Philosophy Now Forum

Conde Lucanor wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Personally I feel that Art has been so bloody disgraceful since The Fountain, that people have felt more free to apply the word to the things they do, rather than things that have lofty value. There can be art in cooking, talking, driving etc.. Art is democratized.

For me, what deserved to called "art", which belonged to that long period between the Renaissance and the avant-garde movements of early 20th century, is no longer alive. What is left of the heroic period of art is something that people may still call art, for which there will be art galleries and museums, curators, lectures and cultural events celebrating and reaffirming its value for society, but is actually something that stands over a dead corpse. There will always be talented people, but their skillful energies will be channeled through the crafts and industrial design. The ones without talent will commit to conceptual art, I think.

Now you definitely sound like an Art Renewal Center kind of guy.

Terrapin Station wrote:You could talk about objective differences in things like paint handling, color selection, figure and line tendencies, etc., but none of that is an aesthetic judgment.

That IS precisely what aesthetic judgement is more concerned about: form, style, composition. In his Poetics, Aristotle talks about art as imitation (mimesis) and goes on to explain that what make one distinct from the other are things like the medium and the mode of representation. Plato also deals with the difference between expressing an idea, delivering its content, and the embodiment of that expression, which is the form. I'm not saying Aristotle, Plato and so many others in the history of Aesthetics are right, but at least let's make it clear that the concepts of form are there in that field and not to be dismissed summarily.

Terrapin Station wrote:There is no way to attain any objectivity with respect to aesthetic judgments.

Sure there is, in the sense that objectivity is a function of subjectivity. The one who points at the object and claims its existence as autonomous and independent of the subject, is still a subject. A particular, subjective theory of how things should be done, can become a socialized norm, a model, an Aesthetics, which serves as reference to make empirical claims as basis of judgements. That said, it should be noted that aesthetic judgment can happen at different levels, one being the level where a claim such as "that rose is beautiful" is pretty much intuitive and subjective (although it pretends universality), whereas a claim such as "roses are beautiful" proceeds by concepts and implies a socialized norm. So, Kant is right when positing the first level of judgement as being subjective and disinterested, especially when dealing with natural beauty. But human society's relation with nature is not reduced to contemplation, it transforms and creates new realities, a process in which creativity and imagination play an important role. Artistic practices, formal codes, theories of art and its relation to society or our perception of the world, all of that comes in too in our aesthetic dimension, which is what makes possible that our tastes change in time.

Terrapin Station wrote:

Conde Lucanor wrote:You can find semantic content in a newspaper headline,

If you're talking about where the semantic content is located, it's in your head.

No. I'm not talking about the locus of semantic content, which anyone will agree is ultimately reduced to a cognitive process, as anything meaningful humans experience. But it requires the expression of meaning through concrete, tangible mediums.

Terrapin Station wrote:If you're simply saying that one can have semantic responses to both things that one considers an artwork and things that one does not, that I'd agree with.

All I said is that an artwork can provide semantic content, just as anything else that involves expression of meaning. The content is not what makes it an artwork.

Terrapin Station wrote:However, based on your comments, you believe that semantic content is somehow contained in the objects at hand. That belief is mistaken.

That's a wild interpretation of my comments and a wrong account of my beliefs.

Terrapin Station wrote:None of that stuff, none of those assessments are evaluative, none are aesthetic assessments, etc. without simply being some individuals' preferences, their feelings of like versus dislike.

That's pretty much the same as saying that debates in the scientific or philosophical domains have no objective value, but just each proponent's personal preferences. The famous quarrel of the Ancients and Moderns in French Classicism is an example of cultural norms being imposed over tastes and so are most of the controversies between art periods (Romanticism vs. Classicism, the modernist Avant-Garde against the Beaux Arts, abstract art vs. figurative art, etc.). They are more than just the simple, frivolous, capricious excercise you pretend to reduce all judgement.

Terrapin Station wrote:Now you definitely sound like an Art Renewal Center kind of guy.

Had no idea what this was, looked it up and found it's just a group of reactionaries with a naive disposition towards art and its history. Actually aligned with much of the dullness of today's art world.

TSBU wrote:

Conde Lucanor wrote:

TSBU wrote:I just d what i like, and enjoy what i like, i dont care about history, sociology, crapology, etc.

Every painting technique willbe improved, by science, no human can be better than a computer when it comes to play an instrument, every piece of music willbe forgotten, but i just enjoy them. Oh, who the hell mind who where the people playing mozart? What painter makes his own pigemtns nowaday? Who cares if the David is original or not? Who cares if a novel has good description etc, when all you are going to remember are just abstractions and simplifications?

Well, some people. I dont. Bethoven didnt play his piano probably, since he was deaf, nah, he wasnt an artist...

Who cares what is art and what is an artist? I just enjoy music.

Movies? Wo cares how is the camera moving, in a couple of years it will be 3d. BUt the plot... nah, guinists are not artists.

Etc.

Many people wander around the streets absolutely indifferent of why things are as they are and completely detached of the thought of whether they could be different. They just live the moment and they're absolutely entitled to do so, it's their own life and they can do whatever they want. Some other people are more curious to know what's behind everything they experience. And well...they are entitled to do so, too.

Believe me, I'm not in the first group. He was a lier etc, but, as an example, it's said that Freud didn't like music, because he "couldn't understand it", in music, in art, etc, most of emotions have no meanings, why a melody cause anger and other cause sadness? I've rejected many people in my life cause they weren't perfect (specially from an ethical point of view), I've rejected many things to do in my own life cause they weren't perfect. What is "perfect"? there is no such thing here.
Every time I listen to ANY kind of music, I miss something in the piece.
But I still like art. Lazy art? where is the limit?
Anyway, when I look at "why" in art, I look in myself, or the artist. A technique can be a piece of shit for some piece of arts, and it can be great for others. I generally like or dislike some things in books, music, painting, etc, but when you want to express a feeling or cause it, to tell a story etc... sometimes it's better to do it the other way, and that doesn't turn your job in "bad art", t's good if it's good for my feelings. And I look deeply in things: so deeply, that I don't care about "sociology" or things like that, that's not an explanation. You can try all you want to fit in a "school", but a "true artist" for me, is the one who give the seed for the job.
I've enjoyed many "simple" books, quick books, with no detailed plot, because I liked what the writter wanted to express, and there were no need to to a big book. It's the same with every piece of art, say that they are not "true artist", cause they may choose an expert in a technique to do some things, is like saying that the people who make new algorithms are "just designers" and people who code with them are "true artists".
Whateva, I'm a lazy, maybe. And I enjoy music.

If you play chess, you win if you win. You may know a lot, or nothing, if you don't know anything, you'll probably lose. But if you want the "absolute plan to play chess", the "absolute description of a good play", that's impossible. If you center in talking about tech, it can reach a point when you call a bad player to one who always win XD.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYCJJWd-MMA

That only shows to me that you are a semantic reader and prefer to leave it that way. As I said before, it's perfectly legitimate and most of us consume cultural products in that way. It's just important to remember that there is that other approach available to all of us.

Let's focus on one thing at a time for a moment:

Conde Lucanor wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote:You could talk about objective differences in things like paint handling, color selection, figure and line tendencies, etc., but none of that is an aesthetic judgment.

That IS precisely what aesthetic judgement is more concerned about: form, style, composition. In his Poetics, Aristotle talks about art as imitation (mimesis) and goes on to explain that what make one distinct from the other are things like the medium and the mode of representation. Plato also deals with the difference between expressing an idea, delivering its content, and the embodiment of that expression, which is the form. I'm not saying Aristotle, Plato and so many others in the history of Aesthetics are right, but at least let's make it clear that the concepts of form are there in that field and not to be dismissed summarily.

What's an example of something that you'd say is an aesthetic judgment in this vein?

Terrapin Station wrote: What's an example of something that you'd say is an aesthetic judgment in this vein?

Take a look at Harold Bloom's take on Harry Potter. Take a look at McDonald's take on Hemingway's The Old Man and The Sea.

Conde Lucanor wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote:You could talk about objective differences in things like paint handling, color selection, figure and line tendencies, etc., but none of that is an aesthetic judgment.

That IS precisely what aesthetic judgement is more concerned about: form, style, composition. In his Poetics, Aristotle talks about art as imitation (mimesis) and goes on to explain that what make one distinct from the other are things like the medium and the mode of representation. Plato also deals with the difference between expressing an idea, delivering its content, and the embodiment of that expression, which is the form. I'm not saying Aristotle, Plato and so many others in the history of Aesthetics are right, but at least let's make it clear that the concepts of form are there in that field and not to be dismissed summarily.
.

I seem to remember that the ancient Greeks did not have the same concept of art in that they did not have a word for what we like to think of as Art.

Greeks had a far more complex idea, more generalised. A demiurgos could be a painter or a builder, and their activity was techne, which was a generalised notion which was vast from boat building to sculpture.
Aristotle was not saying that mimesis was art or that art was mimesis. When he talked of mimesis he was talking about a small aspect of techne that was about mimesis. Mimesis for mimesis sake.

Someone out there probably knows ancient Greek better than I, but I do not think there was such a thing as an artist.

Conde Lucanor wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote: What's an example of something that you'd say is an aesthetic judgment in this vein?

Take a look at Harold Bloom's take on Harry Potter. Take a look at McDonald's take on Hemingway's The Old Man and The Sea.

Since you're famiilar with both, how about giving a sentence that you take to be or contain an aesthetic judgment in that vein from at least one of them? Or if that's too much of a hassle (maybe you don't have them handy and can't remember anything verbatim from them--I'm terrible at remembering verbatim quotes myself), you could just give me a simple, hypothetical example. As long as it's a specific example.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
I seem to remember that the ancient Greeks did not have the same concept of art in that they did not have a word for what we like to think of as Art.

Greeks had a far more complex idea, more generalised. A demiurgos could be a painter or a builder, and their activity was techne, which was a generalised notion which was vast from boat building to sculpture.
Aristotle was not saying that mimesis was art or that art was mimesis. When he talked of mimesis he was talking about a small aspect of techne that was about mimesis. Mimesis for mimesis sake.

Someone out there probably knows ancient Greek better than I, but I do not think there was such a thing as an artist.

You're right in that for Greeks there was not really a distinction between the art of hunting and the art of sculpting, they were both techne. But I don't think Aristotle thought hunting could produce catharsis (maybe he did, correct me if I'm wrong) and I'm not sure either that mimesis, as an art of imitation, could not be somehow related to art as we know it now.

Terrapin Station wrote:

Conde Lucanor wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote: What's an example of something that you'd say is an aesthetic judgment in this vein?

Take a look at Harold Bloom's take on Harry Potter. Take a look at McDonald's take on Hemingway's The Old Man and The Sea.

Since you're famiilar with both, how about giving a sentence that you take to be or contain an aesthetic judgment in that vein from at least one of them? Or if that's too much of a hassle (maybe you don't have them handy and can't remember anything verbatim from them--I'm terrible at remembering verbatim quotes myself), you could just give me a simple, hypothetical example. As long as it's a specific example.

I'll avoid the hassle: http://archive.boston.com/news/globe/ed ... n_readers/

Conde Lucanor wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote:

Conde Lucanor wrote: Take a look at Harold Bloom's take on Harry Potter. Take a look at McDonald's take on Hemingway's The Old Man and The Sea.

Since you're famiilar with both, how about giving a sentence that you take to be or contain an aesthetic judgment in that vein from at least one of them? Or if that's too much of a hassle (maybe you don't have them handy and can't remember anything verbatim from them--I'm terrible at remembering verbatim quotes myself), you could just give me a simple, hypothetical example. As long as it's a specific example.

I'll avoid the hassle: http://archive.boston.com/news/globe/ed ... n_readers/

I don't see a single sentence there that does this:

"talk about objective differences in things like paint handling, color selection, figure and line tendencies, etc." [of course via literature details rather than visual art details in this case],

yet that also amounts to an aesthetic judgment.

In fact, I don't see much there that's any sort of comparative analysis of objective features at all, and every aesthetic judgment there is simply subjective (as it must be on my account, about Bloom's likes/dislikes, preferences, etc. (and of course given that were talking about Bloom, also his snobbiness and so on).

So if you could point out one sentence there that you believe is both an objective, comparative analysis and an aesthetic judgment, I'd appreciate it.

Clearly, we are reading different things. For me, it is obvious that Bloom, and actually most competent commentators of cultural products, are:

1. Using some ideal norm of artistic practices, a set of values, some more institutionalized than others, as a reference to assess the compliance of works in the field with those rules. The reference to other authors and their particular works and styles is an evident indication of comparative evaluation in relation to a norm. Bloom, an educator, besides an influential commentator that feels to have the authority to define a canon of literature, has a clear understanding of how a good literary work ought to be. His comments are produced for a community of consumers of literature with the intention, implicit or explicit, that they share those values.

2. Applying their individual judgement as subjects that try to validate their perception of the reality of a specific field (in this case, literature). In that sense their opinions are to be accepted as subjective, but not any more subjective than opinions in philosophic and scientific fields. If sociologists or theoretical physicists posit theories, no matter how dependent of their own experience in the field, we are not to believe that they're just capricious excercises of personal preferences, of likes and dislikes.

3. Doing their assessments in relation to form, style. That is too obvious to dismiss.

Terrapin Station wrote:Let's focus on one thing at a time for a moment:

Conde Lucanor wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote:You could talk about objective differences in things like paint handling, color selection, figure and line tendencies, etc., but none of that is an aesthetic judgment.

That IS precisely what aesthetic judgement is more concerned about: form, style, composition. In his Poetics, Aristotle talks about art as imitation (mimesis) and goes on to explain that what make one distinct from the other are things like the medium and the mode of representation. Plato also deals with the difference between expressing an idea, delivering its content, and the embodiment of that expression, which is the form. I'm not saying Aristotle, Plato and so many others in the history of Aesthetics are right, but at least let's make it clear that the concepts of form are there in that field and not to be dismissed summarily.

What's an example of something that you'd say is an aesthetic judgment in this vein?

Would this be an example?

“Cezanne's commitment to what he actually saw resulted in paintings that contain apparently faulty observations if viewed in terms of conventional notions of perspective.”
http://www.artandarchitecture.org.uk/in ... ues02.html

When objective meets subjective, literal meets figurative. What separates the two? Don’t think less of icons brought down to the mortals just because their heads are bigger. When viewed from below icons should not also be below. They should be at a higher place that puts those big heads in proportion. The Greeks knew this.

Conde Lucanor wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
I seem to remember that the ancient Greeks did not have the same concept of art in that they did not have a word for what we like to think of as Art.

Greeks had a far more complex idea, more generalised. A demiurgos could be a painter or a builder, and their activity was techne, which was a generalised notion which was vast from boat building to sculpture.
Aristotle was not saying that mimesis was art or that art was mimesis. When he talked of mimesis he was talking about a small aspect of techne that was about mimesis. Mimesis for mimesis sake.

Someone out there probably knows ancient Greek better than I, but I do not think there was such a thing as an artist.

You're right in that for Greeks there was not really a distinction between the art of hunting and the art of sculpting, they were both techne. But I don't think Aristotle thought hunting could produce catharsis (maybe he did, correct me if I'm wrong) and I'm not sure either that mimesis, as an art of imitation, could not be somehow related to art as we know it now.

I consider mimesis to be a key part of my art.

Walker wrote:Would this be an example?

“Cezanne's commitment to what he actually saw resulted in paintings that contain apparently faulty observations if viewed in terms of conventional notions of perspective.”
http://www.artandarchitecture.org.uk/in ... ues02.html

I think that works fine as a comment about something objective, and in a comparative context, but it doesn't contain an aesthetic judgment.