The painting will always convey more. — T Clark

From where, to where?

Display might be a better choice.

I like the quote.

:up:

So, yes, the best music and art is profound, even if it doesn't mean anything. — T Clark

Agree. Of course there is also the issue of what the composer was trying to 'say' with the music. Much classical orchestral music (for instance) is intended to evoke particular emotion and is often intended to tell a kind of narrative - often to accompany a poem or fable or story.

The problem is people hear what they hear and one person's exquisite musical narrative is another's cacophonous nonsense. No use telling a 16 year-old kid who is into K-pop that Mahler's 6th, a tragic symphony, may be the fist nihilistic composition in music.

Display might be a better choice. — Banno

I was using Joshs' language. I think "convey" and "display" are both fine.

Oh, Ok. Then I'll address my remarks to @Joshs; "convey" implies that something moved from here to there, so one might be tempted to ask what it is that was moved, and set that out in words. But nothing - no thing - was moved.

Would mind independent objects be what Kant called "Thing-in-Itself"? Kant seems think they exist, but outside of the reason's boundary. They cannot be known, but are postulated? — Corvus

I think you have the gist of it. It makes no sense to infer a mind independent object, since we can never encounter them , since we need to construe ( perceive in terms of historical understanding ) an object with our mind before we can become conscious of it. This is how constructivism would put it, and it leads to an idealistic understanding.

Oh, Ok. Then I'll address my remarks to Joshs; "convey" implies that something moved from here to there, so one might be tempted to ask what it is that was moved, and set that out in words. But nothing - no thing - was moved. — Banno

Convey (from web) - Make (an idea, impression, or feeling) known or understandable to someone.

Second definition.

so one might be tempted to ask what it is that was moved, and set that out in words. But nothing - no thing - was moved. — Banno

Information was moved.

Information always exists as, and travels over, a physical substrate - as the perturbations of the substrate.

The perturbations ( neural activity ) in an artist's mind, are expressed in their actions or an artefact, the information of which is conveyed to the audience as vibration ( music ), or light waves, to be reconstituted as perturbations of neural activity.

So the mind activity of one mind finds it's way into another mind, via information.

Yep. More detail:

convey (v.)
early 14c., conveien, "to go along with;" late 14c., "to carry, transport;" from Anglo-French conveier, Old French convoiier "to accompany, escort" (Modern French convoyer), from Vulgar Latin *conviare "to accompany on the way," from assimilated form of Latin com "with, together" (see con-) + via "way, road" (from PIE root *wegh- "to go, move, transport in a vehicle").
Meaning "communicate by transmission" is from late 14c. Sense of "act of transferring property from one person to another" is from 1520s. It was a euphemism for "steal" 15c.-17c., which helped broaden its meaning. Related: Conveyed; conveying.

What I would avoid is falling into the notion of meaning as the movement of something from one place to another.

(Edit:

Information was moved. — Pop

- like that. Maybe this needs a thread of its own.)

've found that a better question is to ask how the thing in itself is different from the thing. — Banno

The thing might refer to either or both of the thing-in-itself and its subjective manifestations. The thing-in-itself explicitly excludes all subjective manifestations.

Information was moved.
— Pop
- like that. Maybe this needs a thread of its own.) — Banno

Yes, I've been meaning to do a "What is information thread", but time is a little constrained at the moment. Perhaps on the weekend.

Why do we have two terms - "information" and "meaning"? How do they differ, what do they have in common?

There isn't a clear and simple definition of information. I am using the Platonic kind - the perturbation of a substance is information about it. How everything arises from this, including meaning is not obvious. It really needs much more description and debate, so I would prefer to do in a dedicated thread, which I hope you will contribute to.

Sure. Set it up. Although I suspect that we will be approaching the topic in quite different ways.

are you just elucidating what was said? — Banno

Yes. Just that.

the explanation for one's actions is post hoc. — Banno

Yes, but I was talking about causality, not explanation.

expecting actions to be the expression of explicit deliberation. — Banno

Only the intentional acts.

This is far from simple.... — Banno

Simple = boring. Wouldn’t you rather be challenged than bored?

what the painting conveys is different from what any interpretation provides. — T Clark

Isnt the painting itself an interpretation, and always a slightly different one every time we return to it , the same way that a novel or a poem means exactly how one interprets it at any given time , but is interpreted slightly differently every time we return to it? Or these words I’m writing now and you are reading now, don’t we , each in our own way, see their meaning as exactly what they are, at any given reading, which changes its sense from
reading to reading?

As long as we are conscious we are construing our world moment to moment on the basis of how the next event is similar and different with respect to the previous. This is the basis of all language. As we perform this construing moment to moment , we perceive each event both in terms of it’s unique content and its affective relation to what went before it , how it either carries forward or changes a previous mood , a feeling disposition, a motivational attitude , the way in which events matter to us.

Music is a language that particularly well suited to convey these shifts in feeling from moment to moment. That does not mean that it is content free. It can’t be , because the shifts i. feeling that we experience when we listen to music have to be about something. Music is ideational. It tells a story via affectivity but also via a vague, unspecified content that is undergoing these feeling and attitude fluctuations. One can think of notes as profoundly impressionistic words. Written and spoken words , on the other hand, ade best suited for conveying crystallized content , leaving out what is nonetheless intrinsic to their sense , their affectivity.

Every word you are reading right now presents its own music. It either carries forward a previous feeling or changes it. It has built in emojis, which we hear in spoken intonation and emphasis but have to fill in ourselves when we read a written text . But no word ever spoken or written or received with the intent to mean something is devoid of its own accompanying musical feeling tone. The feeling tone is always intrinsic to the context of the word ( what the person speaking or writing it intends to convey by it or how the recipient intends to interpret it ), not separate and added on.

So words can be impoverished in the encoding of affect, and music without lyrics is impoverished in fleshed-out meaning content , but words and music convey both affect and sense content. What is only conveyed implicitly in one language via the contextual intent of the speaker and recipient) is conveyed explicitly in the other.

Regarding your quote , of course when we hear the first notes of a song we notice the physical instruments -and other such surface details. But as we become absorbed i. what the music is saying , where it is taking us, we are transported , just as when reading text we at first notice physical details of the page , the font and size and color
of the letters. If it is an engaging novel , by the time we get caught up in it we may complete forget we are reading words on a page. Instead , we are in the drama.

The perturbations ( neural activity ) in an artist's mind, are expressed in their actions or an artefact, the information of which is conveyed to the audience as vibration ( music ), or light waves, to be reconstituted as perturbations of neural activity.

So the mind activity of one mind finds it's way into another mind, via information. — Pop

You're describing art as if it's like a phone call. I think it can be sort of like that, but sometimes an artist might make a painting that she herself doesn't understand, and wouldn't be able to put the experience of creating it in words.

the perturbation of a substance is information about it. — Pop

That's basically the scientific definition. Information is distinctions.

"convey" implies that something moved from here to there, so one might be tempted to ask what it is that was moved, and set that out in words. But nothing - no thing - was moved. — Banno

Yes, if we think of convey via the metaphor of displacement in physical space. But instead we can think of words like convey , express , transport ,articulate, trasmit, elucidate, repeat , not as the spatial displacement of an unchanged entity but as a reproduction which alters what it reproduces in the transmitting of it. To convey a meaning is to alter what is expressed.

You've raised a lot of good points. Let's start out with an overview. The way of thinking I'm describing in my posts on this thread is not the only way of seeing things. It's a way that I find effective in helping me understand the way the world works. I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just saying I've found this helpful and maybe you should try it out to see if you like it. And you don't even have to choose. You can think of it either way or both ways. Or maybe my way of seeing things doesn't work for you.

Isnt the painting itself an interpretation, and always a slightly different one every time we return to it, the same way that a novel or a poem means exactly how one interprets it at any given time — Joshs

Regarding your quote , of course when we hear the first notes of a song we notice the physical instruments -and other such surface details. — Joshs

Interpretation means "the action of explaining the meaning of something." As I've said, I don't think music and art mean anything. No, I don't think visual art tells a story. As the quote I provided says "the music meant nothing at all but what it was." That means all the music, not just the first few notes.

Now about poems and novels - I'm going to punt on that. There is a sense where they don't mean anything in the same sense that art and music don't, but I'm not interested in defending that position right now.

Music is a language that particularly well suited to convey these shifts in feeling from moment to moment. That does not mean that it is content free. — Joshs

I haven't thought about this before - do only things that mean something count as content? Is music content free? I'll have to think about that.

As long as we are conscious we are construing our world moment to moment on the basis of how the next event is similar and different with respect to the previous. This is the basis of all language. As we perform this construing moment to moment , we perceive each event both in terms of it’s unique content and its affective relation to what went before it , how it either carries forward or changes a previous mood , a feeling disposition, a motivational attitude , the way in which events matter to us. — Joshs

I'm going beyond my level of expertise, but I think you're right - we are constructing and reconstructing our world on a continuing basis. I don't see that as primarily a linguistic process.

You're describing art as if it's like a phone call. I think it can be sort of like that, but sometimes an artist might make a painting that she herself doesn't understand, and wouldn't be able to put the experience of creating it in words. — frank

Yes, that is true. Nevertheless the work is always presented within a structure, and is symbolic of the artist's mind activity, and so as structured information makes its way to the mind of another, where it either resonates or does not. I have a definition of art here.

I admit I could have phrased it better - I'll work on it. :smile:

Yes, that is true. Nevertheless the work is always presented within a structure, and is symbolic of the artist's mind activity, and so as structured information makes its way to the mind of another, where it either resonates or does not. I have a definition of art here. — Pop

All true. I would just say the piece itself is like a seed. Some seed falls on rocky soil and comes to nothing. Some seed falls on fertile soil and becomes a jungle.

A piece of art is like a single child who grows up to be a million different people, each in its own psychic universe.

All true. I would just say the piece itself is like a seed. Some seed falls on rocky soil and comes to nothing. Some seed falls on fertile soil and becomes a jungle. — frank

This relates to what @Joshs is saying above and what Shannon calls entropy of information. The information that is understood is in some way already established information. The information that is not understood is potentially new information, that may in time be understood, through a revisiting and reinterpretation of the work.

A piece of art is like a single child who grows up to be a million different people, each in its own psychic universe. — frank

That is spot on, and beautifully expressed. :up:

To convey a meaning is to alter what is expressed. — Joshs

This maintains the misleading reification that there is a something that is expressed, something reproduced. It isn't always so. Better to say something is done. Instead of looking for meaning, look at what we do when we use words.

Addenda: Just read your reply to @T Clark; nice work.

This relates to what Joshs is saying above and what Shannon calls entropy of information. The information that is understood is in some way already established information. The information that is not understood is potentially new information, that may in time be understood, through a revisiting and reinterpretation of the work. — Pop

Are you identifying the artist's neurological states as the source data? Then the artwork is the channel and the viewer is receiving information that she uses to reconstruct the artist's neurological states in her own head?

Are you identifying the artist's neurological states as the source data? Then the artwork is the channel and the viewer is receiving information that she uses to reconstruct the artist's neurological states in her own head? — frank

Exactly. That is precisely what I'm trying to get at. In some sense the pattern in one mind becomes a pattern in another mind, and If it resonates similarly in both minds, then it is understood, becomes meaningful, and is successful.

This is the difference between good art and bad art. Not so much a matter of artworthiness, but a matter of whether that communication took effect, and had the desired result.

Exactly. That is precisely what I'm trying to get at. In some sense the pattern in one mind becomes a pattern in another mind, and If it resonates similarly in both minds, then it is understood, becomes meaningful, and is successful. — Pop

It's definitely an interesting idea. I'm reading a sci fi novel now in which one person's memories and skills can be recorded as something like ROM and can be installed in someone else's head.

It makes sense, but I'm not sure we know enough about consciousness yet to know that this is really what's happening.

This is the difference between good art and bad art. Not so much a matter of artworthiness, but a matter of whether that communication took effect, and had the desired result. — Pop

Could be. I often wonder what an aesthetic sense really is. If I follow my aesthetics while gardening, am I using the scene around me to transmit information about my neurological states?

Could be. I often wonder what an aesthetic sense really is. If I follow my aesthetics while gardening, am I using the scene around me to transmit information about my neurological states? — frank

You are making choices, and they are often aesthetic choices.

You can make your garden as you personally would like to see it, or you can make it to conform to an aesthetic sense of what a garden should look like in your community.

An artist makes these same choices. They can discover for themselves what their personal aesthetic is, or they can pick a demographic, and conceive what an average understanding of art is in that demographic, and make an art product accordingly. This is what I would call Kitch art.

To some extent, this is also the case for contemporary artists. They make art to interact with an art scene.

This maintains the misleading reification that there is a something that is expressed, something reproduced. It isn't always so. Better to say something is done. Instead of looking for meaning, look at what we do when we use words. — Banno

There is, must always be something that is expressed, something that is repeated, but in so doing the repetition alters. But don’t make the mistake of treating what is repeated as a presence, an object or subject.

I will defer to Derrida on the relation between reproduction, repetition, meaning , subjectivity and pragmatic ‘doing’ in your sense.

Repetition is altering, and this is what Derrida calls `iterability':

"The iterability of an element divides its own identity a priori, even without taking into account that this identity can only determine or delimit itself through differential relations to other elements and hence that it bears the mark of this difference. It is because this iterability is differential, within each individual "element" as well as between "elements", because it splits each element while constituting it, because it marks it with an articulatory break, that the remainder, although indispensable, is never that of a full or fulfilling presence; it is a differential structure escaping the logic of presence..(LI53)."

"Through the possibility of repeating every mark as the same, [iterability] makes way for an idealization that seems to deliver the full presence of ideal objects..., but this repeatability itself ensures that the full presence of a singularity thus repeated comports in itself the reference to something else, thus rending the full presence that it nevertheless announces"(LI29)). ...the possibility of its being repeated another time-breaches, divides, expropriates the "ideal" plenitude or self-presence of intention,...of all adequation between meaning and saying. Iterability alters...leaves us no room but to mean (to say) something that is (already, always, also) other than what we mean (to say) (Limited, Inc,p.61)." "The break intervenes from the moment that there is a mark, at once. It is iterability itself, ..passing between the re- of the repeated and the re- of the repeating, traversing and transforming repetition.”

This situation is valid not only for linguistic signs, but, Derrida says, for all of what philosophy calls experience, "even the experience of being"(Limited,Inc.,p.9)

So what is left of idealizing notions like self, ipseity, internality , intrinsicality , subjectivity and objectivity is the element, the mark , which is only a differential, an in-between.

There is, must always be something that is expressed, something that is repeated — Joshs

Why?