I have no training in art. I think there are three key elements when it comes to artwork, namely, idea, form, and media. The idea is the mental focus of the artist, which is expressed in the artwork. Form is the configuration of media that plays a role in conveying the idea between the artist and the audience. Media is material used for the artwork. — MoK

So, given this tripartite distinction, what makes a painting a painting?

It's a good set of distinctions, IMO -- but I want to see them in operation.

Yes, I agree.

This goes to something @unenlightened said some years ago, and it stuck with me (though of course, being philosophicalish, I resist it): Philosophy is parasitic.

Or, perhaps, symbiotic, to put it more kindly.

Not always, of course, but I agree that philosophy of art and history of art require and feed on one another in a good way. Same with science, for that matter.

I'm a huge Hopper fan. — Hanover

Same

I've had the privilege of seeing his paintings in MOMA and the Chicago Art Institute.

Derrida is an interesting philosopher to bring into the mix.

One part I'd caution here though is that Derrida is not an aesthetic philosopher. There's the system of signs, yes, and art can be seen as a system of signs that define one another -- as has been present in this conversation.

Also his notion of "absence" fits very easily into discussions on art -- it's not what was said as much as what was not said, at times. The unspoken, the not-present, is meaningful.

But I do think he's focusing in on the problems of knowledge and inference given these particular thoughts on language rather than explicitly addressing aesthetic questions.

His would be a philosophy that I think I could argue as interesting if I could come up with an aesthetics of philosophy. ("interesting" in the manner that others who like philosophy ought to take him seriously)

But for now I'm trying to develop the ideas of aesthetic thinking, with respect to philosophy at least, at all.

I do.

I might put doubt on a printed paper using Times New Roman saying "This is Art", but painting letters is part of art at this point.

Your reflection is wonderful, as always. No further comments.

Art is the persistence of memory -- Salvador Dalí.

The soft watches are an unconscious symbol of the relativity of space and time, a Surrealist meditation on the collapse of our notions of a fixed cosmic order.

Isn't painting the way we express our dreams and hallucinations, while drawing is a simple technique? — javi2541997

So this gets into something that I'm thinking about -- the semantic layer of art.

If the soft watches are a symbol, then there's something to interpret beyond "soft watches on canvas by painter dali": a deeper meaning to the art-object.

I'm interested. Can you say more?

Yes, because here we have a question about the actual composition of the object, which Danto showed was not the question concerning art tout court. I should have noted that in my post, thanks. — J

O no worries. I'm glad to have you thinking along given your familiarity with Danto and how it seems intuitive to me.

Doesn’t it matter why we are asking? What purpose will the answer serve? — Fire Ologist

Sure!

My purpose here is to introduce philosophical thinking about aesthetics, given the amount of push-back I got in suggesting that aesthetics and philosophy are related.

But the only way to do that is to turn towards the "pure" aesthetics -- so you can see there's more to my personal interest in the matter, but perhaps you'll see what I'm talking about. But that can't be done when matters of money and such are at stake -- like the paintings in a museum -- but rather when we don't have anything to lose by our expression.

How do we judge then?

It certainly matter why we're asking -- and perhaps aesthetic judgment can be differentiated from practical judgment on the basis that we're not asking for practical reasons of action, but only for reasons of admiration, attraction, beauty, interest, etc.

What are those stories? What are those circumstances? How do they vary from era to era, culture to culture? — J

I'd settle for question 1 and 2. Even within one culture (perhaps artworld?) it's hard to specify the stories and circumstances of art.

So have we moved from aesthetics to Art History?

And why is there not an expression for visual arts equivalent to "musicology"? — Banno

I'd like to think that we haven't moved from aesthetics to art history, tho art history provides good examples to think through.

I think I agree, though I'm inclined towards the idiom of formalism for judgment rather than looking at how we use language in those circumstances.

Not that that's an easy distinction to distinguish.

I think I lean towards 2, though accepting there's something to 1 in differentiating, say, between drawing and painting.

Not that referent, but this one!

Ya'know, since it's a pixelated image....

Eh. Even if anarchy is the goal -- learning political participation at the representative level can pave the way to being able to judge the difference between various political ideologies, but in practice.

It's not like we just get to avoid the state existing because we have ideals of something better. It's as necessary to deal with as farming methods and so forth.

A painting is a picture whose predominant medium is paint. A drawing is a picture whose predominant medium is pencil, charcoal, pastel, chalk etc.. There is no hard and fast distinction...it's basically a somewhat loose distinction between wet and dry mediums. — Janus

I think your notion of "picture" needs clarifying here -- you've stated that a picture need not be representational, and others have mostly taken you to task on "picture" because it seems to indicate a kind of representation? I think?

Either way if this is how you'll differentiate paintings from drawings -- dry and wet pictures -- it's fair to ask "So how do we identify a picture?"

Yeah, that's true. And even before that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Stieglitz is widely credited with demonstrating that photography is just as much an art as anything else rather than a perfect representation.

I'm really enjoying reading everyone's answers. I want to put forward one other possibility as I'm thinking it over because I haven't seen it said yet and I want to see what others think.

So this will be close to the idea that a painting is what we say it is, but with more details. I want to say that there are criteria of judgment which differentiate a painting from the wall it sits on, and that these criteria are something decided by our artworld. In some sense the expectation set by going into a museum that showcases great works defines what gets to be considered art and what does not get to be considered art.

But then that's not quite right, of course. It's just a familiar experience for anyone whose bothered to go to an art museum to draw from: there's a certain expectation of the pieces that is different from the temple it sits in. Usually the museum is considered a peice of architectural art, but how we judge a building and how we judge a painting are very different.

I'm inclined to follow along with -- "family resemblance" gets used a lot because it resolves a lot of the various counter-examples you'll inevitably capture with a strict set of criteria. I like the idea of there being a sort of paradigmatic set which we call "paintings", and from that set we can start to make some distinctions that will hold in a good enough way -- we can see why someone would say that -- while acknowledging there's likely a counter-example within the set to any proposed strict criteria.

Something like a formalism of judgment which acknowledges the difficulties in stating universal criteria for something that's probably better suited for a family resemblance.

The distinctions I'm thinking through and liking: everyone's theory on the difference between a drawing and a painting has been more illuminating that I suspected it would be: I thought the far comparisons would do better, but actually I'm enjoying these various distinctions between drawings, paintings, pictures, and art: wet/dry, High/low, warm-up/real-deal...

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/voting-age-by-country

https://www.boerneraadet.dk/english/

Also found out that there's a bi-annual "children's congress" for children with type 1 diabetes in the states. Something interesting to note there is that the children don't have a right to vote but they can still participate in the process if there's some sort of organization to facilitate lobbying.. Funnily enough that's probably more effective than granting the right to vote carte blanche to children.

Overall, though, I tend to think children have more to offer the world in terms of their own needs than given credit for. The best way to teach responsibility is to make someone responsible for something and follow through. If you forgo all "irresponsible" decisions until 25, like the United Arab Emirates according to the link above, then you'll have no practice in being an adult until 25. Then you'll be the equivalent of an 18 year old who has likewise not experienced adulthood yet.

Also I think adults make much ado about their own strengths. If a person is impulsive all the way into their middle age then something tells me that they're not going to "reform" into proper property-owning responsible citizens that can make clear decisions in national affairs. They're just as confused as the rest of the world.

But the real reason to give people the right to vote is because they have a right to voice their own interests as they see fit. It's about giving them power as a universal right, not ensuring that they are meritocratic enough to wield power.

How locally? Just for you, in your own head so to speak, or how wide can the local go, and why do you think that? — Fire Ologist

I'd say "just for us", rather than just for me. It's not like I invented logic, philosophy, language, etc. I'm connected to others and through that connection -- which included a great deal of care on the part of others before I was able to care in turn -- I am enabled to participate in the game of giving and taking reasons along with everyone else so enabled. Part of that game is in modifying the rules of giving and taking reasons -- a reason for a reason. I think that's the part where we can collectively build the rules of inference in a sort of sui generis manner for every endeavor.

Now, maybe the cosmic universe cares in some sense about that, but from my perspective it only matters locally. I don't even care if there is a universal perspective that says it all. My finitude ensures that I'll never attain that.

I don't see a strict incompatibility between Davidson's account of interpretation and Searle's account of the construction of social institutions. Paying that out would make an interesting thread. — Banno

I don't, either.

And it'd be interesting to try and combine the notions.

What is odd to me is not that you don’t agree with me, but that you see your own position as coherent.

You can’t say “better” in any meaningful way. I agree we could all agree something is better, but who really gives a shit what we think? Certainly nobody in 100 years.

I’m trying to say something, anything, one thing, that someone might give a shit about in 1,000 years, or if they were an alien race of persons 10,000 years advanced, or a god. — Fire Ologist

Why?

Personally I know that what I say is in the face of an absurd world -- so it will only matter locally.

However, that's what matters. Our responding to you demonstrates that "who gives a shit?" is us, here, talking.

I think they would all agree the LNC will always help clarify reasoning.

I am going for it, anyway, despite stepping out too far over the precipice.

And I see you doing the same but you won’t admit it.

You think that, but the only reason you think it is because you can't imagine things otherwise, yes? :

The LNC is an absolute. Maybe someday we’ll find we can use reason while contradicting reason, but probably not, so I see no need to say the LNC is merely stipulated and temporary and provisional awaiting its revision. It’s absolute - I can’t think otherwise and be thinking. — Fire Ologist

"I can't think otherwise" is usually a hint at a kind of transcendental argument going on, if it be articulated.

If it's absolute, then it's not absolutely absolute -- it's only absolute relative to your ability to imagine or think.

Aren't the bourgeoisie just the middle class today? — unimportant

No.

The bourgeoisie are the owners of the means of production -- the workplace.

The boss you deal with is "middle class" in the sense that they're in the middle and make enough money to not suffer and are mostly aligned with bourgeois interests due to that.

But the owners of the workplace are the bourgeoisie. Not the owners of a home who peddle its ideology in the workplace, but the bona-fide owners (and perhaps movers and shakers at a certain level) who make decisions about the economy and how workers will conduct their business because they have purchased their labor.

'Reference frame' is from relativity theory. It is true that relativity theory and quantum theory undermine the idea of absolute objectivity. That's one of the sources of the very anxiety that this thread is about. — Wayfarer

"Reference frame" came from math prior to Einstein. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation

Lorentz (1892–1904) and Larmor (1897–1900), who believed the luminiferous aether hypothesis, also looked for the transformation under which Maxwell's equations are invariant when transformed from the aether to a moving frame. They extended the FitzGerald–Lorentz contraction hypothesis and found out that the time coordinate has to be modified as well ("local time"). Henri Poincaré gave a physical interpretation to local time (to first order in v/c, the relative velocity of the two reference frames normalized to the speed of light) as the consequence of clock synchronization, under the assumption that the speed of light is constant in moving frames.[8] Larmor is credited to have been the first to understand the crucial time dilation property inherent in his equations.[9]

In 1905, Poincaré was the first to recognize that the transformation has the properties of a mathematical group, and he named it after Lorentz.[10] Later in the same year Albert Einstein published what is now called special relativity, by deriving the Lorentz transformation under the assumptions of the principle of relativity and the constancy of the speed of light in any inertial reference frame, and by abandoning the mechanistic aether as unnecessary.[11]

I can see the link between the two. But I don't see how that fits with what Banno says. — Ludwig V

On the left hand side I have three examples of representing belief, and on the right hand side I have each corresponding constituting actions of belief. At least, that's what I was thinking in offering the examples: Also to get a better idea of this wider sense than the bet, to see what other species of representing/constituting belief there may be.

Hrm.

So we are not all really bad people deep down?

Interesting perspective but I dont think making a thread on this thought makes a person good. maybe it makes the person "Self Aware bad person" — QuirkyZen

By the argument that I provided that that person is self aware as being a bad person means they're not bad deep down -- they may never become good, but that recognition is enough.

And if even that knave with a heart of gold isn't bad deep down, then surely there's more than the knave?

I'm wondering -- were I to have the ring of gyges I very much doubt I'd post on a philosophy website about that possibility, unless we aren't all really bad people deep down.

So, if you make a thread on the thought then you are not a really bad person deep down.

If at least one person is not a really bad person deep down then not all people are all really bad people deep down.

QED.

The bet is just a portrayal of any act. The philosophical move is from the action representing the belief to the action constituting the belief. — Banno

OK, fair.

So, bets, promises, posts on one hand and paying up, following through, and reading on the other.

Who will take my bet, and at what odds? Should I be prepared to trust anyone who did take it? — Ludwig V

I'll bet the same against you, on the odds that it doesn't -- given I have nothing and I could win on the bluff I might as well.

That's what I meant to imply by the 1 million dollar buy in before. Maybe it's stupid. I ought read Ramsey that @Banno linked to judge either way.

I distrust betting on the whole. It's a test of who is right and who is wrong -- so I can persuade a person to bet against that the LNC* is false in at least one circumstance, and then provide the argument from the liar's sentence (which will certainly not persuade), and we'd be right back doing philosophy again rather than betting.

*EDIT: I think going for the LEM is much easier but that'd undermine my point: that at a certain spot we'd stop betting and start talking philosophy

Got it: https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/4280/pg4280-images.html#chap105

A few paragraphs into that section.

To be fair I didn't know the passage I just guessed it was Kant, and had some help.

The usual test, whether that which any one maintains is merely his persuasion, or his subjective conviction at least, that is, his firm belief, is a bet. It frequently happens that a man delivers his opinions with so much boldness and assurance, that he appears to be under no apprehension as to the possibility of his being in error. The offer of a bet startles him, and makes him pause. Sometimes it turns out that his persuasion may be valued at a ducat, but not at ten. For he does not hesitate, perhaps, to venture a ducat, but if it is proposed to stake ten, he immediately becomes aware of the possibility of his being mistaken—a possibility which has hitherto escaped his observation. If we imagine to ourselves that we have to stake the happiness of our whole life on the truth of any proposition, our judgement drops its air of triumph, we take the alarm, and discover the actual strength of our belief. Thus pragmatical belief has degrees, varying in proportion to the interests at stake.

Cuz we like how they look and select which of them get to count which way.

When we look at the entire tree of life then it gets a bit uglier.

I'll maintain that our aesthetic is shown in our choices. But we do expect others to agree with our aesthetic choices, and are surprised at the choices others make... — Banno

Yes, much to do here, I agree.

Somehow we expect others to agree, and are surprised by the choices others make.

Is there a way of talking about that in* in the space of reasons?

*EDIT: I had a notion of "in", but then upon rereading I thought not to emphasize it because it looked confusing.

if what I'm recording is meant to sound like a superb bass guitar, and I achieve this using my dozen post-production devices, the fact remains that I'm representing myself as having the technique of Paul McCartney when I really don't. That's uncomfortable. It's also uncomfortable because it makes me lazy. Rather than practice the damn part till I get it right, I know I can fix it in post. — J

I'd say the historical approach makes sense of the difference here -- you can make the same "product" (I wanted to use scare quotes for "the same", but thought it excessive). But the only reason you're representing yourself in that manner is that we're in a time when post-production hasn't become part of the way people hear music, yet.

I can't think of any other reason why Kanye West is so well loved :D

Post production has a magic to it because we live in a time when you can replicate what was once thought of as "the real deal"

In a way, though I may be wrong about this, post-production is a bit like Warhol? Though I'm leaping there and wondering if you see it or think it different.

I Can't figure it out.

(Tho I did the google, and wouldn't mind a A/B reference)

Thanks. I felt we were diverging far, and so I appreciate the tie-in back. (though I ought say I'm responsible for that divergence, too)

Also, your general description here:

Now a point of indifference in a philosophical debate is a point of agreement.

An alternative method might be, rather than demanding an absolute resolution, begin with points of indifference or agreement — shared constraints, overlapping commitments, common ground. From these, construct a framework of reasoning that remains coherent, though incomplete or evolving.

Ramsey shows the formal consistency of such a method, given the axioms of his system. — Banno

I get along with. The social reality of betting is what caused doubt in me, which is why I asked how literal you meant.

Any thoughts on this @Srap Tasmaner?

I'm mostly relying on you to get an understanding of Williamson, while attempting to put in enough work to make sure I'm not just missing something obvious.

In the most literal sense I suppose we'd have to ask ourselves here in the conversation what we're willing to bet on anything we say. (I bet 1 million dollars as a buy in)

:lol: OK, fair enough.

I'll admit I didn't expect that answer.

but a framework for what it would be to act coherently, given one’s own beliefs and preferences. — Banno

I suppose I'm a still skeptical of the framework, but I have little else to say as to why.

I'm fine with going along with the framework.

Is it possible to tie it into Williamson's concerns?

On the other hand I'll acknowledge that you gave a theory of aesthetics that's general in the same way I'm attempting to.

It's very clear so I'm fine with proceeding with that idea, given you're distaste for the categorical question.