situations, but the rational or critical facility must chime in shortly afterward for the work to be significant, in my view.

I can't subscribe to at least some of your other points; you have covered quite a bit of ground, but thanks for putting these ideas out. They should provoke additional significant insight.