Or, what I'd rather say, is there's a difference between one's preference and one's aesthetic taste. The latter can be "trained" such that preference becomes something which can be judged from a distance — Moliere

There is knowledge "about" something and there is knowledge "of" something.

A sommelier can teach a Mormon "about" Merlot, such that Merlot is a dark blue wine grape variety that is used as both a blending grape and for varietal wines, and the Mormon can learn about Merlot.

But a sommelier cannot teach a Mormon "of" Merlot, the taste of Merlot.

An art teacher can teach an art student "about" Derain's aesthetic, such that until his passing in 1954, André Derain's aesthetic was constant, and along with his investigations into primal art and symbolism, his contributions to Fauvism and Cubism were notable in the formation of early Modern Art.

But an art teacher cannot teach an art student "of" Derain's aesthetic, the visceral beauty of particular shapes and colours.

When stung by a wasp, I feel pain. I don't learn how to feel the pain.

When "stung" by a Derain, I feel an aesthetic, I don't learn how to feel the aesthetic.

But an art teacher cannot teach an art student "of" Derain's aesthetic, the visceral beauty of particular shapes and colours.

When stung by a wasp, I feel pain. I don't learn how to feel the pain.

When "stung" by a Derain, I feel an aesthetic, I don't learn how to feel the aesthetic. — RussellA

Why not?

It'd be cruel to do intentionally but a teacher can teach knowledge of a wasp sting by having a wasp sting the student.

More acceptably we might subject a student to difficult circumstances in order for them to grow and learn how to cope with failure and pain.

Art students will frequently study "the masters" and emulate them as part of their training. They can never be Derain, but they can learn his aesthetic through this process of emulation along with a technical enough vocabulary to describe the techniques by which the artwork was produced.

You learn in the process of the doing -- but having a teacher generally helps to accelerate that process rather than doing it all on your own, so there is something being taught from art teacher to art student, at least. Something quantifiable, even (number of weeks until able to emulate so and so or such and such)

It'd be cruel to do intentionally but a teacher can teach knowledge of a wasp sting by having a wasp sting the student. — Moliere

What exactly is teaching knowledge of a wasp sting, the teacher or the wasp sting?

The person learns the feel of a wasp sting from the wasp sting itself, not from anything that preceded the wasp sting, such as a teacher.

If the person has congenital analgesia, no amount of teaching by the teacher will teach the person what a wasp sting feels like (Wikipedia - Congenital insensitivity to pain).

Fair. No one's going about teaching wasp stings, nor is that really connected to a knowledge.

But look at the artist example instead of that one -- it's different enough.

@J -- afterthought on electronic music.

One thing that comes to mind is that electronic music has its own technique. It could include trying to emulate the most "dirty and real" sounding recording out there, but it would not, for all that, be a recording of that.

Looking at the particular history here again.

But that does not then mean that the electronic musician doesn't have some sense of technique -- it's just a different set of techniques from the not-electronic (whatever happens to get to count there -- acoustic guitars on a mic not fit because there's an electronic amplifier? If so, then it may be the case that all rock and roll is not music, since that slam-in-your-face wow factor I think is largley tied to the technical ability to make it obscenely loud in concert)

I once watched a my children's 2 year old half sister with a piece of paper and crayons. She made dots. Many dots with one color, switched colors and made more dots. She used five or six different colors. No dots ever touched. She sat alone at the table, doing this calmly, and seemingly methodically, as the rest of us were in and out of there room, doing whatever. She knew we were there, of course, but you wouldn't have known that from looking at her. I frequently watched from the doorway, fairly mesmerized. I was very moved by the experience. I saved it, and gave it too her a couple years ago for her 18th birthday.

I'm calling it art. And it has nothing to do with the medium. Looking at the dots on paper might make some think of some modern artist. I don't know. But that's obviously not why I think it's art. For me, it represents the experience I had of watching this happen. It was breathtaking watching this 2yo go at it.


I don't have a video link to this. It's from the best tv show of all time: Northern Exposure. In an episode called "Fish Story", Holling is upset because Maurice made fun of his paint-by-numbers. Here's Chris explaining things to Holling.

Alright, you've got a very basic problem, Holling. You're confusing product with process. Most people, when they criticize, whether they like it or they hate it, they're talking about product. Now that's not art, that's the result of art. Alright? Art, to the degree of whatever we can get a handle on - and I'm not sure we really can - is a process. Alright? It begins in here, here (indicating his heart and his head) with these and these (indicating his hands and his eyes). Alright. Now, Picasso says the pure plastic act is only secondary. What really counts is the drama of the pure plastic act. That exact moment when the universe comes out of itself, and meets its own destruction.

Maybe Art, like so many things, is just a word only unified in naming and concept, but covering many diverging different things.

Edit: Why would it be a singular thing? Why should it have an essence accross obvious different disciplines? Because essences is what philosophy is supposed to reveal?

:up:

Good, bad, indifferent, what is it we are judging when judging a philosophy on aesthetic grounds — Moliere

Does it have to be one thing? Does it even have to be specified?

what is it we are judging when judging a flavour on aesthetic grounds?

Does it have to be one thing? Does it even have to be specified? — Banno

I think a little bit it does. Even ostensively.

what is it we are judging when judging a flavour on aesthetic grounds? — Banno

From the way I'm thinking about it right now I'd say it's me trying to judge whether someone else will like that flavor, given what they've said about what they like about flavor.

Ok.

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.

But look at the artist example instead of that one -- it's different enough. — Moliere

@Moliere: More acceptably we might subject a student to difficult circumstances in order for them to grow and learn how to cope with failure and pain.............................You learn in the process of the doing -- but having a teacher generally helps to accelerate that process rather than doing it all on your own, so there is something being taught from art teacher to art student, at least.

It is true that if a person is put into a situation new to them, then they will probably gain new knowledge from it. For example, if in holiday in Marrakesh for the first time, the holidaymaker will learn things new things about the food, architecture and culture that they would not have learned if they had stayed at home. As you say "You learn", meaning that although it may be the environment that is doing the teaching, it is "You" that is doing the actual learning.

The corollary is that if someone is unwilling or incapable of learning, then no matter how supportive the environment is to teaching, the individual will never learn. As you say "You learn".

A teacher may present a course in the philosophy of art, which may include aesthetics, but no matter how much information the teacher may present about the aesthetics of art, it remains a logical impossibility for the teacher to be able to explain or describe the subjective aesthetic experience.

Knowing the following tells us nothing about the subjective aesthetic experience. It tells us things "about" aesthetics, but it tells us nothing "of" aesthetics.

The British philosopher and art critic Clive Bell (1881-1964) was a prominent proponent of the formalist approach to aesthetics. In this specific sense, he advocated and significantly developed an aesthetic ethos stemming back to the work of Kant. According to Kant, what we value in a work of art is its formal qualities. In Art (1914), Bell outlined his own radical take on this approach to aesthetics—an approach that served to rationalise emergent modernist practices as exemplified in the work of Post-Impressionists such as Paul Cézanne.

In the philosophy of art, the aesthetics of art is definitely a thing, as it is included in most courses on the philosophy of art. But if the student has no intrinsic inherent aesthetic appreciation then the word aesthetic will remain a just a word, as the word "colour" remains just a word to Mary in her black and white room.

There is a difference between knowledge "about" the word "aesthetic", in that Clive Bell was a prominent proponent of the formalist approach to aesthetics, and knowledge "of" aesthetics, in the same way that Mary has no knowledge "of" "colour".

There is a difference between knowledge about the context of a word and knowledge of the word independent of any context.

Suppose you are stung by a wasp and say that you feel pain, but I don't believe that you actually feel pain. Is it possible that you can prove to me that you do in fact feel pain? — RussellA

When stung by a wasp, I feel pain. I don't learn how to feel the pain.

When "stung" by a Derain, I feel an aesthetic, I don't learn how to feel the aesthetic. — RussellA

You can certainly make that analogy to the wasp sting, and claim that aesthetic appreciation can't be either taught or debated. But which of these positions would you say that commits you to?:

A). Aesthetic judgments are strictly subjective -- not only felt subjectively, like a sting, but also comprising personal preferences solely (unlike a sting).

B) Aesthetic judgments are partially subjective -- they are known subjectively or intuitively, like a sting, but what is known is objective, hence everyone will have more or less the same reaction (again like a sting).

I don't mean to limit it to these two, but just to highlight the difference in terms of why someone might not be stung by Derain in the way that you are. Is it because they're "missing" what is aesthetically valuable, or because they just don't share your taste?

B) Aesthetic judgments are partially subjective -- they are known subjectively or intuitively, like a sting, but what is known is objective, hence everyone will have more or less the same reaction (again like a sting). — J

I agree that there are two considerations, the subjective and the objective.

The subjective is about what exists in the mind and the objective is about what exists in the world outside the mind.

As regards the subjective, the expression "aesthetic judgment" is a contradiction in terms.

The word "judgement" implies an intellectual thought process. The Merriam Webster defines judgement as "the process of forming an opinion or evaluation by discerning and comparing".

When we see the colour red, we don't judge that we have seen the colour red, we see the colour red. Similarly, when we experience an aesthetic, we don't judge that we have experienced an aesthetic, we have an aesthetic experience.

As regards the objective, the object in the world that causes an aesthetic experience in a person is not in itself aesthetic.

Going back to the wasp sting analogy, it would be like saying that within the wasp's stinger there exists pain which is then transferred from the wasp's stinger into the person being stung.

There is no aesthetic within an object in the world that is then transferred from the object to the person having the aesthetic experience.

When "stung" by a Derain, I feel an aesthetic, I don't learn how to feel the aesthetic. — RussellA

This is a key point. I'll use Bach as an example again, because he's Bach. But many people don't like his music, and think that's a silly sentence. I could teach you about his chord progressions, how he resolves nonharmonics, and whatever. Look here, that's Neapolitan sixth chord! You might come to understand it all, and be able to do the analysis on your own. But you might never come to like his music

You might come to understand it all, and be able to do the analysis on your own. But you might never come to like his music — Patterner

:100: Understanding something is not the same as liking it.

In @Moliere's terms, understanding a philosopher's point of view does not mean liking it.

Likewise if we say there's more to the art-object than the product, but includes the process as well, you could tie that to the similar sentiment people have with respect to great works of art: At some point it's the particular history of the art-object that's part of the art-object. — Moliere

Right, that is one promising way to challenge Danto's conception: We have to include some kind of origin story as part of the work of art. This leads to a lot of questions, especially whether it's possible to properly appreciate a work without the origin story. And, of course, whether such a story can be perceived at all, in the same way that the artwork is. It's a rich, ongoing discussion, especially around conceptual art.

just as we think replicas of great works of art aren't the "real deal", and there's no property of the object that differentiates them (let's say it's a very good forgist who uses chemical techniques to replicate the exact places of the atoms in a painting) we still differentiate them on the basis of the art-objects process of production. — Moliere

This is the very example Danto uses. He calls them "indiscernibles." What he says about the masterpiece and the perfect forgery, however, doesn't involve the process (or story) of production. He says that we decide which counts as art. Our hand isn't forced. Some traditions place a very high value on the concept of an "original art work." Others do not. Again, Warhol's work forces us to look at our own traditions and institutions: Are these "originals"? Or Sol LeWitt -- is it a LeWitt original if the whole point is that he gives you instructions and you make it?

electronic music has its own technique. It could include trying to emulate the most "dirty and real" sounding recording out there, but it would not, for all that, be a recording of that. — Moliere

Yes, and that's how many of us working in digital music-making try to think of it. Who says we don't have technique?! :grin: It's a specialized technique called "writing, performing, recording, and editing using MIDI keyboards and digital samples." (Of course some of us can actually play an old-fashioned instrument pretty well too.) Yeah, but . . . . 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.

One consolation is that, in a certain sense, McCartney's technique is a "representation" too. Recorded music has been edited and improved via production techniques long before there was digital tech. A good player sounds good on record in part because it's a collaboration with a guy with my kind of technique -- knob-twirling, etc. But still . . . no amount of edits will make you Coltrane. It's almost embarrassing to use the same word, "technique", to describe what an excellent producer does, and what a genius musician does.

It's almost embarrassing to use the same word, "technique", to describe what an excellent producer does, and what a genius musician does. — J

The opposite is true often enough, too, though. If we stay with the Beatles, take Strawberry Fields Forever, whose original recording sees two versions in different keys spliced together to end up with the weird effect. So if that weird microtonality is part of the appeal, it's the production that should get the credit, not John Lennon (if I don't misremember the story, or fell for a biased one).

I think one of the major questions here is what role spontaneity plays in art. Technique as a tool, vs. technique as a yardstick: this is what I want to achieve, vs. this is how it's done. Singing slightly off-key: do I like the effect or do I automatically assume a skill malus? Current production techniques seem to have made snapping things to pitch and beat via software routine: it's not bad that you can do it. Correcting a "mistake" to save an otherwise greate take isn't so bad. But a routine rule-setting can get rid of a lot of expression. It's not rare that I was surprised how good a singer an artist was during an interview, when I was always sort of bored of their songs on the radio.

But then again, taste in music, at least, seems to be something you acquire early in life: and if a singer's slightly off-key, whether you hear expression at all, or just a mistake might be at least in part influenced by your listenting history early in life, when you absorbed what music is.

Recording technology has, I think, muddled the earlier difference between composition and performance. What we tend to have from classical composers, for example, are scores. There's a piece written by Chopin, or Liszt, or Bach... We all know the composer. And then there are the performances: who do we know? Usually, it's going to be famous singers or soloists. Or orchestras. But the music of the recording age, the difference seems to get less important. We know the recording and associate it with an artist. With Jazz, and I'm no expert, you seem to have standards that everyone plays in addition to their own compositions. There's a lot of emphasis on improvisation, I think because of all the standards? Because of recordings, you no longer needed to rely on live performances. When did we get the concept of a recording artist? I'm not entirely sure. We've had it by the fifties, certainly. It goes hand in hand with concepts like "live performance" or "cover version".

What you as a listener pay attention will have to change with how you relate to the piece of the music, and that's different if you think of what you're hearing as an instantiation of a score, or as a variation from a score which you think of as the default. And that in turn is often also influenced by stuff like technology, or distribution. For example, in an age where scores dominate, and the performances also have an influence the reputation of the composer (who is the "star"), accuracy will be important. But if what you judge is a reproducable recording, individual expression might grow more important than accuracy.

But then if technology allows for routinisation of accuracy, and software is routinely used to snap music to pitch and beat, then maybe expression takes the backseat again? Time will tell; I don't think the routine use of the technology is old enough yet to judge the effect.

In short, it's probably best to see art as a social institution, within which individual taste has a role to play, as has percieved "good taste", which isn't so much an experience as an expectation. Basically, there's the aesthetic experience you have, the aesthetic expierence you feel you should have, and the myriad minuscle ways in which you rebel against this internalised expectation, or lie to yourself about your experience to be the cool kid, or, or, or... Basically, I think even the aesthetic experience you're aware of is already a complex composite and not independent of the way the social institution you might title "music" propagates. Your aesthetic experience is part of and permeated by the flux.

This leads to a lot of questions, especially whether it's possible to properly appreciate a work without the origin story. — J

More important, imo, can we appreciate it without the material? I didn't tag anyone, but did you see my last post? The paper with crayon spots is entirely inconsequential.

As regards the objective, the object in the world that causes an aesthetic experience in a person is not in itself aesthetic. — RussellA

OK, I don't mean to be imposing a terminology on you. I'm trying to circle back to your example of knowing without question that the Derain is great art:

"Within the tradition of painting, Derain is a great artist and Banksy is a mediocre artist"

This is a value judgement that I know to be true. — RussellA

I'm not disputing it, or your experience. (I love Derain.) I'm just trying to understand what it commits you to. Let me try to ask my questions a different way:

If I have the reverse experience, is that because I am having a different "sting" experience than you? Or are we both experiencing Derain and Banksy the same way -- you say it's not a matter of judgment at all, and the "sting" is not in itself aesthetic -- but for some reason coming to different aesthetic judgments?

I think you must mean the latter.

So then I want to know, Is an aesthetic judgment objective in the same way that the sting is? Can one of us be right, the other wrong? Or does it simply cash out to "what I like" and "what you like"?

So if that weird microtonality is part of the appeal, it's the production that should get the credit, not John Lennon (if I don't misremember the story, or fell for a biased one). — Dawnstorm

I believe the story's true. But I think Lennon was the one who realized he wanted to splice them. As you say, technique-wise, he didn't know how, but George Martin did. Collaboration again.

Current production techniques seem to have made snapping things to pitch and beat via software routine: it's not bad that you can do it. Correcting a "mistake" to save an otherwise great take isn't so bad. But a routine rule-setting can get rid of a lot of expression. — Dawnstorm

Yeah, welcome to (a big part of) my world. The praxis question, if I can dignify it with that word, is what counts as a mistake. Making all the pitches and beats perfect is, for many kinds of music, including the kinds I mostly like, quite deadly to the musical effect. Being "a little off" is not a mistake, unless you're a robot. (Ah, but how much is "a little"? Taste, again.) If I record drum samples, using a quantizer to keep them precise, I generally then have to go back and fuck them up a little, in the way a real drummer with feel and style would. (Unless I'm doing a Steely Dan cover! :wink: ).

In contrast, sometimes a mistake is just . . . a clam, as jazzers say. And those you want to fix if you can. I personally think it's fine to do this; Jimi Hendrix did it frequently, back in the day. But if I'm doing it all the time, every time I play a guitar solo (which given my skills on that instrument is quite likely), you gotta wonder just how great the great take really is. Time to bring in the guitar genius who lives up the road?

Recording technology has, I think, muddled the earlier difference between composition and performance. — Dawnstorm

Absolutely. Technology will change, artistic practice follows.

. When did we get the concept of a recording artist? I'm not entirely sure. We've had it by the fifties, certainly. It goes hand in hand with concepts like "live performance" or "cover version". — Dawnstorm

Great book to read on this subject: Greg Milner, Perfecting Sound Forever.

Basically, I think even the aesthetic experience you're aware of is already a complex composite and not independent of the way the social institution you might title "music" propagates. Your aesthetic experience is part of and permeated by the flux. — Dawnstorm

This is a huge topic, and one I enjoy nattering on about, but I'll just say that I don't believe there's such a thing as an "innocent ear," a way of listening to music that can separate it from your culture and your own individual experience. And this leads us back to the idea of traditions, styles, and practices as the guidelines for understanding how to appreciate music, or any art.

Great book to read on this subject: Greg Milner, Perfecting Sound Forever. — J

Thanks for the recommendation. This looks very interesting.

You might come to understand it all, and be able to do the analysis on your own. But you might never come to like his music — Patterner

But then again you might. Would the tutoring have had a bearing, do you think?

I didn't tag anyone, but did you see my last post? The paper with crayon spots is entirely inconsequential. — Patterner

Sorry, just saw this. I love that story. Do you mean that the physical thing, the paper and crayon, just happened to be the vehicle chosen to deliver the "origin story" which is one of sentiment, innocence, and personal connection? (or something like that, pardon me if my words are clumsy)

Would the tutoring have had a bearing, do you think? — J

I don't know that it couldn't for others. I only know it didn't for me. My first exposure to Bach was like the proverbial piano falling on me. I didn't know anything about music theory or counterpoint. I didn't even know what those things meant, much less any detail of them.

Do you mean that the physical thing, the paper and crayon, just happened to be the vehicle chosen to deliver the "origin story" which is one of sentiment, innocence, and personal connection? (or something like that, pardon me if my words are clumsy) — J

Yes, that's the idea. It didn't have to be paper and crayons. I guess a 2 year old is limited in what she can work with. But if she had made a pile of pebbles, with the same patience and focus, complete unto herself, the resulting pile would be the vehicle, and I would feel the same looking at it as I do the crayon spots on paper.

But if she had made a pile of pebbles, with the same patience and focus, complete unto herself, the resulting pile would be the vehicle, and I would feel the same looking at it as I do the crayon spots on paper. — Patterner

Yes. So we only need to ask whether your experience falls under the aesthetic, or something closer to the heart. I'm happy seeing it either way.

There's the obvious point that we do compare aesthetic judgements. They are not private.

There's the further point that our discussions of aesthetic judgements change those very judgements. Out aesthetics are not fixed in stone.

Calling an aesthetic judgement subjective often serves to stymie the discussion. Worth avoiding.

So back to the account I gave previously, and how it goes astray:

So an aesthetic opinion. will amount to a choice we make in our actions. Vanilla over chocolate. The preference is individual - we do not expect others to agree, and are happy for her to have chocolate rather than vanilla. — Banno

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...

Much to do here.

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'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.