I am not good at art. I mean I am really, really bad. I cannot draw to save my life. My painting ability resembles the pictures people put up on their fridge that were done by their 5 year-old daughter (I'm even being ambitious when I say I could be at the level of a 5 year-old. ) I cannot sing, and there is probably nothing that complexes me more then the guitar. I know people will say that if I practice I can figure it out, but these people are dead wrong, I legitimately must posses an art IQ of 48 because I simply cannot perform well in any artistic avenue. Consequently, my viewpoint on art has always been poor. I can remember being a freshman in high school and taking art class. Now, art class in high school essentially amounts to a participation grade, if you show up, follow directions and turn in all your work, not only will you pass, but you'll receive no lower then a B. Forgetting the wonderful connotations of such a “participatory” role for an art class for a minute, I managed to follow directions, turn in all my work, and still found a way to get a C- in the class. Most likely the worst grade my art teacher had handed out in years. My art work was literally so bad that my teacher felt morally compromised by giving me any higher then a C-. My parents were angry, they thought I wasn't trying. Rather then explaining to them that I WAS trying, I figured it was better to let them think I was lazy, rather then stupid.
Recognizing my bias against the whole notion of art is important for this particular essay. Can I really separate my ability in art and my opinion of art? It is no secret at this point that I have a nihilistic opinion of art, voiding any standards as mere mirages of objectivity, and undermining validation for those who call art an intellectual home. I usually find time to chuckle at folks who disillusion themselves into believing in this art/deity symbiotic relationship. All people, psychology speaking, need God. So if they culturally will not accept the religious aspect of “God,” they will intrinsically replace the notion with some other cultural element. Perhaps, its science, or art, or sports, but people crave that belief structure; they lose all meaning with out it. Again a point of amusement for me, as those in society who have become “enlightened” by the truth of God's non existence, find themselves diverting all that ideological energy toward some other leap of faith. In Art's case, finding and setting standards engender the meaning that so many crave.
Yet, here I am, ignoring my own bias just to get a few laughs from an overly dogmatic culture. I do not want there to be standards of art, simply because it asserts my vulnerability in someway. Because I am not good at art, I want to trivialize it to mere aberration. What is the consequence of such a belief? What do I truly intend by perpetuating such a belief? The dogmatists at least provide structure. The dogmatists at least provide a venue from which to have this conversation. Should it be my desire to rid the world of all discussion because it “appears” to be more trouble then it is worth?
The New God
Hegel discussed a very important paradigm with in the history of thought. His assertion can also be used to understand the origin of philosophical presuppositions. However, there is a slight issue with the linear progression of Hegel's theory. Hegel believes this process to be always progressing, illuminating synthesis after synthesis. But Hegel fails to realize that certain presuppositions stem from ideas that are technically generated after the original presupposition. For example, I would argue that ultimate question that has yet be answered, and once answered will provide a domino effect of truth with in every genre of study, is the question, what is the true nature of humanity. But certainly, humanity is not the beginning of the dialectic. The beginning of the presuppositional dialectic should lie with in the confines of cosmogony. Establishing the order of things should certainly come before the established teleology of humanity. However, if one puts this ideological relationship under a microscope, they will see that the reason cosmogony even exists in the human lexicon is due to its instrumental worth. Humanity is not concerned with the order of things as direct knowledge. But rather they are interested in determining the order of things to best clarify humanity's position with in the universe, and thus determine what our natural inclinations are.
