In logic, the Law of Identity states that an object is the same as itself: A ≡ A. A=A is a tautology.
There are different forms of identity in different fields. Identity in Logic philosophy is the sameness of two things. In Philosophy of mind, mind is identical to the brain. In Psychology, we are dealing with the collective self image of an individual that can be further integrated in the image of a community an individual is part of, and later on a bigger society where the field is changed to the Social identity. In Biological identity, we go back to the genotypes and phenotypes and environmental factors (nature and nurture). These are wonderful topics feeding the thoughts and lives of many investigators.
What engaged my mind today is: Identity in the field of Art. Is this known? Has there been research done on this?
My thoughts so far: the work of art created by an artist does not show the identity of the artist. The identity of artist is to be found in the many fields I mentioned above. An artist is just bold enough to express dreams, realities, illusions that show absolutely nothing about the identity of artist as a totality. Therefore, a work of art should be looked at independent of the artist. Knowing the biography may add a bit of humanity zest. Art in addition to peace, love, beauty is independent of us. Once produced, the identity can then be investigated and may be realized with an universal, mystic, philosophical, psychological, social, biological eye.
Why all this? I don't know what is happening to my identity. It is under a crisis. An explosive crisis like the world war III. Heal me. Who am I? Who are you? Who are we? Who aren't we? Who can we be? Who can't we be? Tell me. Tell you. Tell us. Don't tell. How public to tell. Words...words...signs...signs...silence...si...
3 comments:
This post is one of my favorite. I am not sure we have the same definition of identity but here's what I understand from it.
I would agree to say that a work of arts should be seen as independent of the artist. However, not everyone can accomplish art or grasp the beauty of physics, and I think it is implicitly a vector of its identity.
I explain : I am not an artist, but I think physics is an art. From my perspective, there is no such thing as mastering physics, or understanding physics. Physics is for me this entity with an inner meaning, that can be transmitted through a language, mathematics, by a communicator a scientist. One of the necessary condition for a person to allow physics to ''run through his mind'' is for this person to be in state of ''submission''.
In this sense, even though arts is not explicitly a vector of one's identity, it is implicitly pointing to one its greatest qualities : humbleness.
I think this idea, somehow applies to other forms of arts. You need to forget your self if you want to meet beauty.
La vie sans art, et une mer sans vie.
Thanks Adnane. I like your point on submission and humbleness because there is little judgement associated with these words and that's when inspiration comes at its highest. The minute you start criticizing, fixing, reasoning, and analyzing, you become more of an investigator and less of an artist, not to say that one is better than another, they're just different.
I also like the way you see art in physics because that's what I see in science. These fields may sound very different but I think deep down there's a common thread that connects all together and that maybe the 'absolute' by which I really don't know what I mean since I haven't reached it yet!
I like this: You need to forget your self if you want to meet beauty.
La vie sans art, la vie sans amour
Post a Comment