Art has one intention, to be appreciated for itself. Sex has one intention, pleasure — hypericin

I ought not to have mentioned sex as an analogue now, I think. Two contentious topics can't clarify one another when they're both contentious.


My thinking in the comparison was to point to art has more than one intention -- it gets along with various "uses" and all that.

Sex is the same at least in the way that sometimes people do it for fun, and sometimes people do it for fun and kids. Two different intentions.

By learning that aesthetic appreciation is not a means to an end, we have a better understanding of the phenomenon, but we have nevertheless not honed in on it in a truly singular way. — Leontiskos

I'm tempted to say a "double" way -- at least if negation is allowed. — Moliere

By "singular way" I only meant that although art is an end in itself, nevertheless knowing this does not enable us to distinguish art from other things that are also ends in themselves (e.g. pleasure, friendship, etc.).

Are you saying that we want to be able to say what art isn't?

I ought not to have mentioned sex as an analogue now, I think. Two contentious topics can't clarify one another when they're both contentious. — Moliere

I tend to agree with this. :grin:

By "singular way" I only meant that although art is an end in itself, nevertheless knowing this does not enable us to distinguish art from other things that are also ends in themselves (e.g. pleasure, friendship, etc.). — Leontiskos

Okay. Then, yes, we're in agreement.

Are you saying that we want to be able to say what art isn't? — Leontiskos

Naw. I was catching up on my replies and that's what I thought of.

In that case I have literally no idea what you are talking about when you said this in reference to how colour has presented in written form throughout history:

It’s highly relevant.

Imagine two abstract paintings of similar composition side by side on a wall. One of the paintings is colored with large blocks of black, white, red, and a little yellow. The other painting is only colored with large blocks of light blue and dark blue.

We may like the blue painting more but our eye will be naturally drawn to the ‘boldly’ colored painting. Why would that be if we can look at paintings with a “view from nowhere.” — praxis

@praxis For starters I think you are just assuming this is a representation of how attracted we are to particular colours where it could be more to do with economics and the textile industry, or even religious symbolism.

How you leap from assuming such research represents our inclinations towards certain colours -- and then make a further leap to the quote above -- I cannot understand. What is this "view from nowhere"?

I've appreciated your creative efforts in proposing formalisms, but I think you've missed the point a few times now about the effect of language on perception — Moliere

I don't see the sense in a strong Whorfian hypothesis, where language determines a speaker's perception of the world. It seems that a strong Whorfian hypothesis is not generally accepted in modern linguistics.
https://www.britannica.com/science/Whorfian-hypothesis.
Previously I wrote:

It it were accepted, it would lead into another chicken and egg situation, in that we couldn't even perceive colour 9 without knowing its name, and we couldn't know its name until we have perceived it.

However I do accept a weak Whorfian hypothesis, where language does influence perception to some degree. Previously I gave the example:

This is understandable, in that someone not aware of the concepts Modern and Postmodern when looking at artworks and when asked to make judgements about these artworks will perform differently to someone who is aware of the concepts Modern and Postmodern.

The weak Whorfian hypothesis is supported by the introduction to the article
"Russian blues reveal effects of language on color discrimination"

These results demonstrate that (i) categories in language affect performance on simple perceptual color tasks and (ii) the effect of language is online (and can be disrupted by verbal interference).

Could you say again what point you feel I have missed about the effect of language on perception.

That Russians distinguish such and such means they see something different from us. — Moliere

Though the Russian speakers colour chart "How to Choose Paint Colour for Walls" lays out the colours exactly as we English speakers would lay them out.
https://forum.domik.ua/uk/kak-vybrat-cvet-kraski-dlya-sten-t29350.html

I think the whole deal can be more or less split into two categories.

1) You go to school and you are taught how to use numbers effectively.

2) You do not go to school and your effective use of numbers is determined by experiential exposure.

The same goes for many things.

As I mentioned previously -- you may have missed it -- South Korean infants are taught Korean with their parents emphasizing Prepositions rather than Nouns. This leads to a small developmental period where are cognitively more proficient at spacial tasks but poorer at categorisation compared to other infants.

The Russian blue thing is just pretty much the same thing. Personally when I think of blue I do not imagine Sky Blue I imagine something akin to ultramarine (likely due to exposure). Habits make distinctions easier, I do not see this as necessarily causing perceptual differences but I have been of the mindset that languages most certainly differ and can influence how we perceive things.

@Moliere As above. My point being that a Painting and a Drawing are known habitually according to tool use. A Paint Brush is directed more often at a larger canvas than a Pen or Pencil. Also, a Pen or Pencil is associated with more rationalistic behaviour in academia, whereas a paintbrush is more of a household item possessing something of a heavier domestic quality. I am being more speculative here!

My other main point was how Paintings and Drawings are Static and encourage the audience to spread out in a spacio-temporal sense, where other mediums of Art (such as Dance, Film or Music) Collapse a spacial and/or temporal experience into a moment. This can get quite complex when you get into it and is something I have been mulling over for years now.

South Korean infants are taught Korean with their parents emphasizing Prepositions rather than Nouns. This leads to a small developmental period where are cognitively more proficient at spacial tasks but poorer at categorisation compared to other infants. — I like sushi

What you say seems sensible, and as I see it may be called the weak Whorfian hypothesis.
https://www.britannica.com/science/Whorfian-hypothesis

In the Renaissance, drawing was the foundation of all the arts. Giorgio Vasari said that drawing was 'the father of our three arts: architecture, sculpture, and painting.'

It wasn't until the 19th C Romanticism and Expressionism that painting started to take precedence to drawing, as being able to better convey atmosphere, mood and emotions.

This difference in priority between drawing and painting helps to account for the difference in styles of Andrea Mantegna and Vincent van Gogh, for example.

As you say, if prepositions are emphasized rather than nouns, the student becomes more proficient at spatial tasks rather than categorization. Similarly, if drawing is emphasized rather than painting, the student becomes more proficient at line and form rather than colour and texture.

All these are examples of the weak Whorfian hypothesis, where the language of the teacher does influence perception by the student to some degree.

What you say seems sensible, and as I see it may be called the weak Whorfian hypothesis. — RussellA

:up:

Although there are plenty who wholly oppose this. I thought @Jamal was one but apparently not?

As you say, if prepositions are emphasized rather than nouns, the student becomes more proficient at spatial tasks rather than categorization. Similarly, if drawing is emphasized rather than painting, the student becomes more proficient at line and form rather than colour and texture. — RussellA

Or if the Art World dictates 'Conceptual Art' as actually 'Art' more people will come to adhere to that view to suit the political landscape. Something like the obtuse writings of people like Derrida and Foucault who privately stated that they had to write in that style or French academia would not take them seriously -- tongue in cheek possibly, but I think there is a degree of truth in this everywhere.

It wasn't until the 19th C Romanticism and Expressionism that painting started to take precedence to drawing, as being able to better convey atmosphere, mood and emotions. — RussellA

And of course photography was, to some extent, beginning to replace the need for formal paintings and drawings. Paintings have a historic weigh to them in terms of politicals too being used as pieces to display symbolism and even a sense of immortality in terms of portraits.

The whole period of Expressionism was influenced by the technological development of synthetic paints. Ultramarine once an expensive pigment become more readily available to more artists.

Something like the obtuse writings of people like Derrida and Foucault who privately stated that they had to write in that style or French academia would not take them seriously — I like sushi

If you want to be part of the Artworld, and enjoy the glitzy parties, then as with Derrida and Foucault, you have to play the game.

From Miami to Seoul, Brussels to Hong Kong—wherever collectors, dealers, curators, advisors, and everyone in between lands to shop and talk art—parties are a fundamental fixture of the international art world. Conversations that start at booths or galleries often continue at multi-course seated dinners and martini-soaked festivities.
https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-glitzy-parties-ultimate-art-currency

I think you are just assuming this is a representation of how attracted we are to particular colours where it could be more to do with economics and the textile industry, or even religious symbolism. — I like sushi

I looked into it a bit further online just now and it appears that red, the first chromatic color mentioned in early writings across cultures, is strongly associated with blood. Given this correlation, it seems reasonable to speculate that if our blood were blue instead of red, for example, we might find ourselves more drawn to the color blue instead of red. Correlation is not causation of course, but this may indicate that red has more of an organic weight than a socially constructed weight.

I looked into it a bit further online just now and it appears that red, the first chromatic color mentioned in early writings across cultures, is strongly associated with blood. — praxis

Even in philosophy, I've wondered why red seems to be the go to example when discussing color.

Red/orange might be the earliest colorful (not black/white) dye used, from iron oxide.

Deeper down the rabbit hole, and assuming the AI is not hallucinating, iron is far more available than the elements which are historically used to make the other primary pigments, namely yellow and blue. Iron is also more bioavailable to species for the job of carrying oxygen in the blood. Iron is reported to be better at the job though some species use copper and vanadium and those critters got blue blood.

Red/iron has organic weight?

Yes, I know. The hypothesis commonly put forward for that is an association with ripe fruit.

Red also slows time subjectively whilst blue does the opposite.

Sorry for the delay, I was camping and wasn't on here much. — hypericin

No worries, although I have lost the thread a little bit.

Someone who desires art will hold that what is more artistic is better than what is less artistic. — Leontiskos

Not true, even though "artistic" is a poor choice of words on my part.

A critic might say, "though the piece is obviously artistic, I don't care for it". This reads normally enough to me. — hypericin

You've switched from a comparison to an absolute. What I said did not imply that an artist must care for every piece of art.

But "artistic" is a bad choice because it not only means "art-like, belonging to the category of art", there are strong positive connotations about quality. — hypericin

I don't think it's a coincidence. What is less obviously art is less art, and what is more obviously art is more art. The semantics of "artistic" simply capture this, and it's no coincidence that "artsy" is much close to slang. Your idea that what counts as art and what counts as good art are two entirely separate issues looks to be mistaken, and one way to see this is by looking at our "notable point of agreement":

(A notable point of agreement here may be this: That which barely qualifies as art at all is much more likely to be mistaken for non-art than something which readily qualifies as art, and the person who makes a mistake with regard to the former is much less mistaken than the person who makes a mistake with regard to the latter.) — Leontiskos

-

"Someone who desires art will hold that what is more art-like is better than what is less art-like." Is clearly false. — hypericin

Again, your counterexample is not valid.

Better art does not belong to the category of art more than lesser art. — hypericin

It does.

Either it belongs, it doesn't, or it's marginal. — hypericin

This is not correct. You've been asserting this over and over.

Art-likeness is distinct from quality, and it, not quality, determines whether something is art or not. Do you agree? — hypericin

Art-likeness is not a word, and there's a reason for that. You could make up a word for that which denotes species but not quality, and your statement would be tautologous. That's more or less what you have done.

You've switched from a comparison to an absolute. What I said did not imply that an artist must care for every piece of art. — Leontiskos

Comparison to absolute? What does that mean?

It is not the artist caring, it is the critic. A critic can acknowledge that a piece is "artistic", yet not like it.

Your idea that what counts as art and what counts as good art are two entirely separate issues looks to be mistaken, and one way to see this is by looking at our "notable point of agreement": — Leontiskos

How? I don't see it.

Out "notable agreement" speaks only to identity, not quality. It seems you can't stop conflating the two, if you think otherwise. Is the word "qualifies" throwing you off?

Comparison to absolute? What does that mean? — hypericin

This was the exchange:

• Leontiskos: Someone who desires art will hold that what is more artistic is better than what is less artistic.
• Hypericin: A critic might say, "though the piece is obviously artistic, I don't care for it".

In order to give a valid counterargument you must give an example where someone who desires art holds that what is less artistic is better than what is more artistic. You didn't. You simply gave an example of someone who doesn't like a piece of art. You would have to give an example of an artist who is looking at two pieces of art, says that the first piece is more artistic than the second, and nevertheless holds that the second is better qua art. When we are talking about "better art" we are obviously talking about "better qua art." When you say that someone might prefer an artistically inferior meal to the Michelin meal, you are conflating 'better' qua art with 'better' in some other sense.

How? I don't see it.

Out "notable agreement" speaks only to identity, not quality. It seems you can't stop conflating the two, if you think otherwise. Is the word "qualifies" throwing you off? — hypericin

So:

(A notable point of agreement here may be this: That which barely qualifies as art at all is much more likely to be mistaken for non-art than something which readily qualifies as art, and the person who makes a mistake with regard to the former is much less mistaken than the person who makes a mistake with regard to the latter.) — Leontiskos

On your account, how is it that these two things are true? If the two categories were neatly separate then why are they interrelated in these ways? This is the same question I asked at the bottom of .

Is the word "qualifies" throwing you off? — hypericin

No, the problem is the word "barely," which implies that some things qualify as art less than others. You began using that word when you talked about, "barely belonging to the category at all."

No, the problem is the word "barely," which implies that some things qualify as art less than others. You began using that word when you talked about, "barely belonging to the category at all." — Leontiskos

Yes. To qualify as art less, means it only marginally identifies as art. Oatmeal, or a poo painting. This is not a value judgement, this is a statement about what the object is; that is, hardly art at all. You keep insisting that this is a value judgement.

Yes. To qualify as art less, means it only marginally identifies as art. Oatmeal, or a poo painting. This is not a value judgement, this is a statement about what the object is; that is, hardly art at all. You keep insisting that this is a value judgement. — hypericin

Recall:

1. Either some human act/creation is more artistic than some other human act/creation, or else no human act/creation is more artistic than any other human act/creation. — Leontiskos

1a. Either some thing is more artistic than some other thing, or else no thing is more artistic than any other thing. — Leontiskos

[1b. Either some art is better (or more artistic) than other art, or else no art is better (or more artistic) than any other art.] — Leontiskos

Let's do another:

1c. Either some art is less art than other art, or else all art is equally art.

You can't have it both ways. You can't say that all art is equally art, and then say that some art is "barely" art, or that some art "only marginally identifies as art," or that some art is, "hardly art at all." Inclusion within the category 'art' is either absolute or its not. If "art-likeness [...] determines whether something is art or not," and whether something is art or not does not come in degrees, then "art-likeness" cannot come in degrees.

You can't have it both ways. You can't say that all art is equally art, and then say that some art is "barely" art, or that some art "only marginally identifies as art," or that some art is, "hardly art at all." Inclusion within the category 'art' is either absolute or its not. If "art-likeness [...] determines whether something is art or not," and whether something is art or not does not come in degrees, then "art-likeness" cannot come in degrees. — Leontiskos

I don't want it both ways. When have I said that "whether something is art or not does not come in degrees"?

I don't see the sense in a strong Whorfian hypothesis, where language determines a speaker's perception of the world. — RussellA

I think this is a boogeyman -- @Jamal has not claimed a strong Whorfian hypothesis, but noted how Russians speak of blue differently from English speakers.

And I said how, with respect to this topic at least, this is enough to say they see things differently.

To answer:

Could you say again what point you feel I have missed about the effect of language on perception. — RussellA

Works well enough. You have a list of colors that Russians listed, but not an answer to why they distinguish different blues as something other than "blue" -- as @frank noted, "pink" is a good analogue here.

I know it's been a minute since I've updated this thread.

But I've been mulling all the thoughts together and thinking about them. They are rich, and I am thankful for all the interactions. I'm still jumbling through the thoughts and sorting them in order to reply and continue towards an answer to the titular question.

And I said how, with respect to this topic at least, this is enough to say they see things differently. — Moliere

As regards this topic, I see things differently to you, and we are both English speakers.

We don't need to speak a different language to see things differently.

As regards this topic, I see things differently to you, and we are both English speakers.

We don't need to speak a different language to see things differently. — RussellA

I agree that we don't need to speak a different language to see things differently.

I still think that the distinction mentioned shows how others see things differently from us.

At least to a point that we cannot say something as silly as "English is more extensive than Russian"

And so, for purposes of this discussion on painting and color, I will accept the example of Russian distinctions being different from English ones -- color is something we construct together.

At least to a point that we cannot say something as silly as "English is more extensive than Russian" — Moliere

It would be silly if that is what I had said.

What I actually said was "It seems that English is more extensive than Russian in that we also have a word for "blue", which the Russians don't seem to."

You left out the words from your quote "it seems that" and "in that we also have a word for "blue", which the Russians don't seem to."