So there is nothing admirable about a student that finds dark matter/dark energy explanations to be inadequate, so they delve into the subject? Are you opposed to the action of learning about what you disagree with or maybe you were just poo-pooing college degrees in general? — ZhouBoTong
I don't suppose you read the article being referenced? — ZhouBoTong
At this point, I’d simply like for you to answer my initial two — javra
Premise: We humans value sapience; we, for example, want ourselves to be sapient, rather than non-sapient. As another example that is applicable to the philosophy forum: we almost by definition value those historical philosophers we deem to have been of greater wisdom, and do not value those whom we deem to have been utterly devoid of wisdom (given that philosophy is a love of wisdom). — javra
If this premise stands—and if wisdom is not concluded to be an irrational or fallacious concept in respect to what is real—then I offer that this conclusion then rationally follows: We, thereby, likewise value those artworks which to us expresses great sapience over those artworks that to us are either devoid of sapience or express minimal amounts of it. This regardless of whether it’s Shakespeare, the Transformers, or the Simpsons. To find aesthetic value in a blank canvas as a finished work of art, or in a musical piece that is devoid of sound, one will need to experience it as endowed with worthwhile wisdom; otherwise, one will not find aesthetic value to such pieces of art. — javra
We, thereby, likewise value those artworks which to us expresses great sapience — javra
so too is a human’s awareness of aesthetics better than that of a chimp’s. — javra
How can you find something inadequate or disagree with it prior to studying it? Of course it you disagreed with the whole idea of some discipline, say for a couple of examples, cosmology or theology, then of course it is not that you should not study; you would not study it. — Janus
Yes, I read it and I thought it was, most charitably, superficial, and, least charitably, vacuous. — Janus
if I had the requisite experience I could come to see what they see. — Janus
I maintain that there is simply more to be seen in some things than in others, and this is a function of what awareness, thought, association, emotion, liveliness, insight, and so on has been put in by the creator. — Janus
There's a LOT actually. Depth of thought, values, artistic ability, complexity, etc. — NKBJ
Right. And as I commented on another thread, the dominant art of our time is on Netflix and Spotify. — old
Similarly there is no "direct transmission" of what the artwork embodies of those traces to the viewer, because he or she views works through a subjective lens. The point is, though, that what is actually embodied by the work is something real, that will be more or less apprehended by the viewer depnding on various factors, including of course education and subtlety of understanding, etc.. — Janus
so too is a human’s awareness of aesthetics better than that of a chimp’s. — javra
And yet any human that says Transformers is better than Hamlet is wrong. — ZhouBoTong
Well, you have said more that probably deserves a response, — ZhouBoTong
so too is a human’s awareness of aesthetics better than that of a chimp’s. — javra
And yet any human that says Transformers is better than Hamlet is wrong.
— ZhouBoTong
And how on earth did you arrive at this stupendous conclusion??? Since it’s too grievous a spin to not correct—lest we inadvertently encourage elitism: — javra
But just as one’s degree of general understanding tends to determine which truths are deemed trite and which are deemed more profound, so too with aesthetics. — javra
If you are NOT entirely bored with this topic, — ZhouBoTong
Why do we teach a lot of Shakespeare and zero Transformers? — ZhouBoTong
If you are thinking about profound vs trite, it is a safe bet that most high school students find NOTHING profound in ANYTHING they are forced to read for school. — ZhouBoTong
I am not saying they would find Transformers profound, just that is an unfair measure as it RARELY occurs. — ZhouBoTong
If only 1% (being generous) of art or philosophy is "profound", then are we just wasting time the rest of the time? — ZhouBoTong
I am suggesting there are other benefits (possibly even other areas of more "prime" importance) of art other than some profound experience. — ZhouBoTong
We have created a massive formal academic field of art, that contributes very little to actual art. — ZhouBoTong
No, I find the topic immensely interesting; but it’s a very complicated subject. And I’m honestly trying to economize my personal time. It might be a while till my next reply. — javra
Doubtless this is so due in large part to Shakespeare’s works having greatly influenced our cultural heritage in the west—whereas Transformers has had little of such impact on western society. But this reason is not of itself an issue of directly experienced aesthetics—rather, it’s more one of western culture’s history of aesthetics. — javra
My bet is that this is in large part due to bad pedagogy. — javra
To me, a good example: our high school teacher brought out images of Brancusi’s Bird in Space. We were less than impressed with this supposedly seminal work—basically seeing it as horse dung (at least I did). He put the sculpture aside and asked us to express as many adjectives as we could that described a bird in space. We started listing: graceful, austere, elegant, serene, etc. — javra
When the chalkboard was full with adjectives, he then asked us which if any of these adjectives didn’t describe the sculpture. They all did. At this point we all had a deeper understanding of the sculpture’s abstract significance and, with it, a newfound appreciation for it. — javra
Some, including myself, in the process came to discover what makes it aesthetic. — javra
OK; I’ll try to better illustrate my view: Transformers are about morals, courage, some light sci-fi, and, more recently, a lot of eye-candy. Compare its cultural impact to movies such as Bladerunner or, more recently, the Matrix. The later, for example, has most of what the Transformer movies have, but its sci-fi concepts have more depth, and it touches upon—what in philosophical slang are—epistemological and ontological topics, some of which are nearly as old as philosophy itself. Because of this, to the average adult person who can comprehend and enjoy both, Matrix movies will tend to hold greater value than Transformer movies. Yes, aesthetics is in the eye of the beholder, but there are a lot of beholders out there, and our degree of general understanding tends to correspond to the statistical bell-curve. What affects the median the most is that which will have the greatest impact on society at large—and, hence, what will be commonly deemed better. — javra
Because of this, to the average adult person who can comprehend and enjoy both, — javra
I think this sounds like you might be OK with replacing 50% (+/-) of Shakespeare that is taught in school (below college level) with modern (or just different) stories? How about replacing 30% of literature stories with film stories? I am not exactly sure of the goal of literature education (is there one? really?), but I think these changes would still meet any goal other than, "know the classics". — ZhouBoTong
Or maybe you are suggesting the influence is similar to something like The Avengers, but it has been around for centuries and for most of those centuries very little art was created {relative to the last 30 years} so Shakespeare's works were read by a significant percent of literature readers?) — ZhouBoTong
(we may just conclude that I have some social inadequacies that cause my disagreements): — ZhouBoTong
[...] so I would say things like, terrestrial, earth-bound, fish-like [...]
Now, we have all the adjectives on the board. And we notice that many are actually antonyms for each other. — ZhouBoTong
My deeper understanding in that moment was that once "art" becomes "abstract" it can mean literally anything - sometimes it is up to the artist, sometimes it is up to the viewer. I can see how you were led to the conclusion you came to, but can you see that with just a tiny change in perspective, my view is also a reasonable conclusion? — ZhouBoTong
Some, including myself, in the process came to discover what makes it aesthetic. — javra
I don't really understand this part; I think my understanding of "aesthetic" is far more simple. — ZhouBoTong
Sometimes the artist creates meaning, but other times the artist is providing inspiration for us to create the meaning. If the rabid dog in To Kill a Mockingbird somehow symbolizes racism, can't Decepticons also symbolize racism, sexism, or the negative side of our emotions? — ZhouBoTong
Because of this, to the average adult person who can comprehend and enjoy both, — javra
Just to see where we are both coming from, what percent of adults do you think can comprehend and enjoy both (epistemological and ontological topics)? — ZhouBoTong
Comparing literature to movies has in my experience been a comparison between apples and oranges. — javra
And, when considering the best of both, the aesthetics captured by neither medium can be satisfactorily translated into the other. — javra
Still, literature education is arguably the best way of teaching literacy to students via applied practice; imo, far better than by merely teaching theoretical rules or spelling and grammar, which are dry, tedious, and very boring by comparison. — javra
Asimov, Bradbury, Dumas, the novel Dune — javra
I nevertheless appreciate having been given to read a wide breadth of literature during high school: historically starting with Beowulf and Ten Summoner’s Tales—neither of which were easy readings but yet very interesting for their historicity — javra
All the same, I guess my own perspective is that I’d rather more fellow citizens be exposed to these historically important works so as to have a common body of knowledge in society pertaining to a common history — javra
I've come to notice that pretentiousness is certainly not one of them. — javra
I still have plenty more to respond to [...] — ZhouBoTong
In movies the imagery is given to you. In literature, the imagery is constructed by you via imagination. Of itself, this presents two very different experiences of cognition. — javra
By the same token, we could say that with books, all the words/thoughts/descriptions are given to you, whereas with films, you need to fill that stuff in for yourself via your imagination. — Terrapin Station
I'm just pointing out that it's not the same for everyone or in each scenario. It's not the case that one thing or the other catalyzes more imagination for everyone. — Terrapin Station
I’ll likely wait for you to present your views on what is and is not aesthetics, this in general. — javra
My art teacher would have wanted to know how these adjectives can describe a bird that is in space, “space” here being more akin to outer space; — javra
I’m still suspecting that the case can be made that if the adjective can apply to a bird in space, thus understood, the adjective will then likewise apply to the statue. — javra
I disagree with the view I’ve too often heard, specifying that what the artist intended is fully superfluous to the artwork, — javra
What we intend to say matters—even when our expression is less than sufficient to so convey, or when others interpret things which we never intended. — javra
And the judgment of what is poor and what is not is, to me, again relative to one's general understanding. — javra
I brought this example up because, to me at least, it serves to exemplify how one’s increased general understanding in relation to an artwork can at times transform that which is deemed relatively unaesthetic into something whose aesthetics are appreciated. — javra
Of course. I’ve already mentioned a little about my take on the intention/interpretation dynamic to artworks. Staying true to that, I so far find that both the rabid dog and the Decepticons were roughly intended to symbolize the "negative side of our emotions" (Decepticons alluding to deceptions). — javra
I am not sure I am answering your aesthetics questions satisfactorily (I certainly have not answered it directly, but think my position can be seen). Feel free to point out where you would like me to state something more directly. — ZhouBoTong
Claiming that something is the case for most people for something like this would require empirical studies that no one has done. — Terrapin Station
(e.g., some young preadolescents that enjoy Transformers might not understand why the Matrix is found more aesthetic by many adults). — javra
In far more elegant expression, the perspective held that we cry selfishly, for our own ego’s loss, and not for the loved ones that died—regardless of how they died: either they ceased experiencing all experiences and, thus, all suffering or, else, we believe that they passed on to a better place than that in which we’re in (and this because, via our love for them, we deem them to have been good people). — javra
Don’t know that I can be labeled an optimist, but I do find that people generally hold emotive understandings of subjects which, when philosophically addressed, are not yet very well understood consciously. — javra
For example, we all (emotively) know what justice, good, aesthetics, etc. are, but when we start trying to consciously pinpoint them, we then often times enter into debates. — javra
This goes back to my take being that good aesthetics ring true — javra
that they emotively speak to us of things which we are emotively knowledgeable of, but of which we often cannot make sense of at a conscious level. — javra
Hence, for example, adults that don’t comprehend and enjoy epistemological and ontological subjects of philosophy will nevertheless tend to be more fascinated by the Matrix than by the Transformers—and this because the former has greater depth in its epistemology and ontology. — javra
Still curious to know how they wouldn't fit the three descriptions I previously offered. — javra
First off, do we agree that aesthetics are first and foremost an emotive experience (rather than an intellectual desire of consciousness)? — javra
Secondly, the emotive experience can’t simply be any attraction toward—e.g., we can be emotively attracted toward food or drink even when not hungry or thirsty (like when having a full stomach), but this attraction doesn’t pertain to our aesthetic tastes (we’re not driven to eat that which is aesthetic to us—and if, by chance, a certain food is for some reason deemed aesthetic by us, eating it will always to us feel as though we are destroying something whose continued presence has value). — javra
Thirdly, and however ambiguously, we form a connection, an emotive bond somewhat akin to that of sympathy, to that which we find aesthetic—such that our sense of what is aesthetic becomes an extension of our very selves; — javra
In at least this one way, aesthetics are not to us a fun distraction, or a diversion—which are by their nature ephemeral, dispensable, and superfluous to what makes us us. By contrast, the most aesthetic artifact one has ever known—regardless of what it might be—is cherished on a par to how much one cherishes one’s own person; and, on average, one desires for its preservation about as much as one desires one’s own preservation (despite preferring that it is destroyed instead of oneself--were such a hypothetical to be presented). — javra
Hence, for example, when this just mentioned aesthetic artifact of great worth is demeaned by the opinions of others, we feel the value of our own person being demeaned (especially when we respect the other)—and when it is valued by others, we more often than not feel exalted. — javra
-- If you disagree with these three partial facets of the aesthetic, can you then explain what the aesthetic signifies to you such that it doesn’t fit these descriptions? — javra
-- If, however, there is no significant disagreement, then why dispel the conclusion that some aesthetic experiences are better than others—not on some mathematically precise linear scale, but relative to the general understanding of the beholder(s) concerned? — javra
It seems a given in educated circles that Shakespeare and DaVinci created "better" art than, let us say, Michael Bay (makes movies that many would consider "low brow" like Transformers or Armageddon). Is there even a little justification for this?
However, once convinced of their superiority, the elites are happy to force their tastes on the rest of us (I never learned anything about Michael Bay movies in school) and they even have the audacity to suggest I am wrong when I say "I like x better than y". Why are we teaching opinions in school? I appreciate the discussion of opinion in school but there should only be judgement of the justification, not the opinion itself.
I think this idea applies to philosophy (and other areas as well), but every time I write my thoughts on that it seems like I will be insulting somebody, and I don't know enough philosophy to justify any insults :grimace: I do feel comfortable enough in my knowledge of education or the arts to justify any insults - for example Shakespeare is OK at best (brilliant use of language but garbage stories). — 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.