Are Dreams "Art"?

[barondave]

Over in cakmpls's journal, a raging discussion of art is taking place. Or was, as it seems to have run its course. One concept remains dangling: Are dreams art?

By cakmpls's definition, related to communication, no. By my definition, which includes changing the way you look at the world, yes. Is it art if only the creator sees it and is moved? If Picasso painted a masterpiece and his studio burned to the ground before he had a chance it to show anyone, was it still art? If someone makes a movie with a specific vision but it's taken out of their hands and edited into something completely different, which is the art?

Not all dreams change people, but many dreams have powerful effects on a life. Is it art? If not, what is it?

Comments

[bibliofile.livejournal.com]

I won't answer that question definitively either way. I will note, however, that one could make a good argument that dreams can be art, I suppose a form of performance art (by one's subconscious, no less), with an extremely limited audience.

[barondave.livejournal.com]

Indeed. And probably an incomplete performance, as you only remember the most recent dream of several you may have. YMMV. Do dreams you don't remember affect you? My dreams are sometimes sequels to other dreams (remembered fleetingly, and then forgotten until the next one). Can I have a sequel to a dream and then forget the original in the delta waves of sleep?

[bibliofile.livejournal.com]

Do dreams you don't remember affect you?

I don't see why not. Remembering is just a way for the conscious mind to admit to having received the memo from the un/subconscious.

Also, no doubt I'm influenced by art I've seen but have since forgotten. Why shouldn't anything have a lasting effect? There are so many variables.

[barondave.livejournal.com]

See below re second derivative.

[skylarker.livejournal.com]

Yes and no. They are art to you, but not to the world. They communicate to you, but not to the world - unless you put them into a form the world can perceive. (Dreams have inspired a few of my own works.)

[barondave.livejournal.com]

They are art to you, but not to the world.

That's more or less cakmpls's view. Does art have a second derivate?

[skylarker.livejournal.com]

It's been too long since I took calculus; what do you mean by that?

[barondave.livejournal.com]

My view of art is that it involves a change in viewpoint. Calculus (the flux) describes change. The second derivative is how change is changing. In this example: If dreams aren't art but a dream affects art, it functions (sort of) as the second derivative in the sense that it will describe or inform change. If you are changed by a dream and it inspires you to create a piece of art, the underlying aspect of the art is the dream. I'm probably stretching an analogy here, but I'm still trying to describe where dreams are in the discussion of art.

[skylarker.livejournal.com]

Dreams CAN be a factor in works of art, as they inspire it and are part of the experience informing the artist/writer/musician, but they aren't necessarily direct influences. Sometimes yes, sometimes no; I'd say that more often dreams and creative inspiration both spring from the same roots in the less conscious deeps of the artists' minds and souls.

[thorintatge.livejournal.com]

I think something can be art even if the creator never shows it to anyone else. But dreams aren't art because they aren't deliberately created for the purposes that art is created for--changing the way someone looks at the world may in fact be a good way of putting it. Dreams just kinda happen, so they're no more art than nature is.

For those who believe that dreams are art--are daydreams art?

[skylarker.livejournal.com]

There are some who think that dreams are a kind of art created by one's unconscious mind as messages to the more conscious self. I think daydreams are a stage in creating art. I often daydream visual scenes that could become paintings, or active scenes that could become stories, etc.

[barondave.livejournal.com]

So art has to be deliberately created? And, even more, deliberately created for an intended purpose? Does that mean nothing can be declared art in retrospective, and that it has to be art as declared by an artist? I dunno, that seems too restricting.

You can affect your dreams, a little. More if you're half awake near the morning rise. Dreams don't "just happen", they are the body's way of sorting data. (At least, that's one of the current views.) Isn't the mind's attempt to sort out the day's events a deliberate act?

Yes, daydreams are art by my view, even more than dreams. You are trying to create a new viewpoint. For those of you who don't think dreams are art, perhaps it's a second derivative (see above) or a stage (see not so far above).

[skylarker.livejournal.com]

I'd say that Art is more of a collaboration between deliberate and less conscious processes.