A few sentences about the 'Fine Arts'

Abstract:  Just what is it we are looking at when we are
           viewing 'Fine Art'?

In a word, it is reality.

But reality comes in a lot of flavors.

The reality could be the poet's reality, or it could be the 
viewers (or recipient's) reality, or it could be an abstract 
reality that isn't related directly related to the poet or 
the recipient at all. 

Sliding off the trail, it could even be offered to the 
recipient as a subjective reality of many different views:  
the poet's, the recipient's, or an abstraction.

Depends on the poet...

The church has long used visuals to impart truth or 
cautionaries or reality.  Stained glass, sculpture, 
frescoes, illustrations, paintings...

Cave paintings probably should even be reexamined for their 
possible 'Artistic' or 'Fine Art' content.

Fine art can be also incorporated into architecture.
The Cathedral is an example.  There are other examples.

As an aside, art did not begin with Christianity.  Nor did 
'Fine Art'.  All 'cultures', the godless and the Godly, 
however defective, had their 'art'.

The bow, gun, and cannon, are many 'cultures' answer to 
social problems, hence they have as 'art' statuary of men or 
women and weaponry all over the place glorifying their 
bestial processes.

The dinosaurs still rule.

All the predators still and quiet, yet lurk at the water 
hole of oil, of power, and of glory.  Evil likes predators 
at that water hole.  It makes His job easier.

But what we have been discussing is visual impact upon the
viewer or the poet.  Let's expand that a bit.

One of Turner's battling warships pictures, done under a 
fearsome sky, can also be duplicated in a photograph, as can 
a picture of 'Mother & Child' or many other earlier artistic 
efforts.  So photos, black & white or color can be included 
into the 'fine arts' efforts as well.

Can a cartoon or cartoons be 'fine art'?

The suspicion is 'yes' they can.  Consider the movie 'Bambi' 
or any of the movies that are advanced forms of 'opera' 
using the visual premise of distributing concepts through 
illustration.  Drawings can always be considered or 
recognized as having fine art as its subject matter.

There may be an issue as to what is 'Fine Art' verses what 
is 'Art'.  The distinction may be linguistic or it may be a 
reality.  Art may be just a presentation of the recipient's 
reality to the recipient.  Or alternatively, it could be the 
artist's reality presented to the recipient, or both.

The concept has been blurred over the centuries due to the 
concept being somewhat corrupted by popular use.

Dance, Music, Song, all can be refined to the 'Fine Art' 
point.

According to joseph_sixpack intuition, The Geisha presents a 
reality to her viewers, with her dance and music.

Wrongly confused as 'sexual' by ignorant viewing eyes, most 
of whom don't realize that it is they whom she portrays.  
Their fate - their judgment - their destiny.

The painted faces of moral failure.

The fisherman's children are sold.

The Geisha's fine art says:
"See!  this is what you are, this is what you have been, 
this is what you will be.  This is what you will endure.

A terrifying indictment.

Certainly the Geisha is not just Art, but in the most proper 
sense of the word, 'Fine Art', i.e. 'Final things'.

The dance she dances, was the dance they danced; and now, 
the dance they will continue to dance.

The songs she sings, is the song they sang; and now, will 
continue to sing.

The music she plays, was the music they played; and now will 
continue to play.

A nasty post-apocalyptic presentation of their reality.
The Geisha presents 'Fine Art' because she is fine art.

This intuitive version of 'Fine Art' gives rise to a 
question:  Just where does the Geisha get her inspiration 
and information for her performances?

From herself?
Or from others?

Here the rumbling and dark mists of the Heavens speak their 
warning:  Child... tread not where thou dost not belong.

So it is a warning well taken by joe.
It's an about face from here on out.

So...  let's see... where were we?

So 'Fine Art' can be said to represent the higher realities.
The scenes of the Crucifixion - Fine Art.
The scourging at the pillar - Fine Art.
The Four Horseman of the Apocalypse - Fine Art.

That brings joe to a suggestion:  Perhaps we should adopt 
the term 'High Art' for what was once classically known as 
'Fine Art', and reserve the term 'High Art' for the original 
Aristotelian meaning.

Now... there are a LOT of artists who, not knowing about 
what they are writing, painting, sculpting, composing, can 
be considered to be monkeys on a typewriter.

(ignorant joe is not withdrawing himself from that status 
either by the way)

whose works, accidentally, if read into by those who do 
understand the visual poetry of fine art, can have or 
perceive to have, accidental higher meaning.

This is the act of subjectively 'creating' fine (or High) 
art meaning into the work of 'accidental' art by the viewer.  

Are such happenings less valid, or have less value, than the 
genius of 'deliberately' created fine art?

Probably not.

But it is the viewer who brings the value and status to the 
crayola drawing of a child into the arena of 'Fine Art'.  

In joseph_sixpack's opinion, fine art to be fine, must have 
as its subject, the elements surrounding the existence of 
the world of Divinity. The finger points up.. to the 
Heavens, to the logistics of the Heavens; in short, to the 
items concerning the things of God.  

God isn't messing around.

So the aspects, or cautionaries, surrounding the spiritual 
aspects or realities of High Culture and God and the many 
dangers involved in attempting to mimic or approach Him are 
all the proper concerns of Fine (High) Art.

The poets have long observed and reported the foibles of the 
proud and vain in such matters.  Even a lot of churches, 
with their white masks, have backed away entirely or shrunk 
from discussions of evil.  Darkness has its power.  Darkness 
has its power and glory. 

Contrariwise, elements of portrayed reality may, on average, 
when considered to have as its object, the mundane elements 
of earthly existence, may be considered as just 'Art' but 
not 'Fine or High Art'.

but a lot of caution needs to be taken here, especially with 
the oriental venues where subtleness and propriety are held 
in highest esteem.

An oriental picture of a certain bird with a butterfly in 
its beak might tell the Christian candidate a thing or two 
about the journey from wormhood to butterfly.

Finally, for that 'art' that concerns itself with things 
that were anciently considered Aristotelian or Heavenly, 
adopting the term, 'High Art' is a suggested way to go.

Modernly, all the art and fine art distinctions have been 
almost totally blurred or forgotten.

It is all forgotten at our very grave peril.

High arts messages should be crisp, clear & concise.
So ALL may see and take note.  Where the grain falls from 
there is then up to the grain.

The ancient arts carry with them, ancient power and ancient 
glory.  And with that, ancient danger.  



                 More notes for discussion

movies  visual & hearing
opera     hearing and visual
symphony   hearing
music             hearing
literature       optical thru imagination
cooking food poetry   reality thru sense of taste
odor     reality thru sense of smell (sulphur & etc.)
cartoons    reality thru cartoons

fine art v unfine art v coarse art v art