The Philosophy Discussion Forum

Part of me says yes as that would make it uncommon. But part of me says no because any artwork may be duplicated exactly (in a multiverse, if it exists, there may be no art).

What do you think?

Here's an article that relates:

http://m.fastcompany.com/3033821/469-ch ... s-original

PhilX

From an objective standpoint, everything is original, as everything has a unique origin and set of causalities.
Not even two prints of the same thing that come off the same production line are absolutely identical. The differ in their place in the space/time continuum, they are composed of different atoms and if you were a bacteria moving along the surface there would be a multiplicity of differences.
Given this, all judgements about "artistic originality" are wholly subjective.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:From an objective standpoint, everything is original, as everything has a unique origin and set of causalities.
Not even two prints of the same thing that come off the same production line are absolutely identical. The differ in their place in the space/time continuum, they are composed of different atoms and if you were a bacteria moving along the surface there would be a multiplicity of differences.
Given this, all judgements about "artistic originality" are wholly subjective.

All works of art may be literally original, but not all works of art are as original as others. Those utilizing a more as-yet-unseen vision or style and/or best integrating previous works into their own will be the original works. Those who fail will not be. Also, no judgments of any phenomena are wholly subjective since the phenomenon is an object unto itself. Therfore, the realities of originality will be aspects of the work of art, and are not fully determined by the subjective perceiver/critic.

White Sky wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:From an objective standpoint, everything is original, as everything has a unique origin and set of causalities.
Not even two prints of the same thing that come off the same production line are absolutely identical. The differ in their place in the space/time continuum, they are composed of different atoms and if you were a bacteria moving along the surface there would be a multiplicity of differences.
Given this, all judgements about "artistic originality" are wholly subjective.

All works of art may be literally original, but not all works of art are as original as others. Those utilizing a more as-yet-unseen vision or style and/or best integrating previous works into their own will be the original works. Those who fail will not be. Also, no judgments of any phenomena are wholly subjective since the phenomenon is an object unto itself. Therfore, the realities of originality will be aspects of the work of art, and are not fully determined by the subjective perceiver/critic.

I have no disagreement except here:"Also, no judgments of any phenomena are wholly subjective since the phenomenon is an object unto itself."
Actually ALL "judgements" of phenomena are by definition subjective. Though there their may be objective elements achieved by agreement within the bounds of your language community, objectivity is not to be achieved through senses alone. Whilst it can remain a putative concept employed for reasons of relational considerations concerning bias and interestedness; objectivity in the sense of freedom of bias in simply not possible.
Whether or not a piece of art is "original" will always involve comparisons with emotionally, culturally, and socially defines criteria.

It perhaps depends, what you 'need' it to be. This guy's art is anything but original, yet it has found its way into an art market which presents it not only as art, but as art worthy of selling for thousands of dollars.

To me, this guy is a good example of the quote: art is whatever you can get away with. The whole enterprise appears to be held together with money, PR, and the gullible, but then you could probably say this about lots of artists and their work nowadays. I think rather than talk about originality in art (though I think it an interesting topic), we could talk about ethicality in art. This would perhaps render, the work of Mr. Brainwash - who collaborates in the promotion of both corporate and celebrity personas - null and void as art. In that an art which promotes the sale of another object or business entity is not art but advertising, etc.

Side note:
I think it important to keep art, at its core, away from the bitch that is capital. If art can transcend money, not be harnessed or perverted by it, then perhaps it can achieve its true function, or at least, create openings where none have before existed. Art is no slave to economic systems.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AK_hbWfAXiA

Hobbes' Choice wrote:I have no disagreement except here:"Also, no judgments of any phenomena are wholly subjective since the phenomenon is an object unto itself." Actually ALL "judgements" of phenomena are by definition subjective. Though there their may be objective elements achieved by agreement within the bounds of your language community, objectivity is not to be achieved through senses alone. Whilst it can remain a putative concept employed for reasons of relational considerations concerning bias and interestedness; objectivity in the sense of freedom of bias in simply not possible. Whether or not a piece of art is "original" will always involve comparisons with emotionally, culturally, and socially defines criteria.

No, ALL judgments of phenomena are not by definition subjective. The objective reality of the phenomenon always factors into the judgment. When one looks at a rock, the objective aspects of that rock will always have some "say" in the judgment of it. The same goes with the perception and judgment of all physical phenomena.

And objectivity isn't something to be achieved. It either is or it isn't. One doesn't construct something's objectivity or even an objective view of an object/phenomenon. The objectivity of the object remains unchanged, and the objective view depends on reducing ones' subjective bias in perceiving it. And one can have a more objective view without the freedom of bias. One who objectively perceives a plunge into a 1000 ft-deep chasm would be fatal is not making a judgment free of bias, but it is more objective that the person who judges the jump into the chasm as completely safe.

And the fact the originality of a work of art depends ont emotional, cultural, and social criteria doesn't mean objectivity doesn't factor into the judgment of it. Unless the perceiver of the art work is insane with no connection to objectivity, objectivity will always factor in the judgment.

Pluto wrote: I think it important to keep art, at its core, away from the bitch that is capital. If art can transcend money, not be harnessed or perverted by it, then perhaps it can achieve its true function, or at least, create openings where none have before existed. Art is no slave to economic systems.

Then you're against artists making money and great art works like films which depend on capital and capitalist production. Even Michelangelo and Raphael submitted to economic systems in making their Art. So, the notion of a pure Art outside of economic systems only works for Artists who stay at home and never sell their work.

White Sky wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:I have no disagreement except here:"Also, no judgments of any phenomena are wholly subjective since the phenomenon is an object unto itself." Actually ALL "judgements" of phenomena are by definition subjective. Though there their may be objective elements achieved by agreement within the bounds of your language community, objectivity is not to be achieved through senses alone. Whilst it can remain a putative concept employed for reasons of relational considerations concerning bias and interestedness; objectivity in the sense of freedom of bias in simply not possible. Whether or not a piece of art is "original" will always involve comparisons with emotionally, culturally, and socially defines criteria.

No, ALL judgments of phenomena are not by definition subjective. The objective reality of the phenomenon always factors into the judgment. When one looks at a rock, the objective aspects of that rock will always have some "say" in the judgment of it. The same goes with the perception and judgment of all physical phenomena.

And objectivity isn't something to be achieved. It either is or it isn't. One doesn't construct something's objectivity or even an objective view of an object/phenomenon. The objectivity of the object remains unchanged, and the objective view depends on reducing ones' subjective bias in perceiving it. And one can have a more objective view without the freedom of bias. One who objectively perceives a plunge into a 1000 ft-deep chasm would be fatal is not making a judgment free of bias, but it is more objective that the person who judges the jump into the chasm as completely safe.

And the fact the originality of a work of art depends ont emotional, cultural, and social criteria doesn't mean objectivity doesn't factor into the judgment of it. Unless the perceiver of the art work is insane with no connection to objectivity, objectivity will always factor in the judgment.

WRONG. You can't even look at a rock without being interested in it. The very perception of "a rock" is imbuing that part of reality with your subjection of it.
You make the mistake of thinking "objective reality" is a meaningful concept without humans. What Kant said was the imperceptible "thing in itself" is never available to us. What is 'objective' is totally limited to what we can agree upon as humans perceiving the world. It is wholly the elements of your subjective perception that we can "AGREE" is the same.

There is no perception without judgement.

White Sky wrote:

Pluto wrote: I think it important to keep art, at its core, away from the bitch that is capital. If art can transcend money, not be harnessed or perverted by it, then perhaps it can achieve its true function, or at least, create openings where none have before existed. Art is no slave to economic systems.

Then you're against artists making money and great art works like films which depend on capital and capitalist production. Even Michelangelo and Raphael submitted to economic systems in making their Art. So, the notion of a pure Art outside of economic systems only works for Artists who stay at home and never sell their work.

I think there is a thin line between making money as an artist and having capital pervert artistic endeavour.
But the distinction is an important one.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:I think there is a thin line between making money as an artist and having capital pervert artistic endeavour.
But the distinction is an important one.

Then, if you're so sure of that distinction, explain what it its. Almost every movie the genius Steven Spielberg made was for big corporations and/or big studios entrenched in the capitalist system. If capitalist taint negated art, none of his films would be Art.

So, I look forward to your explanation.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:WRONG. You can't even look at a rock without being interested in it. The very perception of "a rock" is imbuing that part of reality with your subjection of it.
You make the mistake of thinking "objective reality" is a meaningful concept without humans. What Kant said was the imperceptible "thing in itself" is never available to us. What is 'objective' is totally limited to what we can agree upon as humans perceiving the world. It is wholly the elements of your subjective perception that we can "AGREE" is the same.

There is no perception without judgement.

NO. YOU'RE WRONG. You can't look at a rock and judge it without its objective realities being present. So, there is no perception of that rock without the objective truth of that rock itself.

And I made no such mistake. You made the mistake of thinking objectivity depends on the human concept of it. Using your fallacious logic, there would be no universe without the human concept of the universe. That's just ridiculous. And what is objective doesn't depend on what is agreed upon. Your saying so shows you don't understand the word at all. Objectivity is solely dependent on the objective truth of the object and/or the successfully objective perception and judgment of the perceiver. The physical phenomena of the universe objectively exist regardless of being perceived or not.

As to there being "no perception without judgment.'" That statement is irrelevant to our conversation, it fails to counter my argument, and it's plain wrong. Neurologists have established perception occurs--such as hearing an explosion--without immediate judgment. As to my argument, I never said there wasn't subjecitve judgment--you read my posts very poorly. I correctly said the objective truth of the perceived object is always a factor as well, and it always is. You have failed to show otherwise.

So, try again.

White Sky wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:I think there is a thin line between making money as an artist and having capital pervert artistic endeavour.
But the distinction is an important one.

Then, if you're so sure of that distinction, explain what it its. Almost every movie the genius Steven Spielberg made was for big corporations and/or big studios entrenched in the capitalist system. If capitalist taint negated art, none of his films would be Art.

So, I look forward to your explanation.

I did not say anything about 'capitalism'. So if you want a discussion then stay in the bounds of what is being discussed.

I don't regard any of his films 'art'. They are just entertainment. This is a prime example of an "artist" being on the wrong side of the line.
They do contain elements of art. Many who work in those projects have good design and artistic skills, but in the main they are just money making projects. Such projects do gather to themselves great artists - most of whom can do much better than the job at hand.

As I said the line is thin, and I doubt that your definition of the line is the same as mine, but "you" can tell when a film has been done with more interest in money than in artistic merit. We can brake it down into specifics if you like, but stuff such as predictable plot line; cliches; formulaic; schmaltziness.
If you like we can examine one of his films so that I can show you what I mean.

White Sky wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:WRONG. You can't even look at a rock without being interested in it. The very perception of "a rock" is imbuing that part of reality with your subjection of it.
You make the mistake of thinking "objective reality" is a meaningful concept without humans. What Kant said was the imperceptible "thing in itself" is never available to us. What is 'objective' is totally limited to what we can agree upon as humans perceiving the world. It is wholly the elements of your subjective perception that we can "AGREE" is the same.

There is no perception without judgement.

NO. YOU'RE WRONG. You can't look at a rock and judge it without its objective realities being present. So, there is no perception of that rock without the objective truth of that rock itself..

Nope.

The rock does not know its a rock. "ROCK" is a human conception. "ROCK" is a judgement about the object. You've already queered your pitch by choosing a word. There is no choice without judgement.

White Sky wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:I think there is a thin line between making money as an artist and having capital pervert artistic endeavour.
But the distinction is an important one.

Then, if you're so sure of that distinction, explain what it its. Almost every movie the genius Steven Spielberg made was for big corporations and/or big studios entrenched in the capitalist system. If capitalist taint negated art, none of his films would be Art.

So, I look forward to your explanation.

I did not say anything about 'capitalism'. So if you want a discussion then stay in the bounds of what is being discussed.

You don't even read any of your own posts well. You absolutely referred to capitalism when you said:
"I think there is a thin line between making money as an artist and having capital pervert artistic endeavour."
Capital only perverts in a capitalist system of exchange, so try to keep track of the bounds being discussed, and go look up "capitalism."...

I don't regard any of his films 'art'. They are just entertainment. This is a prime example of an "artist" being on the wrong side of the line.
They do contain elements of art. Many who work in those projects have good design and artistic skills, but in the main they are just money making projects. Such projects do gather to themselves great artists - most of whom can do much better than the job at hand.

Your not regarding his films as Art doesn't matter, particularly since many--including most film scholars--do. You have to actually explain/argue why they are not Art, and you have failed to do so so far. The same goes for your nebulous condemnation of those just infolved in money making projects.

So, I assume you have a college degree. if you do, you know you need to explain the difference between entertainment and Art, show why Spielberg's films aren't Art, and explain what you mean by "money making projects." You haven't come close to doing so so far.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:As I said the line is thin, and I doubt that your definition of the line is the same as mine, but "you" can tell when a film has been done with more interest in money than in artistic merit. We can brake it down into specifics if you like, but stuff such as predictable plot line; cliches; formulaic; schmaltziness. If you like we can examine one of his films so that I can show you what I mean.

Whether or not the line is thin, as you claim, if it exists (as you claim) you should be able to explain what it is and how it separates Art and "capital perverted artistic endeavor." And no, you can't just say "you can tell" when a film has been done with more financial interest than artistic merit, particularly when people can err in that judgment. If that line exists and is clear, you need to explain what it is. If you can't, you've helped prove it's not clear.

As to those elements you named, those exist even in works not made for capital/financial gain. So, they can't be the determinant. And now, you have to establish those things exist in Spielberg's best films like Jaws, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Minority Report, and Schindler's List. i look forward to your trying to do so.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Nope.

The rock does not know its a rock. "ROCK" is a human conception. "ROCK" is a judgement about the object. You've already queered your pitch by choosing a word. There is no choice without judgement.

You're hilarious. Whether or not the rock knows it is a rock doesn't alter it''s physical qualities. I never said people were perceiving the 'word." So, the perception is still partly based on the physical realities of the rock. You have yet to come close to countering that truth.

And somebody has clearly queered your thinking processes, since you comically think physical reality depends on it being named. It doesn't. Using your logic, you have no brain since "brain" is a human conception. Considering the terrible arguments you've made, I'm almost convinced...