No problems, Thorongil, we all misspeak at times. — John

Not to rain on your victory parade here, but your original question - "What do you take representational art to be representing?" - is somewhat ambiguous, for the word "representing" could also imply "communicating" or "expressing," both of which are in accord with my position that art is a catalyst for experiencing the Ideas. Technically speaking, I suppose one could call the Ideas representations, in that they still presuppose the relation of being an object for a subject, but they are not in time, space, or causal relation to each other like all other representations are.

However, it might be helpful to specify that by "representation" I mean Vorstellung. Looking back at your original post, I see you made a distinction between presentation and representation, but these are both legitimate ways of translating said German word. I prefer to use presentation actually, but it is by no means the academic standard. So I would be in agreement with you insofar as "non-representational" means that art is presentational.

because they are by definition beyond any and all interpretations and perspectives — John

Yes, but in interpreting an artwork, one is not interpreting the Idea, for the experience of the Idea is entirely contingent. When one interprets an artwork one is rather doing so in terms of its historical context, the symbology present in it, etc - surface level interpretation, as it were.

Having said that I do believe that artworks are capable of evoking a sense of the numinous and the mystical. — John

This to me sounds like only a more vague and imprecise rephrasing of my position that art evokes the Ideas!

I think Kant was right that there is no intellectual intuition in those kinds of senses. — John

Well, neither does Schopenhauer permit any intellectual intuition of the sort Kant explicitly denies. The Ideas are perceived, not thought up and then alleged to exist. Schopenhauer is a nominalist with respect to concepts/abstractions: they do not afford knowledge of anything real. If the Ideas were merely concepts, then you would be right in pointing out their fictitiousness.

Care to expand on that notion? — Mayor of Simpleton

I do not honestly think I can be any clearer in what I mean. Aesthetic experiences have the quality of being timeless, of transporting oneself outside of oneself. This is simply axiomatic, though subject to numerous explanations by philosophers.

As for what they communicate not being concepts found in books, would that not depend upon the books one reads?

Have you considered that the concepts that do not 'transport you out of time' might have less to do with the concepts, but more to do with you in particular?

Could you imagine that these concepts may well indeed 'transport one (other than yourself) out of time'? — Mayor of Simpleton

If one is transported out of time, then one is no longer thinking, since all thought occurs in time. Thought is nothing other than the formation of judgments, the subjects and predicates of which are composed of concepts. Hence, concepts cannot transport one outside of time.

this has probably more a fundamental ground to it in that I reject idealism and embrace relativism. I feel you cannot, nor can I or anyone else, fully define what is and is not art. — Mayor of Simpleton

Yes, that would explain things. I will not dispute your relativism here, as it would take us too far afield from the topic.

btw... the 'maddening' number of ellipses in my posts have more to do with these concepts/notions ellipsed (as I see it) are far from agreed upon concepts/notions, just as I'm not too sure what is so 'maddening' about ellipses; thus fail to endorse that the ellipses are indeed maddening. In short... the notions are relative and I really fail to see any universal or absolute understanding of those concepts/notions. — Mayor of Simpleton

This is unclear to me, but note that I only inquired as to the number of ellipses you used, not that you used them at all. I don't mind them in and of themselves, but their frequency in your post struck me as odd. Though it does remind me of Céline 's writing, some of which I admire, so I suppose I can't complain too much.

Aesthetic experiences have the quality of being timeless, of transporting oneself outside of oneself. This is simply axiomatic, though subject to numerous explanations by philosophers. — Thorongil

If one is transported out of time, then one is no longer thinking, since all thought occurs in time. Thought is nothing other than the formation of judgments, the subjects and predicates of which are composed of concepts. Hence, concepts cannot transport one outside of time. — Thorongil

OK... I sort of have a notion of what you mean. I'm not all too sure I'd limit aesthetic experiences to must having a notion of a quality of being timeless, just as all timeless experiences are not aesthetic, but I have more the feeling that this is your notion associated with aesthetic experience and I will grant you that without an argument. I have problems suggesting that this must be an associative quality for all people who have an aesthetic experience.

Indeed all thought occurs in time, but you could just as well state that all thought occurs in space, so are you willing to state that if we have any spatial quality to the experience of aesthetic it would not be a valid experience of aesthetics... as it seems as if you have implied that if we indeed have a temporal quality involved within an aesthetic experience it is not a valid aesthetic experience.

Anyway...

... the notion of 'transporting outside of oneself' is not a literal notion, but rather a metaphoric notion.

How exactly do you wish to make any confirmation that anyone has 'transported outside of themselves' much less state what the criteria is for such a metaphoric notion to literally occur?

Another anyway...

A concept...

...a general notion or idea; conception.

...an idea of something formed by mentally combining all its characteristics or particulars; a construct.

...a directly conceived or intuited object of thought. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/concept

All of this is void and not present when one is having an aesthetic experience?
All of this is void and not present when one is having a notion of being 'outside oneself'?

I'm not all together sure how that's supposed to work...

... final anyway.

When I look at abstract expressionism or conceptual art or Dada or pop art or whatever label one gives art from ca.1860 to the present... I don't look to see concepts. The first and (honestly) most important criteria is does it appeal to me and not what statement does it make or what concepts it is here to proclaim.

In my experience, Rauschenberg or Johns speaks more to my senses and I have a far greater aesthetic experience than if I look at the works of Turner or Rembrandt, where all I can see is technique, process and concepts (for me endlessly boring concepts!).

In spite of the complete lack of aesthetic experience with Turner and Rembrandt I would not suggest that they did not produce art.

Indeed this is just a personal explanation of what is and is not the source of aesthetic experiences for me, but I fail to see that you have done more than make a case for yourself and your personal experiences, which I can understand, accept and respect... as long as it remains yours and is not made to be what others should or must adopt.

Truth is, I'm not too sure if you are stating your personal criteria or attempting to dictate criteria for everyone. Indeed you seem to have a very highly refined personal criteria, but it might surprise you that I do as well, but for me the source/catalyst of aesthetic experience is another from your source/catalyst.

I have no problem at all with differing source/catalyst. I have a problem with dictating what should or must be the source/catalyst for others.

That's my drift more or less...

Meow!

GREG

However, it might be helpful to specify that by "representation" I mean Vorstellung. — Thorongil

You might wish to be a bit careful with the word 'eine Vorstellung'.

It's loaded...

... it could also mean, an idea, a show, a presentation, an imagination, a vision, a notion, a concept, a conception and a perception, as well as a representation.

The German language has that tendency.

Context matters a lot; thus the relativity of the German language.

Meow!

GREG

*It's not magical philosophical language... believe me. I hear it everyday and there is nothing very philosophical about the vast majority of the use of this language. ;)

You might wish to be a bit careful with the word 'eine Vorstellung'. — Mayor of Simpleton

I think I was, which was in effect my point to John.

I have problems suggesting that this must be an associative quality for all people who have an aesthetic experience. — Mayor of Simpleton

Well, there's nothing more for me to say on this, then. I take it to be a brute fact of aesthetic experience (though by no means the only fact); it's the raw data that needs to be explained by aestheticians.

but you could just as well state that all thought occurs in space — Mayor of Simpleton

No, I couldn't actually. If thoughts were in both time and space, then they would be physical objects, which they are not.

How exactly do you wish to make any confirmation that anyone has 'transported outside of themselves' much less state what the criteria is for such a metaphoric notion to literally occur? — Mayor of Simpleton

The former is impossible and the latter criteria are merely suggestive. In fact, part of what demarcates them as aesthetic experiences is their inability to be perfectly replicated, much like religious experiences. Aesthetics is therefore not a science.

I'm not all together sure how that's supposed to work — Mayor of Simpleton

My point was that concepts are not present when experiencing the Idea. Of course one can view art and make judgments about it.

for me the source/catalyst of aesthetic experience is another from your source/catalyst. — Mayor of Simpleton

Note that I have repeatedly said that literally anything can be a catalyst for experiencing the Ideas. If conceptual art does the trick for you, it doesn't defeat my position in the least. My disagreement is a matter of semantics on that score: I have a definition of art that it simply doesn't meet.

No, I couldn't actually. If thoughts were in both time and space, then they would be physical objects, which they are not. — Thorongil

... but all thoughts are subject to experience and those experiences occurs in time and space... or are there thoughts that are not experiences?

----------------------------------

... aesthetic experiences is their inability to be perfectly replicated, much like religious experiences. — Thorongil

I have suggested http://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/68/bad-art/p1 that I agreed with McLuhan that art is anything (or what) you can get away with and religion is indeed no different:

If it helps, I also believe that religion is anything (or what) you can get away with; thus it's similar nature to art. ;) — Mayor of Simpleton

-----------------------------------

I have a definition of art that it simply doesn't meet. — Thorongil

... and I have one in which it does meet.

Now what? ;)

Meow!

GREG

but all thoughts are subject to experience and those experiences occurs in time and space... or are there thoughts that are not experiences? — Mayor of Simpleton

I don't think all experiences are in both space and time.

and I have one in which it does meet.

Now what? — Mayor of Simpleton

We're simply done here, I think. I would merely make the appeal that my definition most closely matches the etymology of the word and its usage, both historically speaking and at present.

I kind of have the feeling we're more of less done as well.

I'd only suggest that all experience takes place within the universe, the set of all sets. All of those are indeed happen within the context of time and space and are comprised of concepts that are indeed contingent upon time and space, regardless of how 'imaginative' one might think they are, so there is really nothing 'outside' the set of all sets (the universe)... as in 'outside the box' thinking or experiencing.

There is really no 'box', unless one wishes to limit the universe by virtue of personal preferences/conveniences, but this strays into other aspects of cosmology and such. I tend to remain rather consistent when it comes to this (right down to what is art or making soup), so I rule out all metaphysics from the git go, as self-justified narcissism via something that sounds creditable (meta- and -physics... which could be better stated as 'me'physics, as it's in the end all of the universe and all that there is out there is really about 'me'. More than a bit too idealistic, purposeful, willful and egotistical for my taste).

Indeed your definition fits to the etymological usage, but then again I wish not to tread toward an etymological fallacy in making an appeal to holding steadfast to the past nullifying adaptations and refinement.

I might say...

... "oh what a beautiful sunset", but that does not imply I believe the world is flat. :s

Anyway...

... all these definitions are works in progress for me and not static truths/absolutes.

Something tells me the 'marriage of our ideas' just won't happen, so we'd better call the whole thing off, but it's fun to rant about... :D

... philosophy just doesn't quite work like in the movies:



Neither of us are going to give up our ideas, but atleast we can entertain them a bit.

Cheers! ;)

Meow!

GREG

When I look at abstract expressionism or conceptual art or Dada or pop art or whatever label one gives art from ca.1860 to the present... I don't look to see concepts. The first and (honestly) most important criteria is does it appeal to me and not what statement does it make or what concepts it is here to proclaim.

In my experience, Rauschenberg or Johns speaks more to my senses and I have a far greater aesthetic experience than if I look at the works of Turner or Rembrandt, where all I can see is technique, process and concepts (for me endlessly boring concepts!). — Mayor of Simpleton

Conceptual art is, using Thorongil's terms, "aesthetic" too. People have those "timeless" moments when standing in awe of an object which express an idea. Its presence, its aesthetic, what people see and feel, whether it be for blotches colour (e.g. a painting of red and orange blocks) themselves or because they are an aesthetic expressing some concept (non-representionally).

Description of art trends to falter because it often turns aesthetic into concept. When we are talking about art, most of do so on conceptual terms: we talks about what the painting represents, state information about how it affects or tell people off for filling to recognise the quality of a work. Our descriptions of art tend to be information rather than statements which provide insight to the presence of the object, the sensations it affects us with, the aesthetic which constituted the expression of an art work (nor matter how conceptual or non-reprsesentaional it might be). It makes it difficult to show what art to someone in any instance. Even for someone doing their best, giving insightful descriptions of how the aesthetics of a work affects them, it can all end-up in failure, for even the best description can suffer for registering as a "concept" of an aesthetic rather than an aesthetic experience itself.

In a situation where someone is actively looking to exclude a whole range of aesthetics from worth (which Thorongil does, so art can focus on a representational sublime), it becomes very tricky to describe art indeed. The very aesthetic you are trying to describe is one the other person thinks ought to wiped out. Such a pre-set prejudice tends to guard against any exploration of the aesthetic in question.

No problems, Thorongil, we all misspeak at times. — John


Not to rain on your victory parade here, but your original question - "What do you take representational art to be representing?" - is somewhat ambiguous, for the word "representing" could also imply "communicating" or "expressing," both of which are in accord with my position that art is a catalyst for experiencing the Ideas. Technically speaking, I suppose one could call the Ideas representations, in that they still presuppose the relation of being an object for a subject, but they are not in time, space, or causal relation to each other like all other representations are.

However, it might be helpful to specify that by "representation" I mean Vorstellung. Looking back at your original post, I see you made a distinction between presentation and representation, but these are both legitimate ways of translating said German word. I prefer to use presentation actually, but it is by no means the academic standard. So I would be in agreement with you insofar as "non-representational" means that art is presentational. — Thorongil

I hadn't thought of it as a "victory parade", but in any case....I don't think the question is ambiguous in the way you are suggesting, because representational art is usually taken to be representational precisely because it is taken to represent (in a purportedly unambiguous sense) something, anything.

Now, if you want to say that what is generally called 'representational art' is representational in the weaker sense that it merely presents something, then that will leave even less criteria for distinguishing it from what is generally called 'non-representational art'. I see no reason to think that "non-representational" art should be any less capable of 'presenting the Forms of Ideas' than "representational" art, and it might be thought to be even more suited to the task on the grounds that it is not hampered by embodying any fixed perspective on things.

because they are by definition beyond any and all interpretations and perspectives — John

Yes, but in interpreting an artwork, one is not interpreting the Idea, for the experience of the Idea is entirely contingent. When one interprets an artwork one is rather doing so in terms of its historical context, the symbology present in it, etc - surface level interpretation, as it were.

I agree with you hare, I think, but I am not sure what you mean by saying that "the experience of the Idea is entirely contingent".

Having said that I do believe that artworks are capable of evoking a sense of the numinous and the mystical. — John

This to me sounds like only a more vague and imprecise rephrasing of my position that art evokes the Ideas!

Yes, and I think that such evocations are always "vague and imprecise" precisely because they cannot be precisely formulated. I think evocations can be powerful and highly affective even to the point of being life-changing, despite their lack of precise content, or more importantly, precisely because of their lack of precise content. Having said this I think that life changing experiences of the mystical are usually associated with metaphysical ideas that have been culturally inculcated. That the mystical experience, per se, does not consist in precise content is borne out by the fact that it is cross-culturally ubiquitous, and it is the powerful affective character of such experiences that is the common element.

I think Kant was right that there is no intellectual intuition in those kinds of senses. — John

Well, neither does Schopenhauer permit any intellectual intuition of the sort Kant explicitly denies. The Ideas are perceived, not thought up and then alleged to exist. Schopenhauer is a nominalist with respect to concepts/abstractions: they do not afford knowledge of anything real. If the Ideas were merely concepts, then you would be right in pointing out their fictitiousness.

I don't follow your reasoning here; if you believe, and/or Schopenhauer believes, there can be no intellectual intuition of the Ideas, then surely they can be thought only as "concepts/abstractions"; and thus could not be taken "to afford knowledge of anything real", I say this because they could not be understood to afford knowledge of themselves, since they are taken to be 'the most real'.

The only other possibility would be that they could be "perceived" as you say, but this is certainly not Plato's idea. Does Schopenhauer think, or do you think, that the ideas can be perceived via the senses? Because it seems the only other kind of perception that could be meant is precisely the kind of intellectual perception (intuition) that you say that Schopenhauer agrees with Kant in denying.

Mark Rothko

"From one angle I find works by Rothko and Pollock visually pleasing, but from other angles they can seem empty and dull. They attract considerable loathing."

Rothko's


It's vertical, it is like a portrait, it is about 81x66 inches, a huge work. Its hugeness draws the observer into the work, you get lost in it, like a surreal figure less landscape. The paint seems to want to go beyond the canvas.... away from the white. The yellow is optimistic and the red passionate, the black in the middle is like a land mass separating these two seas of color. The orange is the surrender.

Rothko was trying to connect with people on the plane of feeling, movement here is in chunks of emotion.

I am not sure what you mean by saying that "the experience of the Idea is entirely contingent". — John

I'm saying there is no single, perfectly replicable method one can follow that will, by necessity, result in experiencing an Idea. My position is only that art as I have defined it tends to bring about such a result more than other things, and for the reason I gave earlier.

Does Schopenhauer think, or do you think, that the ideas can be perceived via the senses? Because it seems the only other kind of perception that could be meant is precisely the kind of intellectual perception (intuition) that you say that Schopenhauer agrees with Kant in denying. — John

I think he would be obliged to answer your question in the affirmative, and so would I.

I'm saying there is no single, perfectly replicable method one can follow that will, by necessity, result in experiencing an Idea. My position is only that art as I have defined it tends to bring about such a result more than other things, and for the reason I gave earlier. — Thorongil

I'm still not clear exactly what you mean by "experiencing an Idea". Do you mean something like 'grasping the form of a thing, in a kind of geometrical sense? Or something more like 'feeling a sense of the numinous'? Or maybe both together?

For Plato the highest form, the 'master form' is the Good. Do you think works of art can bring about 'an experience of the Good'?

Does Schopenhauer think, or do you think, that the ideas can be perceived via the senses? Because it seems the only other kind of perception that could be meant is precisely the kind of intellectual perception (intuition) that you say that Schopenhauer agrees with Kant in denying. — John


I think he would be obliged to answer your question in the affirmative, and so would I.

So, it is just by virtue of its sheer formal arrangement that a work of art or a natural landscape of human face might reveal an Idea? Would it not also have to do with feelings and meanings inherent in the conformation and attendant dispositions or comportments of the human body?

If you want to say the former then I can't see how that would not be a case of conceiving some kind of purely spiritual or intellectual (magical) relation between certain patterns (conceived as kinds of esoteric symbols) and a disembodied intellect; in other words this would seem to be coming back to the idea of intellectual intuition.

I'm still not clear exactly what you mean by "experiencing an Idea". Do you mean something like 'grasping the form of a thing, in a kind of geometrical sense? Or something more like 'feeling a sense of the numinous'? Or maybe both together? — John

No, I wouldn't describe it in these ways. Perhaps the key to understanding what I mean is to consider that such an experience is will-less. One's will has been temporarily quieted when having such an experience, such that one contemplates an object free from the ordinary dimensions of experience (those of time, space, and causality). One no longer views the object in relation to one's will but rather as an object qua object, and the notion of "timeless objects" has traditionally been associated with Plato's Ideas/Forms, hence the name.

For Plato the highest form, the 'master form' is the Good. Do you think works of art can bring about 'an experience of the Good'? — John

No, for unlike Plato, Schopenhauer doesn't think there are Ideas for abstract concepts such as goodness, courage, beauty, etc.

So, it is just by virtue of its sheer formal arrangement that a work of art or a natural landscape of human face might reveal an Idea? — John

No, I don't think so. As I said before, it's by virtue of the removed nature of art from reality proper that enables, or encourages at least, the contemplation of an Idea.

Would it not also have to do with feelings and meanings inherent in the conformation and attendant dispositions or comportments of the human body? — John

Maybe. I don't know.

No, I wouldn't describe it in these ways. Perhaps the key to understanding what I mean is to consider that such an experience is will-less. One's will has been temporarily quieted when having such an experience, such that one contemplates an object free from the ordinary dimensions of experience (those of time, space, and causality). One no longer views the object in relation to one's will but rather as an object qua object, and the notion of "timeless objects" has traditionally been associated with Plato's Ideas/Forms, hence the name. — Thorongil

OK, that's interesting that you should say that, because the specific aim of the Abstract expressionists was a purely formalist one (under the tutelage of Clement Greenburg): to present works that invited the viewer to see them precisely as the formally realized objects that they are.

That may have been their aim, but it was not successful, in my opinion.

They were certainly not successful in your case apparently. Is there any good reason to believe that it will be the same objects which lead different people to an apprehension of Ideas?

Well, I did try to make that very case earlier....

In lieu of me going back to read the whole thread over again can you outline your argument again, in the context of the idea (I presume you are espousing) that there are objective qualities possessed by certain art works such that they must lead all (presumably suitably open) viewers to an experience of timeless Ideas?

that there are objective qualities possessed by certain art works such that they must lead all (presumably suitably open) viewers to an experience of timeless Ideas? — John

No, not "must;" I have never been that forceful. Here is what I said earlier, ironically in reply to you:

"The Ideas are not represented in art, but rather experienced by means of art. Art is, as it were, a reliable catalyst for experiencing them. As I said in an earlier post, literally anything can inspire contemplation of the Ideas, but art rather uniquely does this better than most things. The primary way it does this, I would submit, is because, as a representation of the world, a piece of art is one step removed from our ordinary experience of the world. In this way, we do not react the same way to a painting of a man as we do to an actual man. The latter involves all kinds of subtle, instinctual, and emotive responses, whereas the former does not or need not. The painting allows one to intellectually contemplate the man free from the constraints of embodied interaction, and in this way, uncover the Idea behind him."

Abstract Expressionism is as the words used to define it self explanatory , so how one would view it or it's manifestations on canvas would be as evaluated as any art form, though perhaps requiring a more comprehensive approach to deconstructing images..so the question would not be how should one view it , how should one view anything ? and that depends on the individual in question....in a relatively free society one views as one views......

I'm going to the Rothko and Pollock show at the royal Academy next week, I can't wait. It's good art not like the s--t that's usually on offer at the Turner prize show, I stopped going over twenty years ago, when I found myself standing in front a pile of expletive and wondering what was artistic about it.