Philosophy Now Forum

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Walker wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Sorry walker, but I have to primarily agree with HC, as much as it pains me to do so.

What art is best, is dependent upon what someone likes the most. It's subjective!
But, an art piece is an object and the method in which it was created might be extremely difficult and time consuming, such that only someone that is familiar with the process can sense the beauty of it's objective reality, which surely can factor into their subjective opinion as to it's worth.

Never apologize for your limitations, or for what you are.

He's apologising for your inadequacy.

At the prices original name-art commands, there’s a whole lotta consensus in subjectivity. A consensus of subjectivity amount to objective truth? Of course not. The object d’art has objective qualities that are true to the principles of whatever the medium may be, as Hobbes knows..

I know far better than you are capable of imagining.
The only way you can get to art having "objectively" agreed criteria, is EXACTY where you get consensus in subjectivity; as that is exactly the moment fools like your self convince themselves that there can be objective values that transcend human opinion.

It's called intersubjectivity and is often confused with objectivity.

Terrapin Station wrote:

Walker wrote:The object d’art has objective qualities that are true to the principles of whatever the medium may be

Are you saying something different there than "x has properties F and G, because its material constituents have properties F and G"? If so, if you're saying something different than that there, just what are you saying?

Greta wrote:

Dubious wrote:

Greta wrote:I sometimes wonder if our artistic regression is a temporary trend or if art and music will disappear as we become ever more machinelike.

I think the latter is in process of becoming more true not in the sense of disappearing but simply becoming inactive by archiving when no-longer serving an active interest. Our machine-like progeny - if we get that far - will have their own art which would probably appear alien and incomprehensible to us and perhaps not even accepted as art by us. If the human is in a state of transition equally so will be their sensibilities regarding the aesthetic in which there is no accounting for taste.

That sounds about right to me. I wonder if the music will be as diverse? The increased interconnectedness would seem to lead us to greater homogeneity. Certainly art in the commercial spheres has become less individualistic, quirky and experimental. Over time the bean counters worked out the formulae for maximal sales and gradually tweezed out the oddities and exceptions to create generic forms that seem to tick all the boxes revealed in sales analyses.

Interestingly, this seems to echo humanity's future in nature, gradually homogenising and eliminating ever more of the environment until there remains only relatively sterile, synthetic products and the algorithms that brought them into being. Both the arts and humanity generally are generally becoming ever less physical (with physical needs ever more delegated to specialsed human or machine assistance), ever more a matter of management than execution. The arts and humanity generally are ever more layered with various formulae, with animal emotionalism looking ever more like icing on the cake rather than the cake itself.

Dubious wrote:

Greta wrote:The arts and humanity generally are ever more layered with various formulae, with animal emotionalism looking ever more like icing on the cake rather than the cake itself.

I'm edging toward that view as well. Not long ago I would have argued against it but now it seems the impersonal is becoming ever more dominant in a transition phase where art, music, etc are viewed more as artifact than art.

Dubious wrote:I wonder what a being impervious to music - the most profound and abstract of all the arts - would be like...what would make it "feel" as if it actually possessed a soul.

Dubious wrote:Or will only synthetics be used to temporarily create one. Perhaps the time is ripe to inquire now if everything on the planet, itself included, is doomed to become a commodity and would this morphed creature be ready to inflict the same fate on other planets if capable.

Walker wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Walker wrote: Never apologize for your limitations, or for what you are.

He's apologising for your inadequacy.

At the prices original name-art commands, there’s a whole lotta consensus in subjectivity. A consensus of subjectivity amount to objective truth? Of course not. The object d’art has objective qualities that are true to the principles of whatever the medium may be, as Hobbes knows..

I know far better than you are capable of imagining.
The only way you can get to art having "objectively" agreed criteria, is EXACTY where you get consensus in subjectivity; as that is exactly the moment fools like your self convince themselves that there can be objective values that transcend human opinion.

It's called intersubjectivity and is often confused with objectivity.

Hobbes, when you are big and you no longer have a need to make others small, then you maybe will perceive, either subjectively or objectively, the objective inherence in things.

Walker wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote:

Walker wrote:The object d’art has objective qualities that are true to the principles of whatever the medium may be

Are you saying something different there than "x has properties F and G, because its material constituents have properties F and G"? If so, if you're saying something different than that there, just what are you saying?

Go shopping with a shrewd woman. She can sniff out the quality inherent in most any item, which others will independently verify.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Walker wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote:Are you saying something different there than "x has properties F and G, because its material constituents have properties F and G"? If so, if you're saying something different than that there, just what are you saying?

Go shopping with a shrewd woman. She can sniff out the quality inherent in most any item, which others will independently verify.

intersubjectivity.

Walker wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Walker wrote: Go shopping with a shrewd woman. She can sniff out the quality inherent in most any item, which others will independently verify.

intersubjectivity.

Independent verification sans subjects' interaction = perception of relevant qualities defining discovered objective principles

Walker wrote:Sans subjects' interaction.

Try to make a Big Boy without the required elements that define a Big Boy and you get a big fizzle, but if you succeed the product is universally and independently recognized by functioning in accordance with the inherent principles that define the Big Boy's existence.

Same goes for Art, or anything.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Walker wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote: He's apologising for your inadequacy.


I know far better than you are capable of imagining.
The only way you can get to art having "objectively" agreed criteria, is EXACTY where you get consensus in subjectivity; as that is exactly the moment fools like your self convince themselves that there can be objective values that transcend human opinion.

It's called intersubjectivity and is often confused with objectivity.

Hobbes, when you are big and you no longer have a need to make others small, then you maybe will perceive, either subjectively or objectively, the objective inherence in things.

When you run out of argument you always attempt a personal remark.
Fact is you are on a hiding to nothing in this issue, because you are simply wrong.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Walker wrote:Sans subjects' interaction.

Try to make a Big Boy without the required elements that define a Big Boy and you get a big fizzle, but if you succeed the product is universally and independently recognized by functioning in accordance with the inherent principles that define the Big Boy's existence.

Same goes for Art, or anything.

Name one objective quality of "art" and say how you "independently" found out about it.

Walker wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Walker wrote:Sans subjects' interaction.

Try to make a Big Boy without the required elements that define a Big Boy and you get a big fizzle, but if you succeed the product is universally and independently recognized by functioning in accordance with the inherent principles that define the Big Boy's existence.

Same goes for Art, or anything.

Name one objective quality of "art" and say how you "independently" found out about it.

I'll stick with Big Boy, since it's a much clearer example.
Folks independently find out when it blows up.

Same principle applies to Art, when the non-communicating hearts of non-intersubjective audience members are touched.

Walker wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote:

Walker wrote:The object d’art has objective qualities that are true to the principles of whatever the medium may be

Are you saying something different there than "x has properties F and G, because its material constituents have properties F and G"? If so, if you're saying something different than that there, just what are you saying?

Go shopping with a shrewd woman. She can sniff out the quality inherent in most any item, which others will independently verify.

Walker wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Walker wrote: Go shopping with a shrewd woman. She can sniff out the quality inherent in most any item, which others will independently verify.

intersubjectivity.

Independent verification sans subjects' interaction = perception of relevant qualities defining discovered objective principles