First time I've agreed with you about anything, ever. — StreetlightX

As they say, there's always a first time for everything … might be an eternity before the second time though. However, it occurs to me that when I first engaged you in discussion, perhaps at philosophy forums, we had some discussion on the nature of beauty, good, and the ideal, and we had a degree (maybe only one degree) of agreement.

It's not nonsensical; what borders on the nonsensical is that you barely even addressed what you quoted, which was a description of the difference between the viewer following their own interpretive path based on their inevitable 50% contribution to the work itself, vs. an artist statement trying to block this process. Try again. — Noble Dust

Nonsense again. Since there are multiple viewers of the work, it is impossible that each viewer contributes 50% of the work. That's why I didn't address that part of your post, I couldn't make enough sense of what you were saying, to bring that into relevance. It's true that the artist plays to an audience, and the audience has importance, but you are clearly misrepresenting that importance. Whether that audience is you, me, StreetlightX, or other people, is not really relevant unless the artist is doing something personal. So contrary to what you say, the particularities, and peculiarities, of the individual subjective experience of interpretation are irrelevant. That's why the artist works in the abstract, and it's simply a mistake to say that it's wrong to force the artist into the abstract, because that's where the artist already is, by choice, in choosing the task which the artist is doing, art.

He turns the art buying and art establishment world's on their head like a kind or art terrorist. — Punshhh

"Art terrorist", maybe that's an apt name, but it's a little scary. I like to look at artwork as a statement in itself, that's why I don't like the premise of this thread, which is to separate "the statement" from the art. A piece of art is a way of saying something, you might say it's the medium for a statement. Notice that the way of saying it (the form), in art, is often of more importance than what is said, the statement which the art makes (the content). This is why the inverted purists on this thread want to separate the artwork, as the means for saying something (the form), from the statement, which is the concept, what is said by the artist (the content). Now someone like Noble Dust will insist that the only thing the artist provides is the form, and the viewer, being the interpreter, is free to designate whatever one pleases, as the content, what has been said by the artist through the art. But that's nonsense because if this were true, then the artist could not have any say in the content of the piece, what it says, therefore the artist would not be saying anything, and the art really wouldn't say anything.

As an analogy, let's analyze the act of terrorism, now that "terrorism" has been mentioned. The terrorist is making a statement in an extremist way. So "the way" that the statement is made (the form) becomes the essence of the statement, as "act of terrorism". It's big, bold, and attention grabbing, in the way of terrorism, so much so that the cause, the purpose, the point, or statement that the terrorist is trying to make (the content) often gets lost underneath. So we are left to interpret the act in our own way, individually, by however it affects us. So terrorism itself is similar to art, and may even be classed as an extreme form of art*. But when the act of terrorism gets so extreme, when the statement is made just for the sake of making a statement, then it becomes all form and no content, as the terrorist seeks more and more extreme measures just for the sake of carrying out extreme measures. How could we interpret the content of this type of act, or art which is produced in this way? There is a statement being made, which doesn't say anything, yet it is so loud, exaggerated, and downright scary, that it is impossible to ignore as 'not saying anything'.

Clearly, form without any content is a possibility. How ought this be interpreted? Do we say that this is the content, that what the artist is saying is that form without content is a possibility? If so, then we'd give the piece content, therefore negating the true essence, contentlessness, so this would necessarily be a misunderstanding, a misinterpretation. Therefore, to interpret a piece of art as form without content (just like the extreme act of terrorism, which is all flare, saying nothing) is a valid interpretation. There is no content, the piece is actually saying nothing. No artist statement could validly say that the piece is saying nothing. And if we try to force content onto such a piece, insisting that the artist must be saying something, we are really misinterpreting the piece.

*Philosopher's statement:

Don't get me wrong I'm not promoting this as a type of art, as it would be a very ugly form of art.

Since there are multiple viewers of the work, it is impossible that each viewer contributes 50% of the work. — Metaphysician Undercover

Not only is it possible, it happens every time that you, the viewer, interface with a work. The work only exists in the context of the audience. The audience is made up of individuals with individual perceptions of not only art, but of reality itself. The audience, made up of these people, exists within a cultural context, which further shapes their perception of art and reality. All of this plays into how the work is received. This isn't even an argument, it's just reality. An artwork without an audience is only half a work of art. I'm surprised this is so controversial, honestly.

EDIT: Maybe what's missing is the fact that the artist is an audience member of their own work. The artist is not a god on high bestowing an audience with a brilliant work. I've ironically been accused of elitism in this thread, but my argument is demonstrably the least elitist in this respect.

It's true that the artist plays to an audience, and the audience has importance, but you are clearly misrepresenting that importance. Whether that audience is you, me, StreetlightX, or other people, is not really relevant unless the artist is doing something personal. So contrary to what you say, the particularities, and peculiarities, of the individual subjective experience of interpretation are irrelevant. — Metaphysician Undercover

You keep making assertions as if they are arguments. So, show how I'm misrepresenting the importance of the audience.

and it's simply a mistake to say that it's wrong to force the artist into the abstract — Metaphysician Undercover

I did not say that.

You keep making assertions as if they are arguments. So, show how I'm misrepresenting the importance of the audience. — Noble Dust

You said "the viewer", singular, passes an inevitable "50% contribution to the work itself". Since there is a vast number of viewers this would add up to thousands, millions, or even billions of percentage, which is nonsense. Therefore, if you are trying to represent what each viewer adds to the work, in this way, as a percentage, you'd have to say that each viewer actually provides a very small percentage contribution to the work. The more viewers there are, the less percentage each one would contribute.

So, each viewer's "interpretive path" does not provide a 50% contribution to the work. So this way of representing the viewer's "contribution" to the work is complete nonsense. If you are insistent that the viewer actually does contribute to the artist's work somehow, you'll have to find a better way of demonstrating it. Maybe financial compensation is a more concrete starting point?

You said "the viewer", singular, passes an inevitable "50% contribution to the work itself". Since there is a vast number of viewers this would add up to thousands, millions, or even billions of percentage, which is nonsense. Therefore, if you are trying to represent what each viewer adds to the work, in this way, as a percentage, you'd have to say that each viewer actually provides a very small percentage contribution to the work. The more viewers there are, the less percentage each one would contribute. — Metaphysician Undercover

I'm happy to admit that finding the proper language to express this concept is difficult, and this is leading to confusion, although I get the feeling that you won't be charitable to that fact (I hope I'm wrong); but never the less. When I say "the viewer is 50% of the work", I'm saying that metaphorically, not mathematically. If I was saying it mathematically, clearly I'd be wrong and you would be correct in your critique.

But the viewer is half of the work each individual time the work is viewed. Try to think metaphorically with me here. The work is not a mathematical principle that needs to be properly apprehended exhaustively by the audience; it's not an object with one application or formula by which it can be expressed. A work of art is more akin to a word, and how that word's language is always in flux; words change their meaning, but they leave something of a husk behind as they change. There's always a tension between the husk and the new seed of the word. How art functions (and it only functions in front of an audience) is closer to this than it is to a mathematical formula, just as an example. I leave this open-ended to emphasize the concept.

I won't deny it, but I'm grateful to have read it after experiencing the work first. When I saw your painting, I felt an almost mystical sense of moving into the unknown. As the artist, you're free to shoot this down as a dumb interpretation, but it won't change the experience for me. Now that I know what the painting represented, it adds depth. But again, only afterwards.

I agree with what you say about my work, there is a tension in the act of viewing an art work between what the viewer experiences and what the artist wishes to convey. Perhaps the answer is to have the statement written in small script besides the work in the gallery, so that the viewer experiences the work before reading the statement.
Personally, I tend to ignore the statement, if there is one. Preferring to simply look at the piece and perhaps read about the artist. Often when attending a concert, I try to avoid reading, or finding out about the performance before I go in. I don't think this is necessarily appropriate for the general public, who often wish for some guidance as to what they are looking at, due to not being well educated in the genre, or artist.

I think what is important is to retain the maximum freedom and flexibility for both the artist and the viewer within reason and not restrict either due to problems on the periphery.

I'm happy to admit that finding the proper language to express this concept is difficult, and this is leading to confusion, although I get the feeling that you won't be charitable to that fact (I hope I'm wrong); but never the less. When I say "the viewer is 50% of the work", I'm saying that metaphorically, not mathematically. If I was saying it mathematically, clearly I'd be wrong and you would be correct in your critique. — Noble Dust

The point is that when you make claims such as "the viewer is half the work", you need to support these principles. If you support them with faulty math then there is no support.

But the viewer is half of the work each individual time the work is viewed. — Noble Dust

Even this doesn't make any sense. You are saying that "the work" is different each time it is viewed by a different person. But that's not at all true, the work stays the same, as the same piece of art, it is only viewed and interpreted differently. It is completely wrong to suggest that the interpretation which the viewer offers is actually part of the work.

That's why we have a distinction between primary and secondary sources in philosophy. This marks the difference between what the author actually has said, and how the commentators interpret what has been said. It is wrong to make the commentary part of the work, just like it is wrong to make the critic's interpretation part of the work of art. There is a distinction between the events occurring, and the narrative.

A work of art is more akin to a word, and how that word's language is always in flux; words change their meaning, but they leave something of a husk behind as they change. — Noble Dust

Right, since "the word's language is always in flux", we need to respect the fact that any interpretation is made from a particular position within that flux. Another position will give a different interpretation. However, the meaning of the statement of words, "what is meant" or "what is meant" by the piece of art in this instance, is grounded, stabilized, by the author's intention. The statement of words, or the piece of art, remains essentially unchanged, as what was meant by the author or artist, despite the flux of the interpretive perspective. it is wrong to represent the flux in the interpretive atmosphere as part of the art itself. Of course the artist fully grasps the importance of that flux and incorporates that apprehension into the work, but the artist's methods are distinct from the flux of the atmosphere. The artist's methods are the occurring events, recorded and displayed in the art piece. The flux in the interpretive atmosphere has an effect on the narrative, but not on the art itself.

I'm happy to admit that finding the proper language to express this concept is difficult, and this is leading to confusion, although I get the feeling that you won't be charitable to that fact (I hope I'm wrong); but never the less. When I say "the viewer is 50% of the work", I'm saying that metaphorically, not mathematically. If I was saying it mathematically, clearly I'd be wrong and you would be correct in your critique. — Noble Dust


The point is that when you make claims such as "the viewer is half the work", you need to support these principles. If you support them with faulty math then there is no support. — Metaphysician Undercover

When someone says the viewer is half the work, they don't mean the thing on the wall. They mean the phenomenological work. Which is going to be different for every viewer. Or better put there will be different works of art arising in the interaction between a unique individual and that piece of art. So, this means there is an endless amount of percentage available, each new patron resetting the measure.

The habit of tell people what a work of art means may be just peachy in a specific case, but in general, I think it correlates with a loss of aesthetics, a loss of trust in the artwork itself, an problematic increase in verbal mental experience of art over sensual experience of art. Now, note. With that last contrast, I think these are not mutually exclusive, not at all, and the best art will also stimulate verbal mental thinky stuff. But nowadays we face a tremendous amount of art where the sensual aesthetic qualities are minimal or absent.

I can appreciate many of the modern and postmodern pieces of art, especially when made by great artists who got there first in their niches. Some of this art is low on the sensual scale, but it creates a delightful contrast, when if first arose. But now people copy and stay in these niches and we have whole museums and galleries displaying art that is really just the stimulation of ideas. And it is made by people who have not done the kinds of aesthetic training needed to make something beautiful in the broadest sense - I mean, Francis Bacon or Bosch, etc.

It create thinking, it doesn't really stand on its own.

Descriptions of artworks are part of a trend. Each individual one may be fine, but the trend is towards getting you to think, often politically nowadays, with much less put into the sensual. Precisely because these are not mutually exclusive, this is a great loss.

And hell, we have books, etc, if we want people to primarily think.

So, when you put that 'hey this is what to think' next to your work, you are indeed creating conditions where the viewer may well contribute less to that experiencing of the artwork.

And there was nothing wrong with his math.

When someone says the viewer is half the work, they don't mean the thing on the wall. They mean the phenomenological work. Which is going to be different for every viewer. Or better put there will be different works of art arising in the interaction between a unique individual and that piece of art. So, this means there is an endless amount of percentage available, each new patron resetting the measure. — Coben

What you are saying is that the artist's "work", is the psychological affect produced in the viewer. But that's simply wrong, the "work" is the physical piece, not the psychological affect. If your perspective were correct, then the artist would be responsible if, after viewing the art, a viewer was inspired to commit a crime. You could say that the psychological affect on the viewer, causing the crime to be committed, was the "work" of the artist.

I think it correlates with a loss of aesthetics, a loss of trust in the artwork itself, an problematic increase in verbal mental experience of art over sensual experience of art. — Coben

I don't agree, there is no loss of aesthetics, or loss of trust in the artwork by the artist, expressed by the statement, it is simply background information. The viewer does not, and cannot have the same perspective that the artist has, so if the artist wants to impart some perspective, context, to the viewer, dependent on what is required by the peculiarities of the particular piece, this does not constitute a loss of trust, or aesthetics.

It's analogous to two of us looking at the landscape in front of us. The landscape is beautiful. If I point out a bird, and say "look at that bird at the top of that tree", this does not negate the overall beauty of the landscape. If you think that I am pointing out the bird with the intent to distract from the beauty of the landscape, then you misunderstand what I am doing, because I am pointing out something which contributes to the beauty of the landscape. And if you cannot look at the bird without ruining the beauty of the landscape for yourself, just because you did not see it before I pointed it out to you, then there is something lacking in your aesthetic capacity.

But that's simply wrong, the "work" is the physical piece, not the psychological affect — Metaphysician Undercover

Which we don't experience, the physical piece. We experience what is inspired and triggered in our minds. Taking some sense stimuli, not others, with our attendant emotions and conscious and unconscious associations saturating the experience. If it is representational, then we have associations on a number of levels affecting what we experience and how we experience it. Our eyes scan the painting, say, and do not take in the whole thing at once. We interact and react to the the specific style with a wealth of conscious and mainly unconscious reactions. These experiences are going to be radically different person to person, and much of hard to put into words or even notice.

That is what I am talking about. The experience of the art, not the ding an sich. And that is something each of use does an incredible amount of work, mainly automatically and then alsoc consciously as we investigate portions of the painting and mull and come back to it. Because much of this is automatic and silent, we often think we are passive receivers.

Not at all.

Of course this is true of things in general not just art. Given the complexity of much art, our work is also more complex. And in fact can continue on repeated viewings through an entire lifetime. It will nto look the same in ten years.

It's analogous to two of us looking at the landscape in front of us. The landscape is beautiful. If I point out a bird, and say "look at that bird at the top of that tree", this does not negate the overall beauty of the landscape — Metaphysician Undercover

That's not a good analogy at all. The analogy would be you telling me, as the creator of the landscape, so a kind of deity, that the bird is the most important thing and it symbolizes my soul or your sexual abuse.

That would completely change my experience of the landscape.

And then, since a landscape, unless it is a landscape painting is not a piece of artwork, it is different in other ways.

Pointing to a portion of what is seen and merely indicating it is nothing like the 'artists describe their work' descriptions I have seen. I think even that would be silly 'look at the bird in my paintings' but that would leave me, still, very much open in my interpretatioins and reactions to the work.

I believe there is something of a mathematical structure or logic behind art, in practice though it requires some good discernment and subjective judgments, as do other areas which there, in practice is no 'perfect' mathematical way of defining, even if there is or 'should' be in pure theory.

As a related example, in courts, there is no perfect mathematical formula or system for defining 'pornography', so in practice, it is left up to the subjective judgments and discernments of the judges, using precedents as a guide.

The point is that when you make claims such as "the viewer is half the work", you need to support these principles. If you support them with faulty math then there is no support. — Metaphysician Undercover

As I already said, it's a metaphor, so no, that's not correct. I supported the concept by fleshing out what I mean by using the metaphor.

You are saying that "the work" is different each time it is viewed by a different person. But that's not at all true, the work stays the same, as the same piece of art, it is only viewed and interpreted differently. It is completely wrong to suggest that the interpretation which the viewer offers is actually part of the work. — Metaphysician Undercover

I'm speaking metaphorically again, which you seem unable to grasp. Of course I'm not saying the physical work itself is different each time; I would hazard to say that it's nonsensical on your part to assume that anyone could actually mean that.

If Duchamp's Fountain is unearthed 1,000 years from now by a future culture with no knowledge of him or his work, the physical piece itself will not be perceived as art. It will be perceived as a toilet at best. The toilet becomes art when the dialog between Duchamp and his audience begins. This may be an extreme example, but the ambiguity of our understanding of cave paintings and drawings from antiquity demonstrates the same principle, theoretically. Even in a less extreme example, if one of Picasso's sculptures is unearthed 1,000 years from now, it may be understood to be a piece of art, but beyond that, not much (assuming, again, that no one in the culture knows about Picasso).

That's why we have a distinction between primary and secondary sources in philosophy. This marks the difference between what the author actually has said, and how the commentators interpret what has been said. It is wrong to make the commentary part of the work, just like it is wrong to make the critic's interpretation part of the work of art. There is a distinction between the events occurring, and the narrative. — Metaphysician Undercover

To equate philosophy and art is a pretty embarrassingly erroneous assumption to make.

That is what I am talking about. The experience of the art, not the ding an sich. And that is something each of use does an incredible amount of work, mainly automatically and then alsoc consciously as we investigate portions of the painting and mull and come back to it. Because much of this is automatic and silent, we often think we are passive receivers. — Coben

Sure, each of us does "an incredible amount of work". But that work is not part of the work of the artist. Therefore it is wrong to portray the work that each of us does as constituting part of the work of the artist. If we could identify an overall project which both the artist and the viewer were working on, then the work of the artist and the work of the viewer could each be a constituent part of that overall project. But I see no such overall project, by the time the viewer sees the art piece, the artist's work on that piece is done, and the viewer is not working on the piece, but thinking about it.

To equate philosophy and art is a pretty embarrassingly erroneous assumption to make. — Noble Dust

Need I remind you, that it was you who started comparing a work of art to a word in language?
"A work of art is more akin to a word, and how that word's language is always in flux"
This it seems was part of you metaphor. So when I address you by the terms of your metaphor, this is called "embarrassingly erroneous". Therefore it appears that by your own judgement your metaphor is "embarrassingly erroneous".

That's not a good analogy at all. The analogy would be you telling me, as the creator of the landscape, so a kind of deity, that the bird is the most important thing and it symbolizes my soul or your sexual abuse.

That would completely change my experience of the landscape. — Coben

You can change the analogy in this way, if you want, but if I am the deity who created the landscape, then I have the right to make the rules as to how you may enjoy my landscape. Who cares if this completely changes the way you might experience the landscape, I am the deity creator of the landscape, it is mine, and I have the right to dictate the rules as to how you may experience it. If you come to play in my landscape, you must either play by my rules, or be punished. Sorry if this offends you, but if you only come to my landscape to get some kind of kicks, you'll have to get your kicks somewhere else, because around my landscape we don't live by "anything goes".

That's how deities tend to behave, they always seem to want people to follow rules.

Need I remind you, that it was you who started comparing a work of art to a word in language?
"A work of art is more akin to a word, and how that word's language is always in flux"
This it seems was part of you metaphor. So when I address you by the terms of your metaphor, this is called "embarrassingly erroneous". Therefore it appears that by your own judgement your metaphor is "embarrassingly erroneous". — Metaphysician Undercover

You continue to obfuscate the various points being made by both of us; you get them out of order. Now I'm spending all my energy here correcting the mistakes.

When I suggested you were equating art and philosophy, I was referencing the transition you made here:

You are saying that "the work" is different each time it is viewed by a different person. But that's not at all true, the work stays the same, as the same piece of art, it is only viewed and interpreted differently. It is completely wrong to suggest that the interpretation which the viewer offers is actually part of the work.

That's why we have a distinction between primary and secondary sources in philosophy. — Metaphysician Undercover

But now you attempted to turn that suggestion around and suggest that my saying "A work of art is more akin to a word, and how that word's language is always in flux" also equates art with philosophy in the same way you did. It does not. It likens (that's called a metaphor) art to language, not philosophy.

So when I address you by the terms of your metaphor, this is called "embarrassingly erroneous". Therefore it appears that by your own judgement your metaphor is "embarrassingly erroneous". — Metaphysician Undercover

Again, you did not address me in those terms when you equated art and philosophy; you made that equation first, and then you addressed my metaphor.

Hopefully we can now get back to my arguments (or yours, if you'd like to make any).

Remember Metaphysician Undercover likened him/herself to an Escher painting.

When I suggested you were equating art and philosophy, I was referencing the transition you made here: — Noble Dust

I wasn't "equating" anything, I was comparing the interpretation of the artist's art, to the interpretation of the philosopher's word, just like you suggested. Why would you suggest that I compare two things, and then when I do compare those two things, you claim that equating those two things is embarrassingly erroneous? Did you know already that the comparison which you were making was erroneous, and you mentioned it solely for the purpose of leading me into that embarrassing position where you could make such an accusation against me?

Again, you did not address me in those terms when you equated art and philosophy; you made that equation first, and then you addressed my metaphor. — Noble Dust

That's clearly false, the evidence is right here on the page. You made the comparison first:

A work of art is more akin to a word, and how that word's language is always in flux; words change their meaning, but they leave something of a husk behind as they change. — Noble Dust

Then I made a reply to your post:

That's why we have a distinction between primary and secondary sources in philosophy. This marks the difference between what the author actually has said, and how the commentators interpret what has been said. It is wrong to make the commentary part of the work, just like it is wrong to make the critic's interpretation part of the work of art. There is a distinction between the events occurring, and the narrative. — Metaphysician Undercover

Notice my use of the comparative phrase "just like". "It is wrong to make the commentary part of the work, just like it is wrong to make the critic's interpretation part of the work of art." Then I gave the reason why, there is a difference between the events occurring, and the narrative of the events.

Hopefully we can now get back to my arguments (or yours, if you'd like to make any). — Noble Dust

I don't see any point. I think I've demonstrated beyond the shadow of a doubt (and a doubt casts one heck of a shadow), that your argument is completely irrational. It is demonstrably wrong to portray the appreciation of the artwork as part of the artwork itself. Now, being left with no means to defend your claims, you've resorted to making false claims about what I've said.

Remember Metaphysician Undercover likened him/herself to an Escher painting. — Punshhh

At least someone understands me. Do you think an Escher could be improved with a statement? Or are we all just satisfied by saying his work is "embarrassingly erroneous"?

I am not going to get involved in this difference of approach or opinion. But I think there is a bit of crossed purposes going on.

Crossed purposes? Maybe, but what's the difference between a metaphor and crossed purposes?

I think I've demonstrated beyond the shadow of a doubt (and a doubt casts one heck of a shadow), that your argument is completely irrational. It is demonstrably wrong to portray the appreciation of the artwork as part of the artwork itself. Now, being left with no means to defend your claims, you've resorted to making false claims about what I've said. — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't think you have, and I'm confident in the argument I put forward. It's fine to disagree, but this has gotten ugly, and you continue to confuse the order of the arguments made, which I already demonstrated. I'm not intentionally making any false claims, and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you're not either. There's clearly a lot of misunderstanding and incompatibility of communication between our positions here. Best of luck.

Sure, each of us does "an incredible amount of work". But that work is not part of the work of the artist — Metaphysician Undercover

Obviously, but it's a part of the work of art as experienced. I don't think I used the pharse the work of theartist. And in the context of artists statements that inform us about what we are experiencing, this is an obvious attempt to affect our half of creating that work of art experience.

:up:

I said I wasn't going to get involved.

So now you know all this, are you to deny my artist's statement and insist that we all stay where we were before I wrote this post? — Punshhh

Any background information you could provide about a work of art would not leave us “where we were”. Any details about the artist’s biography, his time, his cultural and geographical origin and his sources of inspiration, all of it may be interesting and useful for understanding the work and appreciate it in a wider perspective.

But I would deny that all this information (which in principle could be infinite) is a part of the work itself. It’s perfectly fine and absolutely possible to enjoy it without any specific information at all. Your painting conveyed more than enough meaning at first glance to qualify as art and some might even find this new information to be unnecessary noise (are we now not allowed to think that the black shadow is standing on clouds, for example?)

If it’s really true for one particular work that it can’t exist without an artist’s statement, I would argue it’s not art at all. The language of communication for a piece of art is the one used in that art (paint for paintings etc.) and if that language doesn’t express anything, it can’t be called art any more than a baby’s babbling can be called speech.

Obviously, but it's a part of the work of art as experienced. I don't think I used the pharse the work of theartist. And in the context of artists statements that inform us about what we are experiencing, this is an obvious attempt to affect our half of creating that work of art experience. — Coben

As I told Noble Dust, this is all nonsense to me. The artist's act of creating the piece of art is an obvious attempt to affect your "work of art experience". If you reject the artist's statement on this basis, that the artist is attempting to have an affect on your experience of the artwork, then you might as well reject all artwork as well, because that's what artwork is, an attempt to affect your work of art experience

And the premise, which you cling to, that you yourself, as the viewer, has the right to create "half", or some other percentage of that "work of art experience", I've demonstrated as complete nonsense.

Let's start with a realistic premise. Let's assume that the viewer creates the "work of art experience", completely, one hundred percentage, and uses the work of art as a tool toward creating that experience. Consider therefore, that the viewer must choose the tools (works of art), which one will be using to bring about the desired experience. Can you make your argument from this perspective?

As I told Noble Dust, this is all nonsense to me. The artist's act of creating the piece of art is an obvious attempt to affect your "work of art experience". If you reject the artist's statement on this basis, that the artist is attempting to have an affect on your experience of the artwork, then you might as well reject all artwork as well, because that's what artwork is, an attempt to affect your work of art experience — Metaphysician Undercover

I made a much more complicated argument than that and the whole point is that the person is doing it in verbal manner when, most cases, the art form itself is not verbal. I am pretty sure I said this a number of times and then pointed out my specific issues with this. But here you sum me up in a position that is not remotely a charitable interpretation of mine, for example as expressed here...

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/383721

And as to this whole rights issue, one which you brought up
it
has
nothing
to
do
with
my
posts.

I never said anything about banning artist's statement. In fact I made it clear that they may be in some instances useful or good. I talked about the problem with the trend and what I see as related trends in contemporary art.

Save all this rights talk for those who are urging for legislation, rather than talking about other issues, including those you ignore when summing up my position in a way that, it seems, you can easily dismiss.

As far as the argument you are giving me, about the 100%, I think that has merit. Though why you didn't chime in immediately with this one, I can't understand. I think I prefer to think of the situation as coagency where the work of art is presented to the view by the artist, in its specificity, and the viewer moves toward the work of art also. And while the viewer does, in a sense, create 100% of the experience of the work of art, since their brains will create this internal model based on stimuli in the work of art, at the same time those stimuli were carefully chosen and arranged in relationships that the brain will automatically parallel, in the relationships in its constructed version. Those 'tools' as you put them, are not utterly malleable and will lead to parallel patterns when they stimulate the processes in the brain that reconstruct the piece of art in the mind. 50% is a bit of a dart toss in the dark and the percentages cover different categories. But for me it is better to think of a cocreation of the experience of a work of art.

Thanks for your unecessarily consdescendingly presented, yet useful, suggestion, but I don't want to go over to the 100 percent camp. I think it is a collaborative creation, at the level of experiencing the work of art.

And I hope you realize that announcing that you have demonstrated something as you did in this last post is sillly. I assume already that you believe in your conclusions and arguments. You argued it, sure.

I think the artist growing dependence on presenting the meaning of their works and what people should think about the contents is part of a trend away from skills and works including sensual AND conceptual aspects, and rather is part of a trend to see art as stimulating verbal thoughts and for people to not spend the time training in and creating sensual experiences. So they overrely on verbal thoughts, and so try to get at even more of the collaboration. I think this has worked fine, especially when new forms of modern and postmodern art, particular types, first arise. Valuable because of contrast to are with more investment in sesual aspects, valuable because they staked new ground. Ground that is being repeated, now with no new memes, generally, and absent beauty (in its broadest sense). And then there were other points Ihave raised in the thread regarding the problems which I see the greater use of artists' statements as a kind of symptom of, but also as something that undermines, when read, a part of many works of arts best possible collaborative experiences. And that knowing one is going to write one these things or is likely to...I think this also creates a kind disincentive to create something that stands on its own.

I'll save my focus in this topic for people who read and refer to my actual positions. And who can actually concede points rather than self-congratulatorily declaring themselves the winner over positions not really put forward. Should there ever be a movement to take away the right for artists to have artist statements near their work, let me know, I will join you in the fight to stop that legislation. Otherwise, bye.

I made a much more complicated argument than that and the whole point is that the person is doing it in verbal manner when, most cases, the art form itself is not verbal. I am pretty sure I said this a number of times and then pointed out my specific issues with this. — Coben

Actually, "verbal" usually distinguishes spoken from written. I think a verbal statement from the artist would be even better than a written statement, because this would be more personal. Regardless, you are the viewer, not the artist. If the piece of art contains what you call "verbal" aspects, then so be it, that is the artist's work, and the work has verbal aspects.

If you do not like the verbal aspects then you are free to express your dislike, just like you might express your dislike of any trend in art. But you speak of this statement trend as if you believe that the artist is attempting to get into your mind in some form of brainwashing. It's as if you are allowing the artist a limited access into your mind, and you're afraid that with the statements the artist will get beyond the halfway point of balance, thereby seizing control of your mind.

I think I prefer to think of the situation as coagency where the work of art is presented to the view by the artist, in its specificity, and the viewer moves toward the work of art also. — Coben

Have you ever considered the idea of simply not reading the statement? When I look at art my eye is drawn to certain aspects which appeal to me, and others kind of get ignored. If I talk to someone about the piece they might ask me about something which I haven't even really noticed, because it never attracted my attention in the same way that it attracted the attention of the other person. Why not do this with the statement, simply ignore it if it doesn't attract your attention but the rest of the art does?

Thanks for your unecessarily consdescendingly presented, yet useful, suggestion, but I don't want to go over to the 100 percent camp. I think it is a collaborative creation, at the level of experiencing the work of art. — Coben

What you don't seem to be grasping is that the viewer has the power of choice. Because of this, the artist really provides nothing at all to the phenomenological experience. You need not view any art whatsoever to have a phenomenological experience. That you choose to include some artwork into your experience is of you own making. It's not that the artist is contributing to your experience, as if there is no way to exclude the artist from your experience, you invite the art into your experience. The artist has absolutely no causal control over your phenomenological experience, so it's completely wrong to say that there is a "collaborative creation" here. The creation is all yours, because you decide whether or not to bring the art in, and your creation (your experience) will be different depending on what art you decide to bring in.

I think the artist growing dependence on presenting the meaning of their works and what people should think about the contents is part of a trend away from skills and works including sensual AND conceptual aspects, and rather is part of a trend to see art as stimulating verbal thoughts and for people to not spend the time training in and creating sensual experiences. — Coben

I know you think this, you said so already, but so what? Art goes through all sorts of different phases, different schools, etc.. If you don't like the current trend, then look at some older stuff. All you are expressing is a personal taste. You don't like the current trend, other people do like it, that's simply the way art is.

So they overrely on verbal thoughts, and so try to get at even more of the collaboration. — Coben

There is no "collaboration", you are a free willing human being with choice. I think you're a conspiracy theorist. You seem to believe that the artists are conspiring to take away your freedom to control your own aesthetic experience. You think that the artists already control half that experience, and you're afraid that the artists are trying to get the other half now. Are you paranoid that the artists might get right into your mind as brainwashing agents?

You seem to be reducing the discussion to the physical object of the artwork. I have no objection to this, this a a focus of mine too. But I acknowledge an intellectual aspect both in its creation and appreciation.

I agree with your point about a work which relies on the statement for it to be art, then it may not be art. This is why I am hostile to conceptual art.

You seem to be reducing the discussion to the physical object of the artwork. — Punshhh

Despite the fact that many here are arguing on the premise that the artwork is something more than the physical object, I see no principles to support this assumption. The other aspects, creation and appreciation, are distinct activities which must be considered separately. If they are not considered separately, then we get conflation of these two, as if they are equally essential to the existence of the artwork. But in reality creation is essential, while appreciation is not. Therefore we must uphold the real division or boundary between these two, and that is the real existence of the physical object, as a boundary of separation between them. When the artwork is respected as such, the divisional boundary between the creator and the appreciator, we can also have proper respect for both the creator and the appreciator, having distinct functions.

Focusing on a physical art object narrows the scope of the discussion, in my view. All art is physical in some way of course, but poetry and music are communicated via sound (or sight, when read off the page), and so their interaction with time is different than the plastic arts. This relationship to time is key to understanding why any given work in any given medium is, indeed, something more than a physical object. The physical nature of a plastic art object is such that it's relationship to time is indeterminate; I can look at a photo of a Picasso on my phone for a few seconds, for instance, if it's my wallpaper. Or I can go to MoMA and really spend time with a piece. I might spend all that time and still not get much out of it.

Music, on the other hand, has a determinate relationship with time. A performance or recording of a work is however many seconds, minutes, or hours long. If written music on the page represents a sort of 1st and 2nd dimension, then the 3rd dimensional aspect it seemingly lacks is represented in sound, over a set period of time. I can imagine this aspect of music as analogous to being able to walk around a sculpture in 360 degrees.

The difference in how these mediums relate to time demonstrates that the physical aspect of a work in any medium is only one variable in the totality of a work. Time and it's relationship to the physicality of a medium is another. Existentially, total experience of a work can't be tied down to one or more of the physical senses by which the work was apprehended.

These are just more layers to the onion of art experience, and the complex relationship between art and audience.

What you say is a matter for philosophers, not for artists, or viewers.
How familiar are you with artistic developments of the 20th Century? Because this distinction and all other attempts restrict art were challenged up to the point where everything was art and anything could be art. I pointed this out in the other thread, " where is art going next".

This development made any analysis by philosophers irrelevant, just like it made any comments by critics irrelevant, to art.