I am not sure what you mean. — Raymond
What I mean is that (like anyone) artists start from a point of view. The one you mentioned sounds perfectly fine. An artist's personality or motivations or background have no impact on whether or not they make great things. Some great art is made by despicable people. And sometimes great art is made from despicable subjects. — Tom Storm
I hear you. — Tom Storm
Only by exposing yourself to new things and sticking with them and, perhaps reading about them, can one come to appreciate their subtleties or lack there of. This means sticking with things you are not drawn to and possibly dislike. Subjectivity is something we can overcome. I gradually 'discovered' a lot of music, novels and movies by doing this. — Tom Storm
The challenge with an overly personal or subjective account of art is it tends to render Citizen Kane equivalent with an Adam Sandler movie (or insert piece of shit of your choice). I guess a criterion of value is usually established by a community of shared understanding. Which kind of leaves us to talk inside to our bubbles. — Tom Storm
I'd really like to hear a few choice navigation points from a phenomenological approach to artistic value. — Tom Storm
Which thread were you meaning? — Tom Storm
The idea that art is that which expresses the emotion of the artist is something I need to sit with again. — Tom Storm
Going back a bit to what I was saying about commonly shared tastes in relation to food and the exception of some humans somewhere finding human shit to be a delicacy: if what is shit (in terms of art out there) to the vast majority of us is deemed a sublime delicacy by some select few, this doesn’t change the fact that it doesn’t serve the vast majority’s affective appetites any. (I know. I'll try to fully stop my chastising of much of modern art with this last comment on it. :smile: ) But could we in any way address this and like issues outside of our intersubjective bubbles? — javra
I've been pushing the definition of art as something without meaning beyond the viewer's experience. — T Clark
How do I turn that personal, idiosyncratic standard into something a community can share? — T Clark
[...] Quality of art is a measure of the extent to which a specific community consistently has positive experiences [...] — T Clark
I've been pushing the definition of art as something without meaning beyond the viewer's experience.
— T Clark
Think back to what we were all discussing in terms of differentiating art from non-art - this irrespective of its aesthetic standing. In order to be art some being must have intended it to be art and, in so intending, that being must have meant it to so be - thereby imparting it with this meaning. Hence, even in this basic facet of it, for X to be art it must have the minimal meaning of having been intended to so be by someone - and this fully independent of any viewer's experience of it. — javra
Otherwise:
How do I turn that personal, idiosyncratic standard into something a community can share?
— T Clark
Though taken a bit out of context here: That's the rub of it all, I think. Even in assuming that the prototypical artist intends to convey some affective state to other(s) - something I myself champion - the same question holds. — javra
Going back a bit to what I was saying about commonly shared tastes in relation to food and the exception of some humans somewhere finding human shit to be a delicacy: if what is shit (in terms of art out there) to the vast majority of us is deemed a sublime delicacy by some select few, this doesn’t change the fact that it doesn’t serve the vast majority’s affective appetites any. — javra
I've been endorsing two meanings of the word "art." 1) Something artificial without meaning beyond the viewers experience and 2) Something offered for aesthetic judgement or, as you expressed it, intended by some being to be art. I think they both work and I don't think they contradict each other. — T Clark
I don't mean to pester — javra
How do you discern artificial from non-artificial in definition (1) if not by that which is artificial occurring (necessarily but not sufficiently) on account of a persons' (or cohort's commonly shared) intent that it occurs? In other words, if you can't discern whether it was intended to be by one or more persons, how can you discern it to be an artifact? — javra
I ask because if intent is inherent to what artifacts are, then all artifacts would yet have a meaning in so being: they all signify being the outcome of some intent. And this again gets to the issue of how an artifact can be devoid of all meaning outside of the viewer's experience - if meaning of "being a creation" is innate to being an artifact.
In which case, some might not help but wonder why the creator(s) of the artifact bothered to create it - for it then is factual that it was the result of intentions - which again speaks to the intentions of those who produced it. — javra
I'm probably missing something, but I'm not getting what that is. ... You're of an engineering background, so I'm thinking of buildings, which are functional artifacts. Can you find it possible that an engineer could design a building in manners perfectly devoid of aesthetic properties? I'm here thinking of the proverbial notion that form follows function: when this occurs, the end result would be aesthetic in the sense of elegant (or something to that effect). — javra
I was reading the philosopher of aesthetics, Theodore Gracyk, on the functionalist understanding of art - eg - art functions to elicit an aesthetic experience. Under this category, enjoying African or Pre-Columbian art (for instance) is incorrect or ill judged, as these objects were not intended to be appreciated aesthetically but played a vital role in a culture in connecting to ancestors and spirits. Approaching them aesthetically and divorced from function could be seen as a form of disrespectful cultural appropriation and trivialization. — Tom Storm
I would rather have African and Oceanic sculpture in my home than a Rodin.... — Tom Storm
I addressed my uncertainty about this issue in a recent post addressed to Tom Storm. I don't know if you saw it.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/642426 — T Clark
I don't understand how the fact that something was made intentionally gives it meaning. I think we may be about to fall into the "What does 'meaning' mean" abyss." — T Clark
So all fine art as product is there because it was deemed useful in this sense: it, as form, is supposed to be a vehicle for conveying that which the artist intents to communicate. — javra
So I figure that any artifact, by shear virtue of so being a form that is resultant of some function, or intended use, carries as part of it this very meaning to anyone who discerns it to be an artifact: an artifact, of itself, in part means "some thing that was intended to be for some usage, hence purpose, and thereby is". — javra
And so artifacts are always meaningful in so being artifacts in this sense which is intrinsic to our very notion of what an artifact is. — javra
Footnote: as to meanings' meaning, — javra
And so artifacts are always meaningful in so being artifacts in this sense which is intrinsic to our very notion of what an artifact is. — javra
If I understand what you're saying, and it is very possible I don't, I disagree. — T Clark
As I noted before, I'm reading Collingwood's "Principles of Art" and I'm really enjoying it. — T Clark
That's a very sick pun. — Bitter Crank
The female form is known for its (aesthetic) curves; curves are redundancies for a straight line suffices to traverse the distance between two points. Women are redundancies, beauty is superfluous, they're an unnecessary burden, a beautiful woman makes no sense, they're, as Boethius said of God, inscrutable! — Agent Smith
Like I wrote, you're a funny guy! — Raymond
Next time, you find me funny, I'll have to charge you for it! — Agent Smith
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.