okay, i don't know if this is really going to be effective or not, but something about your response just doesn't sit with me, and so here i am, trying to think of something, to pinpoint what it is that bothers me, and lo-and-behold, i look down, and staring right at me is: Philosophies of Art & Beauty....which even has the "Birth of Tragedy" by Nietzsche in it (which occured to me, i need to read up on)

anywho, i'm sitting here thinking, and BAM!

The recreations:

there have been a multitude of theories written on this subject....you have the philosophy of art itself, Sartre's essay on "Writing," and you even have Heidegger's theory on "the thing" (i forget the actual term, but i shall locate it)....all of which have to do with creation.

In terms of the artist, I did some brief skimming through my "Philosophies of Art" and found a few things of interest.

Nietzsche's statement that "the artist truly sees the world" and Plato's ideas about the three arts concerned with all things.

In Nietzsche's statement (and I'm making a bold proclaim here), is that of all the people create, all the people that represent the human-ness, only the artist does it truthfully. An artist sees the world more so than a shovel-maker. An artist sees the world more so than a priest. The artist sees the world, sees within himself, and re-creates what he's seen. From the artist, the rest of us can achieve a truth pertaining to life. That there exists a human, in touch with the world and his own human-ness, and has the capacity to show it to us.

But then there arises a problem. You have all the approaches of "what did the artist really mean?" Was the artist trying to say X? Was the artist trying to say Y through X? Was the artist trying to say "make up your own letter." Or, was the artist trying to say, it is X, but only in as much as you start at A.

Which is the answer? Which is the truth? One could argue they're all truths (as would be perception's proclaim), but you cannot avoid the theory that there only is one truth that outweighs the other. And in fact, many artists proclaim that the answer is the one they give (it is X ), while most criticis/onlookers proclaim the answer is the one they proclaim (make up your own letter).

Which is where Sartre comes to mind. In his essay on writing, he proclaimed that only the writer of prose can truly portray the sense of truth. For only the prose writer can leave no error in ambiquity, false themes, hidden symbolism, etc. Writers of "poetry" can't accurately proclaim X, for they leave room for error as seen by the onlookers. If the onlooker can't see X, then X hasn't been fully justified. But with prose, it is possible to see X...or rather, more so of X than that of the poet's

So what you have, is that with perception, some people are more intune with their human-ness than others. The prose writer sees the world, shows it to an onlooker, and if done correctly, and justifiably so, then the onlooker too has seen X. The onlooker has shared a sense of the writer's human-ness. If a poet sees the world, recreates it, shows it to an onlooker, then the onlooker might see X, but not as much as the poet sees X; or the onlooker might not see X at all. Thus, the onlooker has shared a sense of the poet's human-ness, but not as much as the prose writer's.

And then again, the onlooker's human-ness must also be taken into question. Which is where Heidegger comes to mind.

I forget the actual terms, but roughly stated: the evolution of thing:

1. the thing in concept.
2. the thing in the natural world.
3. the thing being created.
4. the thing thinging.

SO: a shovel.

1. the concept
2. the tree, the metal.
3. the handle, the spade.
4. the digging.

At what point in time is the shovel a shovel? And here is a definate question for perception. Perception again, could argue, that at every stage the thing is the thing! Even as a tree, and as metal, the shovel is a shovel?! I think not...

Evidently, even when the shovel has been put together, and sits at a department store, it still isn't a shovel. The shovel truly isn't a shovel until it does some shoveling. (the thing thinging)

So, what you have, is that the characteristic of human-ness is truly so when it is human-ness-ing. But even then, how far should it be human-ness-ing? Is the prose writer more human-ness-ing than the poet? The artist than the priest? The onlooker than the ignorant?

And here we have Plato...

"That there are three arts concerned with all things: one which uses, another which makes, a third which imitates them."

You have the shovel maker, the shoveler, the artist protraying these.

Which is the true artist? Which one truly represents the truth behind perception? Which one portrays the human-ness? All three? Can we not live without one? Does this in turn justify one's human-ness as more human-ness-ed? Which one is of the gravest importance? Or, is that all an argument of perception itself?