tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24220427978310311752011-07-07T20:28:19.202-07:00Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.Peterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18068635445323627720noreply@blogger.comBlogger11100tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2422042797831031175.post-19641684995591501502007-08-02T14:45:00.000-07:002007-08-02T15:09:55.009-07:00Wow...the first post...<br />Well, I have been thinking about what discussion should start off this blog and I think I have found one. The questions is simply this - which does it mean to call something a 'fine art' and which of the arts qualify by possessing that certain something? Yes, a big question, and perhaps only someone with a great deal of arrogance would presume to establish a firm and complete answer, (I need to reread Maritain and Gilson, but I am pretty sure neither of them come out with a definitive list) but we still need something to work from. <br /> I think an definition would lean heavily on the notion that a fine art should be a thing (or making of a thing) which is closely related to contemplation (in a very broad sense). Something which enables us to know (again, in a broad sense - knowledge through inclinations I imagine come in to play) deeper truths about reality. Something which enables us to see new truths with our own eyes, or perhaps the same old things with new eyes. <br /> And finally comes the question...Forget about a list (for now), and forget about a perfect definition (for now) -- Can the culinary arts rise to this type of height? (I am of course assuming that there is a difference in kind between non-fine arts and fine arts, not simply a difference in degree. This is not simply an assumption on my part but also a firmly held opinion, but that is an entirely different discussion...)<br /> Do you suppose that by the medium of food chefs may do for taste what painters and musicians do for the eyes and ears. Or is the sense of taste, if not in theory at least in practice, simply not capable of perceiving that certain something which brings us to artificial (that is - by means of an artifact) contemplation? Certainly all the senses, including taste give us a view of reality which leads to contemplation. But can we really direct this sense in others (the way a painter directs the viewers eye) so that we can accurately affect another's intellect to gain a certain insight into X?<br /><br />Wow - let me just note that I didn't envision this blog to only contain such theoretical and lengthy posts, but also such things as "I just went to see X and Y - I thought they were worthless - what did you guys think" and so on.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/2422042797831031175-1964168499559150150?l=thingsworththinkingon.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Peterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18068635445323627720noreply@blogger.com0