Sam's analysis of religion is pretty embarrassing.

"Like an eagle that one sees always
Whether flying in the middle airs
Or alighting on some rock
Give piercing looks on all sides
To fall so surely on its prey
That one can avoid its nails
No less than its eyes." — csalisbury

This poem didn't hit me as hard, but this stanza did, but maybe only because it's very musical. But also the phrase "like an eagle that one sees always" reminds me of feeling like I "always" saw hawks (not eagles) growing up. So I guess that memory brings the stanza into focus for me. For what it's worth.

haaalp

Yes, but we were talking about the existential status of the art. Existentially, the artist is one existent person, in relation to the existence of the art. The fact that the artist can play different roles in one's life is irrelevant to the existence of the art. But if, in relation to the existence of the art, the artist is both creator and viewer, then all other viewers are unnecessary in relation to the existential status of the art. Therefore we can dismiss all other viewers, their attitudes, etc., as irrelevant to the existence of the art. — Metaphysician Undercover

Lol, you can't just tack the word "existential" unto the same argument you made awhile back and call it a response to what I laid out about roles.

Don't you see, that the artist's statement is no more of an attempt to dictate how the audience experiences the art than any other aspect of the art? — Metaphysician Undercover

No I don't, because it's not. I've demonstrated this many times at this point.

You really need to lighten up and stop perceiving words as the rules of a dictator. Do you think that words in a piece of music are the composer's attempt to dictate how you experience the music? If having words attached, makes the art unenjoyable to you, because you're extremely paranoid that the artist is attempting to be a dictator, then go look at something else that doesn't make you feel paranoid. — Metaphysician Undercover

Jesus Christ, stop putting words in my fucking mouth. I don't perceive words as rules of a dictator, and I'm not extremely paranoid. What a fucking uncharitable projection unto my arguments. I'm done with this discussion.

We can't divide the artist into two, as if part of the artist is observer and part is creator. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is so absurd. Artist and audience member are roles; clearly an artist can play multiple roles. An artist might also be their own PR person, as is increasingly the case. They may run their own record label to release their music; a musician might be a songwriter and a multi-instrumentalist and a recording engineer, fulfilling all of those roles in order to create a work. Being an audience member is another role.

I didn't respond to this because under this new principle, that the artist is both creator and audience, the piece of art is entirely complete right here, at this moment in time. Any other audience, later in time, is completely irrelevant to the artwork, and whether or not the audience grows, how it grows, or how the artist views the creation at a different time, is completely irrelevant, unless the artist changes the piece, Therefore this further audience need not be discussed. — Metaphysician Undercover

Also absurd. Of course a piece of art isn't complete just because the artist also plays the role of audience. That makes no sense.

The person railing against the artist's statement, as if the artist ought not be telling the observer how to experience the art, is now insisting that the artist's experience of one's own work is the true, or correct experience of the work. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, I'm not insisting that. An artist making an artist statement and attempting to dictate how the audience experiences the work is not the same thing as 3 artists describing our process and broader existential experience. We aren't forcing specific interpretations of specific work down your throat like an artist statement can be in danger of doing; we're describing the actual experience of creating art, vs. your theoretical ideas about what we do. Completely and utterly different things. Clearly.

Didn't I suggest, as a starting point, to dismiss intentions completely, and then proceed toward understanding how intention seeps in to the artwork? This is how I got rid of meaning and interpretation, What is "meant". How is it possible that focusing on intention is my mistake, when that's exactly what I said I wanted to get away from? — Metaphysician Undercover

You're completely missing what I'm saying, because you're taking that quote from Coben out of context. Go back and re-read what they said if you want to address that, and then re-read what I said.

*delete

Oh man, Picasso is such an excellent example. I'll never forget a few years ago, at MoMA, there was a special exhibit of hundreds of Picasso's sculptures. I went with some friends on literally the final night of the exhibit; it was open until midnight. We walked through for a few hours, and I was entranced. His guitar sculptures were some of my favorites; this one is apparently not a better known example; I could only find this google image, but the one on the right was one of my favorites:

Gahh, you and @Coben need to stop speaking my language so much! (no worries, metaphysician will be along shortly to bring back the Eeyore vibes [luv u MU]).

Indeed, there's a mystery here that deals with the connection between the artistic the mystical. If I can be so bold, I would almost say that this connection is the crux of, not only the misunderstanding here in this thread, but even of the breakdown of communication within artistic circles of various mediums over the past century. Does the mystical play a role in good art? Does anyone even have an inkling of what "mystical" means, other than culturally acquired taboos? If anything, the best we can do is turn to the artists who have demonstrated the connection between the artistic and the mystical; I naturally look towards music, and some of the clearest (and culturally acceptable examples) would be the Coltranes:

John himself:



And Alice:



And her influence on her grand-nephew, Flying Lotus:



And Fly-Lo's influence/collab with Kendrick...



Nice...that was a sick historical lesson.

I don't mean to get circle-jerky here, but as I re-read through this page of the thread, this stands out:

The intentions in the conscious mind are only a small part of what is going on. — Coben

...As being perhaps the hallmark of @Metaphysician Undercover's mistake.

Yes, I don't know how you've lasted so long. And the problem is things like this...

The artist, as one's own observer has inside information on one's own piece,
— Metaphysician Undercover
...do not contradict what we are saying. Yes, an artist has insights into his or her work. On the other hand so do other viewers of that art. A smart artist will not want to narrow down the range of insights or put other viewers in the position of having to overcome the artist's necessarily limited set of insights about that work. — Coben

Man, it's rare for me to agree so much with someone here, but I really do feel that you're speaking my own mind here, and it's very encouraging, which is why I bring it up. Thanks.

An artists does have insights into his or her own art, but if that artists has paid any attention over time, they will have noticed that they realize things later they did not then, even missing the core part of the artwork. — Coben

Yes, I've experienced this in a pretty profound way in my own work. There's sort of an accidental trio of records I've made over the past 8 years which form a very spooky narrative that was not at all intentional. They basically narrate my own experience of moving from religious doubt, all the way to completely "losing my religion" (despite the annoying cliche there). 8 years later, I can look at these 3 collections of songs (around 40 minutes each - i.e. two piddly hours of music created over an 8 year period!!!) and see the logical progression that completely maps against my personal experience; but none of this was conscious. That's because the specific experience of moving through stages of religious doubt, all the way to a lack of belief is a complex, malleable experience; at no point was I saying "a-ha, I'm now no longer religious; therefore I'll write this song that represents this". No, I was "in the trenches"; I still wanted to believe, for instance, in certain complex ways, and so I wrote songs, unconsciously, that reflected all this complexity of experience. I was writing honestly. To the point that I was afraid to share the songs with people. I didn't want people to know about what I was experiencing, because I didn't even really understand what I was experiencing, and then writing about, anyway. I still don't, although to a lesser degree.

If anyone cares to "be an audience member" of this 8 year process, here's an example from each (chronologically ordered):

https://matthewanderson.bandcamp.com/track/that-one-true-tune

[as I listen to this I just now, 8 years later, understand for the first time why I used this little sample of a woman saying "yeah, that's me, I talk to the trees" in a few songs on this record. No joke]

https://matthewanderson.bandcamp.com/track/coventry

https://matthewanderson.bandcamp.com/track/new-mythology

The artist, as one's own observer has inside information on one's own piece, — Metaphysician Undercover

In other words, you must have missed all of this:

And strong artists are surprised and frustrated by their art, which always will go beyond the conscious mind's ability to control and will always have meanings and implications the artist did not intend, EVEN for him or herself as a viewer. And artists should be wary of saying what their art means, because they are not aware of what in them has affected the art. I've gone back to old work and realized, much later, that it clearly dealt with, for example, family issues I was not thinking of at all when I made it. And I have also denied certain interpretations of my art, only much later to realize the other person was very likely quite correct. The intentions in the conscious mind are only a small part of what is going on. Another reason the artist statement - if it goes into any of these areas - is confused about art and their own minds.

Those who make shallow art or art of ideas only can have more control over 'the meaning', but even then not all and may be quite off when it comes to what the work of art conveys. — Coben

What's amusing here is we have 3 actual artists trying to demonstrate these aspects of our work, and then we have 1 (apparently) non-artist attempting to explain to us that we're wrong about our experience of our work. This is getting boring, to be honest.

This is the falsity which you refuse to acknowledge. No audience is required. The artist can create without an observer. The art exists with or without the observer. Your "philosophical concept" is faulty. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, as I and Coben have said, the artist themselves is an audience member to their own work, so it's faulty to say that no audience is required. Actually it's not even the right way to express it; there's no "requirement" or not; there's just the reality of the artist as audience, which forms the basis of the symbiotic relationship between artist and audience. In other words, at minimum there's an audience of 1: the artist. From there, the audience naturally grows into whatever size it happens to become. Look to @Coben's explanation of this reality in their most recent reply to you above to get a sense of why this is true (i.e. the part of their post that you didn't respond to).

:up: :heart:

If "the audience is half the work", and "their inevitable 50% contribution to the work itself", doesn't imply that "the work" is a shared experience, then what could "the work" possibly refer to? — Metaphysician Undercover

Of course there's no shared experience; there's the private experience of the artist making the work, and the private experience of the audience experiencing the work.

Then are you ready to release the idea of collaboration between artist and audience — Metaphysician Undercover

Not only am I not ready to release the idea, I never suggested the idea in the first place. All I'm ever talking about is the existential reality that art requires both artist and audience, and that art itself as a philosophical concept only exists with both; mover and moved. There's no collaboration; collaboration is when two artists work together on an artwork. The reality of the artist and audience relationship is closer to a sexual relationship, by analogy.

I think I know why we disagree so much; my approach is existential, and yours is not.

You do recognize that some so-called "artwork", poetry for instance, consists of statements? If some people might see meaning in those statements, are we to dismiss this type of artwork as not "true art", just because it is not "pure art" (perfectly without meaning)? — Metaphysician Undercover

Back to kindergarten we go. Analogous to poetry in this example is physical artwork; so analogous to the artist statement about a physical artwork would be a written artist statement about a poem.

I think that "pure art", absolutely without meaning, might be a little boring. — Metaphysician Undercover

I confess I always work from my musical background. From there, I don't believe there's such a thing as art without meaning. Because it's clear that there's no music without meaning, existentially (i.e. this is realized by listening to music.)

Drunk me is a pretty damn excusable shorty story author. :100:

It should be evident from what I said, that I do not view art in the same way that you do. — Metaphysician Undercover

It should be, but it's not, because there's a deficit of communication between us, clearly. And that was the polite version. :heart:

I look at it as something which can inspire me, like any of the numerous other things which might inspire me, sunrise, sunset, cows in the pasture, birds in the woods, a severe storm etc.. — Metaphysician Undercover

I feel the exact same way.

You described a shared experience between the artist and the viewer, as if the artwork is some form of communication. — Metaphysician Undercover

Nope, I never described a "shared experience between the artist and the viewer". Maybe I communicated poorly, or maybe you interpreted poorly.

But yes. Art is communication. But not any sort of communication that you would understand.

Remember, I said that you are solely responsible for the creation of your own phenomenological experience of the art, the artist plays no role in this. — Metaphysician Undercover

When did you say this? I seem to remember @Coben calling you out on a phenomenological issue, rather than you concocting one. Bullshit.

In communication we expect that the author imposes restrictions on our experience, and we respect this. That is meaning. — Metaphysician Undercover

That would be nice, but without getting into an entirely different debate, this is oh so clearly false.

In art we provide our minds the freedom to appreciate and be inspired by, the beauty, in whatever form it takes, rather than constraining our minds toward apprehending the meaning. — Metaphysician Undercover

Again, you're singing to the choir here, talking about not apprehending meaning. Dayuuuumn, when zero meaning is apprehended, I just get... *edited*

I would dismiss both of these extremes. I think that art in its truest form is not designed to "communicate" in any way at all. I would say that it is designed to inspire the observer to create one's own ideas. It is not meant as a communication, but as a catalyst of inspiration. As such, it may or may not include a "statement". But I think that any critical analysis which focuses on subjects like correct interpretation, what the artist meant to portray, or even interpretation at all, are looking at art as a form of communication, and this is the mistake. We ought to look more at the feelings and thoughts which the art helps us to produce, regardless of whether the artist intended to produce these particular ideas, as in communication. Notice the difference between recognizing and interpreting one's own feelings and thoughts inspired by the art, and interpreting the art. Then the art becomes a feature of the observer's own ambition, spirit, and creativity, rather than the observer becoming a feature of the artist's work. The highest quality appreciation is without interpretation. — Metaphysician Undercover

Now I'm confused as to how/why you disagreed with my points this whole time.

Met Breuer was trash. Two small floors worth of disgusting modern art. Nothing requiring skill.

I'm headed to The Met Breuer today. I'll report back...

Part of a trend towards a diminishment of investment into the sensual aspects of art and a seeing art as getting messages and ideas across as the main idea. — Coben

Yes, art as fundamentalist worldview; apologetic art, wether religiously apologetic, atheistically apologetic, or otherwise.

Recent weird fiction:

The Witch - David Lindsay
The City And The City - China Miéville
NVK - Temple Drake

The art is the physical thing, the written material, not the interpretation of it. — Metaphysician Undercover

I know I won't change your mind, and I'm just about done going over and over the same points here. But I'll mention here that this is such a depressing over-simplification of art. I also don't understand what position on your end would even make this distinction important. In the case of a novel, if the art is the physical thing, what exactly are you referring to? The words in a specific language used? The grammar? The ink choice of the publisher, and their choice of paper type? By "written material" do you mean the whole thing, the "novel"?

I go to watch a film and the director writes that the theme of the film is based on his holding back his true feelings for his father when he was a kid and how toxic not telling the truth is in family relationships. Hell, I might as well get up and leave. Doesn't this guy trust his artwork. Can't I come to that meaning myself. Maybe there is a whole lot of other stuff, even the director is not aware of, and now I will keep finding 'the' theme. — Coben

It's scary how much I agree with you on this topic, but also nice to not feel like I'm going insane here.

But this comment brought to mind another aspect of the artist statement, to get back on track to the OP. Often times, this impulse to explain away one's own artistic work is actually a bright, flashing red sign that the artist is insecure, that she lacks confidence in her work. This is surely not always the case with an artist statement or explanation, but often times it can be; even in the form of a seemingly confident statement, which actually masks the insecurity.

Of course self-doubt and artistic creation do tend to go hand in hand, but there's a certain barrier that an artist needs to overcome in order to make great work; self-doubt will never magically disappear, but, as you say, the artist needs to work their ass off for a long time, and eventually the barrier is broken through, and there is a feeling of assurance; assurance that the work is good. Self-doubt will remain, but not the type of self-doubt that leads to the impulse to explain away the work to the audience out of insecurity.

Maybe it's true that a lot of artists and art appreciators never break through this initial barrier; the artist statements then work like a comfort blanket.

"But to get the skills to make something that is beautiful, you need to train your ass off, not just train your thinky little brainpan." - @Coben

Have you been to an art museum or gallery lately?

I don't see how you have shown that the artwork is anything more than the physical piece. — Metaphysician Undercover

I summed it up here:

The difference in how these mediums relate to time demonstrates that the physical aspect of a work in any medium is only one variable in the totality of a work. Time and it's relationship to the physicality of a medium is another. Existentially, total experience of a work can't be tied down to one or more of the physical senses by which the work was apprehended. — Noble Dust

Isn't it necessary that the artist (composer) give very clear and precise "statements" in order that the piece be appreciated as it is supposed to be. The person who wants to hear the music cannot just interpret the instruction any old way. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, not at all. Interpretation by the performer has always been an integral part of classical music, for instance; improvisation used to be pretty common place, even. The concept, within classical music, of a rigid, platonic ideal of the piece represented through notation is just an ossification; the formation of an orthodoxy. And that's to say nothing of stuff like this (John Cage):

Claiming that non-existent things are art is where the others have been going, insisting that imaginary things are art. — Metaphysician Undercover

LOL, is sci-fi not art?

I was referencing this

It would be cool if there was ACM - Atheist Contemporary Music, or inspirational music for atheists.

can't vote unless you change it, @tim wood

Focusing on a physical art object narrows the scope of the discussion, in my view. All art is physical in some way of course, but poetry and music are communicated via sound (or sight, when read off the page), and so their interaction with time is different than the plastic arts. This relationship to time is key to understanding why any given work in any given medium is, indeed, something more than a physical object. The physical nature of a plastic art object is such that it's relationship to time is indeterminate; I can look at a photo of a Picasso on my phone for a few seconds, for instance, if it's my wallpaper. Or I can go to MoMA and really spend time with a piece. I might spend all that time and still not get much out of it.

Music, on the other hand, has a determinate relationship with time. A performance or recording of a work is however many seconds, minutes, or hours long. If written music on the page represents a sort of 1st and 2nd dimension, then the 3rd dimensional aspect it seemingly lacks is represented in sound, over a set period of time. I can imagine this aspect of music as analogous to being able to walk around a sculpture in 360 degrees.

The difference in how these mediums relate to time demonstrates that the physical aspect of a work in any medium is only one variable in the totality of a work. Time and it's relationship to the physicality of a medium is another. Existentially, total experience of a work can't be tied down to one or more of the physical senses by which the work was apprehended.

These are just more layers to the onion of art experience, and the complex relationship between art and audience.

:up:

I think I've demonstrated beyond the shadow of a doubt (and a doubt casts one heck of a shadow), that your argument is completely irrational. It is demonstrably wrong to portray the appreciation of the artwork as part of the artwork itself. Now, being left with no means to defend your claims, you've resorted to making false claims about what I've said. — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't think you have, and I'm confident in the argument I put forward. It's fine to disagree, but this has gotten ugly, and you continue to confuse the order of the arguments made, which I already demonstrated. I'm not intentionally making any false claims, and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you're not either. There's clearly a lot of misunderstanding and incompatibility of communication between our positions here. Best of luck.

It's a great image and a great film. :up:

Need I remind you, that it was you who started comparing a work of art to a word in language?
"A work of art is more akin to a word, and how that word's language is always in flux"
This it seems was part of you metaphor. So when I address you by the terms of your metaphor, this is called "embarrassingly erroneous". Therefore it appears that by your own judgement your metaphor is "embarrassingly erroneous". — Metaphysician Undercover

You continue to obfuscate the various points being made by both of us; you get them out of order. Now I'm spending all my energy here correcting the mistakes.

When I suggested you were equating art and philosophy, I was referencing the transition you made here:

You are saying that "the work" is different each time it is viewed by a different person. But that's not at all true, the work stays the same, as the same piece of art, it is only viewed and interpreted differently. It is completely wrong to suggest that the interpretation which the viewer offers is actually part of the work.

That's why we have a distinction between primary and secondary sources in philosophy. — Metaphysician Undercover

But now you attempted to turn that suggestion around and suggest that my saying "A work of art is more akin to a word, and how that word's language is always in flux" also equates art with philosophy in the same way you did. It does not. It likens (that's called a metaphor) art to language, not philosophy.

So when I address you by the terms of your metaphor, this is called "embarrassingly erroneous". Therefore it appears that by your own judgement your metaphor is "embarrassingly erroneous". — Metaphysician Undercover

Again, you did not address me in those terms when you equated art and philosophy; you made that equation first, and then you addressed my metaphor.

Hopefully we can now get back to my arguments (or yours, if you'd like to make any).

The point is that when you make claims such as "the viewer is half the work", you need to support these principles. If you support them with faulty math then there is no support. — Metaphysician Undercover

As I already said, it's a metaphor, so no, that's not correct. I supported the concept by fleshing out what I mean by using the metaphor.

You are saying that "the work" is different each time it is viewed by a different person. But that's not at all true, the work stays the same, as the same piece of art, it is only viewed and interpreted differently. It is completely wrong to suggest that the interpretation which the viewer offers is actually part of the work. — Metaphysician Undercover

I'm speaking metaphorically again, which you seem unable to grasp. Of course I'm not saying the physical work itself is different each time; I would hazard to say that it's nonsensical on your part to assume that anyone could actually mean that.

If Duchamp's Fountain is unearthed 1,000 years from now by a future culture with no knowledge of him or his work, the physical piece itself will not be perceived as art. It will be perceived as a toilet at best. The toilet becomes art when the dialog between Duchamp and his audience begins. This may be an extreme example, but the ambiguity of our understanding of cave paintings and drawings from antiquity demonstrates the same principle, theoretically. Even in a less extreme example, if one of Picasso's sculptures is unearthed 1,000 years from now, it may be understood to be a piece of art, but beyond that, not much (assuming, again, that no one in the culture knows about Picasso).

That's why we have a distinction between primary and secondary sources in philosophy. This marks the difference between what the author actually has said, and how the commentators interpret what has been said. It is wrong to make the commentary part of the work, just like it is wrong to make the critic's interpretation part of the work of art. There is a distinction between the events occurring, and the narrative. — Metaphysician Undercover

To equate philosophy and art is a pretty embarrassingly erroneous assumption to make.

You said "the viewer", singular, passes an inevitable "50% contribution to the work itself". Since there is a vast number of viewers this would add up to thousands, millions, or even billions of percentage, which is nonsense. Therefore, if you are trying to represent what each viewer adds to the work, in this way, as a percentage, you'd have to say that each viewer actually provides a very small percentage contribution to the work. The more viewers there are, the less percentage each one would contribute. — Metaphysician Undercover

I'm happy to admit that finding the proper language to express this concept is difficult, and this is leading to confusion, although I get the feeling that you won't be charitable to that fact (I hope I'm wrong); but never the less. When I say "the viewer is 50% of the work", I'm saying that metaphorically, not mathematically. If I was saying it mathematically, clearly I'd be wrong and you would be correct in your critique.

But the viewer is half of the work each individual time the work is viewed. Try to think metaphorically with me here. The work is not a mathematical principle that needs to be properly apprehended exhaustively by the audience; it's not an object with one application or formula by which it can be expressed. A work of art is more akin to a word, and how that word's language is always in flux; words change their meaning, but they leave something of a husk behind as they change. There's always a tension between the husk and the new seed of the word. How art functions (and it only functions in front of an audience) is closer to this than it is to a mathematical formula, just as an example. I leave this open-ended to emphasize the concept.

Since there are multiple viewers of the work, it is impossible that each viewer contributes 50% of the work. — Metaphysician Undercover

Not only is it possible, it happens every time that you, the viewer, interface with a work. The work only exists in the context of the audience. The audience is made up of individuals with individual perceptions of not only art, but of reality itself. The audience, made up of these people, exists within a cultural context, which further shapes their perception of art and reality. All of this plays into how the work is received. This isn't even an argument, it's just reality. An artwork without an audience is only half a work of art. I'm surprised this is so controversial, honestly.

EDIT: Maybe what's missing is the fact that the artist is an audience member of their own work. The artist is not a god on high bestowing an audience with a brilliant work. I've ironically been accused of elitism in this thread, but my argument is demonstrably the least elitist in this respect.

It's true that the artist plays to an audience, and the audience has importance, but you are clearly misrepresenting that importance. Whether that audience is you, me, StreetlightX, or other people, is not really relevant unless the artist is doing something personal. So contrary to what you say, the particularities, and peculiarities, of the individual subjective experience of interpretation are irrelevant. — Metaphysician Undercover

You keep making assertions as if they are arguments. So, show how I'm misrepresenting the importance of the audience.

and it's simply a mistake to say that it's wrong to force the artist into the abstract — Metaphysician Undercover

I did not say that.

It's not nonsensical; what borders on the nonsensical is that you barely even addressed what you quoted, which was a description of the difference between the viewer following their own interpretive path based on their inevitable 50% contribution to the work itself, vs. an artist statement trying to block this process. Try again.

And to say that the statement thrusts the work into the realm of "abstract" also makes no sense, because all artwork partakes of the abstract. So the statement, if it is an abstract aspect, is just another part of the abstract aspect of the piece of art. — Metaphysician Undercover

By abstract I just mean the process of interpretation (or explanation, in the case of the artist statement), which follows the initial sensual experience. A different word would probably work better.