In context yes. If you and I gave pet names to our musical instruments and your piano was called "cat", then cat also mean piano. — Isaac
Sooo.... that would mean I cannot read Hamlet's soliloquy (or the standard directions on shampoo bottles, for that matter), and claim that these are about green hippos and twenty-foot tall centipedes visiting earth from a planet called Garoomba? — NKBJ
That the words have at least one objective meaning is a consequence of the fact that they are moves in a game (with rules) and if you don't play by those rules then you are simply not playing the game.
Additional meanings are not part of the game — Isaac
Can I say that that "cat" also means "piano"? — NKBJ
No, all interpretations are possible, at least one interpretation is objective — Isaac
Another question: can't we say that there are thoughts and ideas that may be triggered for a particular individual rather randomly by an art piece, but which actually have nothing to do with said piece? — NKBJ
Hmm... okay, we'll call them "possible" (from my perspective in a very loose sense). But are they "plausible"? Does it make sense to have such interpretations? — NKBJ
can't we say that there are thoughts and ideas that may be triggered for a particular individual rather randomly by an art piece, but which actually have nothing to do with said piece? And in which case, we must ask ourselves, is that really an interpretation of the art piece? Isn't it more aptly described as a random firing of the brain? — NKBJ
I might read Hamlet and by some word or phrase or image be reminded of afternoons in my grandmother's kitchen. HOWEVER, that memory is not an interpretation of the art piece. — NKBJ
I have a suspicion, however, that in fifty years, people will still be reading Hamlet and will be like "Michael who?" — NKBJ
I also still think that there's more to be learned philosophically in Hamlet than Transformers. — NKBJ
And I don't think most, even educated people, are able to come up with that stuff on their own. — NKBJ
The caliber of that philosophy will hinge on the philosophical abilities of the viewer in question. — Terrapin Station
Somewhat relevant to our discussion, Justin Weinberg asked people to contribute links to philosophical visual art. The pieces and the comments on them are pretty interesting. — NKBJ
Oh, and this article was nice too! — NKBJ
Brassau paints with powerful strokes, but also with clear determination. His brush strokes twist with furious fastidiousness. Pierre is an artist who performs with the delicacy of a ballet dancer.
...was the response of one art critic to the random daubings of a chimpanzee which the journalist Åke Axelsson pretended were done by an upcoming modern artist. — Isaac
Yea, you know, if you're one to believe that an elephant's painting is as aesthetically valuable as is a human's, to each their own. — javra
Do we love some things more than others? Of course! How will you measure the difference? If you reduce life to what is measurable, what will be left? — Janus
So what if you show there are no such unequivocal arguments to support ethical or aesthetic judgements? — Janus
All you have shown is that such judgements are not analytic or empirical judgements, but that is trivially obvious to anyone who has given it any thought. — Janus
It doesn't follow that artworks and ethical judgements do not embody more or less understanding of the human condition, or that such understanding is not what is near universally valued above all else by those who value human intelligence and the compassion and sensitivity that come with it over mere entertainment or self-serving pleasure seeking. — Janus
People come to see these ethical and aesthetic truths because they develop and transform their ability to see them, not because they could be convinced by some deductive argument or undeniable empirical observation or theory. — Janus
This is off-topic but I think it is relevant. — Janus
Most people would agree that Shakespeare was an infinitely better storyteller and writer than Michael Bay. — Olly
And anyone who completes a Master's Degree to prove to them self that something is wrong with that field of study, is kind of a bad-ass. — ZhouBoTong
I can say "I love x more than y". That says nothing about "x being better than y". — ZhouBoTong
Then we have shown that it is just nonsense made up by art "elites". — ZhouBoTong
So it just feels right? Why is it obvious? And surely I have thought about this more than most (not you of course, but most)? I may be a terrible thinker, but again care to point me at the obvious? — ZhouBoTong
Hmmm, I didn't see where the definition of art prioritized some emotions over others (compassion vs entertainment {what if I am entertained by compassion} - neither are exactly emotions but both are composed of them - I think). What is the "human condition"? Is our desire to be entertained part of it? — ZhouBoTong
Can you give ONE example of an aesthetic truth that is taught in "art" you consider valuable? And then know that I am going to find that same truth in the most "low brow" piece of art I can come up with. — ZhouBoTong
I was called out for off topic, so I just responded to your post in this thread.
Yea, you know, if you're one to believe that an elephant's painting is as aesthetically valuable as is a human's, to each their own. — javra — ZhouBoTong
What we pointed out in the art thread, was that an educated art critic is the one most likely to ascribe some great artistic significance to an elephant's rambling scribbles (as long as you tell them it was by some brilliant young up and coming artist). — ZhouBoTong
If the offered premise stands, how would the given conclusion be erroneous? — javra
Sorry, I was just re-reading the other thread and realized that I did not respond to this portion (but thanks for the little reminder :grin: ) — ZhouBoTong
Doesn't your logic here suggest that Calculus is better than basic arithmetic? But that doesn't seem right, does it? — ZhouBoTong
Based on the definition of art I would think that the ability to reach MORE people MIGHT make transformers better? — ZhouBoTong
Most people would agree that Shakespeare was an infinitely better storyteller and writer than Michael Bay. There's a fair consensus that shakespeare was an exceptional writer/artist, only a tiny percentage of people would say Michael Bay was as good, better, or even an artist at all. — Olly
communicates something important effectively, that resonates with people for a very long time. Shakespeare, Michelangelo, Beethoven... all these people made "high art". Their work has a timelessness to it, that resonates with people across all time, that survives and stays as strong as it was when first created. Most "popular" or "low" art fades away after a few decades or less. It was not created with the talent or vision, and therefore does not possess, the ability to remain relevant and survive after it ceases being new and exciting, because it was made more to be new and exciting than it was to achieve artistic status. — Olly
Most people would agree that Shakespeare was an infinitely better storyteller and writer than Michael Bay. — Olly
There's a fair consensus that shakespeare was an exceptional writer/artist, only a tiny percentage of people would say Michael Bay was as good, better, or even an artist at all. — Olly
Shakespeare explored the human condition with almost unmatched eloquence — Olly
Bay makes movies with explosions and hot models because Bay likes explosions and hot models, not because he has any interest in people or telling a compelling story. — Olly
Most "popular" or "low" art fades away after a few decades or less. — Olly
Their work has a timelessness to it, that resonates with people across all time, — Olly
It was not created with the talent or vision — Olly
the idea of the "western canon", a collection of artworks from our cultures that exists as a kind of lasting legacy of what we are at our best. — Olly
And anyone who completes a Master's Degree to prove to them self that something is wrong with that field of study, is kind of a bad-ass. — ZhouBoTong
More of a sad-ass. — Janus
Well, firstly the point was to show that something can be more than something else even if we cannot measure it. — Janus
But there is also the point that if something is loved more than something else, then for those who love it the more beloved thing is better. — Janus
Of course you will now probably retort that for example more people love some silly pop song than they do Bach's music. — Janus
But the question is, do they really love it, or are they merely sentimentally attached to, or infatuated, with it? — Janus
So, the further point here is that taste for more original, inventive, subtle and profound things may be developed by education, and consciousness can be transformed in the process, such that we become able to see things we previously were not able to see. — Janus
Why would you expect aesthetic judgement to be deductively certain or empirically demonstrable? — Janus
What you really seem to be arguing is "I can't see it, so it must be wrong". — Janus
I can't give you a knockdown argument to support my contentions, as I already acknowledged; all I can do is to say what I know from experience, presuming that there is enough commonality to aesthetic experience and that it is something that may be cultivated that you may be open enough to come to see that I am talking about something which is a real possibility for your, or anyone's experience. — Janus
For me the human condition obviously consists in both what is debased and what is elevating, in what is trivial and what is profound, in what is original and interesting and what is banal. Of course the apparently trivial kinds of lives of many people can be treated in literature, for example with profundity and compassion or they may be treated with fatuous admiration, as if life is and should be nothing more than titillation, amusement, or alternatively drudgery and boredom alleviated only by novelty and endless acquisition and consumption. — Janus
I don't think you will disagree with me that very many people's lives are characterized by thoughtlessness and acceptation of the swill that is served up by popular culture. — Janus
I think it is ethically better to think for yourself while acknowledging that there are, not merely different understandings, but different levels of understanding at work in every human pursuit. — Janus
Call me an elitist: I probably deserve it! — Janus
What you are asking for is like asking for the explanation of a joke or a poem. — Janus
Some things cannot be directly said, but must be shown by allusion, and allusion is one thing that most crappy works of art do not embody. — Janus
If aesthetics has the purpose of drawing us toward greater sapience — javra
I am not sure I even understand how that could be the case. Let me take the most simple and obvious "appreciation of beauty". How does a guy admiring a pretty girl lead to wisdom? — ZhouBoTong
I will get to the whole thing soon so I can give you a nice long annoying response like I give everyone else :smile: — ZhouBoTong
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.