Art vs. nature?

art is seen to be an aesthetic representation of reality (aka. nature). do you think this is true? to what extent does art accurately depict nature, or should art be condemned in society because it is seen to be false and untruthful?

Art vs. nature?
There are two main theories of art (and the same theories apply to all creative human activity).





1. is that art mimics nature. Human are inspired from the outside from what they sense and they copy it albeit it may be transmuted or recombined. This theory is known as mimesis.





2. that art is constructed, this is too say, that it comes from the creative process of human consciousness. We pull stuff out of nowhere and combine it to create the new. This is known as constructionist theory.





MIMESIS:


"Nature creates similarities. One need only think of mimicry. The highest capacity for producing similarities, however, is man’s. His gift of seeing resemblances is nothing other than a rudiment of the powerful compulsion in former times to become and behave like something else. Perhaps there is none of his higher functions in which his mimetic faculty does not play a decisive role."





--- Walter Benjamin, "On the Mimetic Faculty" 1933





To be human is to be aware of what is outside ourselves. Nature is our grand inspiration. But, nature is inside ourselves too, in our thoughts and feelings. This is human nature. The finest art is created when external nature meets internal nature in a most productive way.





Often the two theories expressed above have been seen as mutually exclusive. But actually, I think that they support each other. Humans construct or invent in order to try to copy what they experience in nature whether external or internal. Granted we always fall short--the simplest one-celled organism is superior to Cathedral Notre Dame. So mimesis is the mother of invention.





Someone once asked the abstract expressionist, Jackson Pollack, why he did not paint from nature and his reply was "I am nature."





Images from nature are recorded in our subconscious and used to process the deep feelings innate in the subconscious. We use these amalgamated images then in representations to others.





Art should not be condemned in society because it is seen to be false or untruthful. It is neither false or untruthful. But, it can be deceptive. The aesthetic nature of art can convey certain "truths" but they are not logical truths. The aesthetic nature of art can be use to deceive and distract from logical truth as much of advertising does.





If art is honest about what it is then it can reveal great truths. If it is dishonest than it can lead to debasement as much of hip-hop, thrash, and punk do. These latter forms can be distracting from truth.





Ultimately art should not be judged by the standard of truth but rather if it is meaningful or not. Art should not seek to mask truth but seek its own meaning--the internal and the external dancing like two of the most talented tango dancers.





Art elevates the creations of man (humankind) and therefore gives dignity to humanity. But, in our self-importance let us not forget where we got our inspiration--nature.





This is why I support wilderness preservation. Ansel Adams did to.





I think that I answered both questions adequately.
Reply:Art is one's interpretation of nature. I don't think it's a representation of it.
Reply:I think nature is arts purest form
Reply:%26lt;%26gt;It is said that "Art imitates nature;" that being the 'best' it can do. An artist can accurately depict nature, or he/she can be as abstract as they desire. Art should never be condemned in any form because it is an expression. Should one be stifled for expressing an opinion?