Is there a general philosophical concept that successfully describes why symbolic things have emotional meaning to an audience as opposed to the creator? — TheVeryIdea

I'd look to psychology or neurology.

The writer and reader both contribute to discussion but the reader is the one who inputs meaning(i.e. meaning isn't extracted). Think of English Language: letters, words and phrases. You have whirlwinds of alphabets and dictionary terminology in your mind and when you read -^ this text, you attribute phonology and your own vocabulary to it.

Is there a general philosophical concept that successfully describes why symbolic things have emotional meaning to an audience as opposed to the creator? — TheVeryIdea

That's a very difficult one. There is a thread here, on art and its relation to information theory: "the definition of art": https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/7630/the-definition-of-art

it tries, very interestingly, to capture art within an abstract formal framework. I'm not sure if that can help in explaining art. To measure if a piece of art is loved objectively or not. I'm not even sure that philosophy should only be about inventing abstract formal systems at all. Sometimes it seems that philosophy, or at least its western incarnation, is reduced to just that. And an abstract quibbling about it. The best way to approach art, I think, is by giving concrete examples. Not by giving an explanation of it in the framework of a formal and abstract system. For example: What are the similarities, if any, between cubism and dadaism? Are they defined in the same context, and if so, how does that look? Is science art? Experiments being the artwork, together with theoretical models? What expresses art? Is there a common (which in the thread I mentioned seems to be the case)? Etc..

The writer and reader both contribute to discussion but the reader is the one who inputs meaning(i.e. meaning isn't extracted). — Varde

Don't you think the writer does the same?

Gadamer's writings deal extensively with symbolicity, aesthetics, and hermeneutics, which seems related to your interests. Truth and Method is an excellent read.

As he is writing, but not afterward(writers read as they write; meaning isn't word but mind side). Any intended meaning comes out in the greater discussion and is restored in the best or worst possible way.

The writer is his own reader, the very first reader. The symbols can be compared with any symbols in visual art. There are a lot of different languages, and each language expresses a vision or thought or feeling of the writer (or painter, photographer, mathematician, sculpturer, collagist, physicist, etc.). Some languages can't be translated into one another (incommensurability). Anyhow, I can't see why a writer doesn't give meaning to his work.

What is it that gives symbols meaning? — TheVeryIdea

It must be past experiences, not necessarily memorized.

Consider an extreme, a person living in a white room since it was born (something like madhouse)
That person has no experiences, symbols mean nothing to such person.

Imagine if we both had a painting of the Mona Lisa. I give it to you, you give it to me. You can try see what I meant by it, I can you.

However, I do not input meaning into the frame, that is an ordinance.

You were able to input meaning relative to my intended communication based on your sense of the situation, but you weren't able to extract any meaning from the painting other than what it originally expressed, plus your sense of the situation(hence whirlwinds of alphabets and dictionary terminology).

Thanks, I have seen that art thread, however my interest at the moment is more around why some things make a connection with an audience and some don't and also why some symbology which might be low hanging fruit in terms of getting audience engagement (a cute puppy) is considered lesser than something which is less approachable but when approached has for some people a deeper meaning. What even is a "deeper meaning"?


Thanks, I've found that online and will read it.

Thanks, I have seen that art thread, however my interest at the moment is more around why some things make a connection with an audience — TheVeryIdea

I think modern mass media have their influence (though it's mainly quantitative). Maybe even gossip and knowledge about the artist. Banksy tried to sell his work incognito once, on a local art-market. Even after lowering his price, people wouldn't buy!

That person has no experiences, symbols mean nothing to such person. — SpaceDweller

But show that person a blue sky, perhaps that instantly means more to them than it does to you and I. I take the point about it being based on experience but my life experience is reasonably typical of a white male and yet I have never understood why the music of U2 is so popular, I have no emotional engagement with it whatsoever and yet there are many other rock bands from the same period that I do engage with.

Any intended meaning comes out in the greater discussion — Varde

Doesn't this mean the writer has put meaning in his art? Like any artist has, for that matter?

the words aren't his art, they belong to the state/country.

the words aren't his art. — Varde

I think the writer disagrees. He wants to express a view or feeling or thought. He can do that by yelling in public or by using written words. Both forms of expression are art.it would be like calling an experiment at CERN not the art.

I'm thinking mainly about works of art here but there is likely a more general application. By "symbols" I am thinking of those things within an art work that draw us in and with which we make an emotional connection. — TheVeryIdea

I don't know that I can speak to the artistic symbolism which you mention, not being entirely sure of your definition of this. I believe that symbols in general, though, achieve meaning for humans through significance and representation. Indeed, these are the things which define a symbol, and determine what is a symbol for us, and what is not. An object becomes a symbol when it comes to signify and represent some other thing, especially some abstract thing, to a person, and a symbol is strengthened as said signification and representation intensify. Perhaps this applies to what you view as symbols in art, as well?

Can you give an example of the symbols you have in mind? Do you have a specific set of symbols in mind? A dadaist, being against all programmed art, has a different symbolic than the conceptual formalism. Is there a common you are looking for? A common maybe between artist and public. Doesn't the public need a "training" first? Or is there a natural common, like the person in the white room, when set free, will experience?

I take the point about it being based on experience but my life experience is reasonably typical of a white male and yet I have never understood why the music of U2 is so popular, I have no emotional engagement with it whatsoever — TheVeryIdea

subconscious.

We also have dreams, dreams are subconscious, they usually do not make any sense compared to reality that we experience from day to day.
However if we tell dreams to psychiatrist he will definitely "unlock" them at some point because in dreams we "see" things which we suppress in reality. That's how brain "takes a rest"
We can't suppress dreams because during sleep we have no control over our mind.

Symbols however are reality, unknown feelings that you describe toward symbols is I would say a blend of subconscious and awareness.

Perhaps "symbol" wasn't the best word to use but it is the only word I have at the moment. There are certain images, sounds, phrases which are found in art works with which people generally find an emotional connection. By symbol I have in mind things like a picture with a crumbling castle on a hill in the background, a cute puppy, a certain chord sequence in music.

Ah! You mean like a skull being the symbol of vanity? And speaking of music, there is a simple transition from tones in the theme of Interstellar, that movie. That seems to touch one's emotion. It brings tears to my eye if I hear it. Is finding these tones the secret of art? The why is a different question. Although knowing why can help in finding. Dunno how this translates to visual art. Is there a painting which makes one cry? And I don't mean tears of boredom.

My two cents.

Whatever something is, it is that. Then a meaning is attached to it. This is done in obvious and not-so-obvious ways. Consider this meaning to be its generic, intended, conventional meaning. On this, either through this or as an association, another meaning is given, meaning specific, peculiar to an individual. Thus, when one sees an apple, there's the apple, what the apple's intended meaning is and what apples mean to you, personally.

Following some reading around 's post I was lead to "Intersubjectivity" which seems to be the area of thinking that I was looking for. More reading in that area coing up

:up:

why some things make a connection with an audience and some don't — TheVeryIdea

Why does any sight, sound, touch, taste or smell give rise to a subjective emotion. Such as the sight of a sunset, the sound of a bird, the touch of velvet, the taste of wine or the smell of a rose.

The sight of a sunset may arouse in the observer an emotion of delight. Monet's Sunset in Venice may arouse in the observer an emotion of delight. The sunset has meaning to us because it gives us an emotion of delight.

Why would the sunset give us an emotion of delight. Perhaps such experiences are of either general or particular evolutionary benefit.

As described in the Wikipedia article Evolutionary Aesthetics - "Evolutionary aesthetics refers to evolutionary psychology theories in which the basic aesthetic preferences of Homo sapiens are argued to have evolved in order to enhance survival and reproductive success. Based on this theory, things like colour preference, preferred mate body ratios, shapes, emotional ties with objects, and many other aspects of the aesthetic experience can be explained with reference to human evolution"

IE, perhaps some things have emotional meaning because they offer either general or particular evolutionary benefit. Perhaps they offer an evolutionary aesthetic.

IE, perhaps some things have emotional meaning because they offer either general or particular evolutionary benefit. Perhaps they offer an evolutionary aesthetic. — RussellA

I agree that some things probably do such as the sunsets you mention but then one might expect everyone to have similar preferences. In other things, such as music, why do I like some types of music and not others. Is there an evolutionary drive to listen to music and if so why don't we all like the same music?

There is perhaps an interesting distinction here, one can see that we like cute animals because big eyes relative to head size is like human babies and there is an evolutionary drive to be attracted to babies so that they survive. However other more complex symbology, which is often seen as operating at a higher level, is more intellectual and less evolutionary, less base-instinct and perhaps that is why we value it more.

]By "symbols" I am thinking of those things within an art work that draw us in and with which we make an emotional connection.
Some art works, music, paintings, photographs, etc. have significant meaning to some people — TheVeryIdea

The meaning of symbols, as of everything else, refers normally to a mental, intellectual process. The word "meaning" means roughly "what words, ideas and actions signify to us". So, we cannot talk about "emotional meaning". We can talk instead about "emotional impact or effect". And we can also talk about "symbolic meaning".

Moreover, we cannot talk about "making an emotional connection" with anything. Emotions occur. They are effects. We can respond emotionally, we can have an emotion as a result of something (thought, action, event, image, sound, memory), etc. but we cannot make an emotional contact or connection with something. These are important points for your topic.

Therefore, the title of your topic ("What is it that gives symbols meaning?") refers to a mental and not an emotional process and thus it is irrelevant with your description of the topic which is based on emotions.

But your title has itself an important flaw. The question of the topic "What is it that gives symbols meaning?" is based on a wrong assumption: that "something" gives a meaning to symbols. A meaning can only be created, exist and given only by us. When we ask e.g. what is the meaning of a word, we have to think about it and retrieve it from our mind, either from memory or by analysis and reasoning. And that would be the meaning of that word for us. It may be also what other people have in mind, in which case we talk about a "common meaning" or an "agreed upon meaning".

Anyway, since I got involved in this, and after having described the essence of and relation between "symbols" and "meaning", I can pass to the subject of art ...

When we are talking about the "symbolic meaning" of things, we mean not what things represent for us, instead of what they commonly mean literally. We say, for example: a white dove symbolizes peace, the eagle is a symbol of the United States, the lion is a symbol of strength, flags are symbols of countries, and so on. Symbols need not be commonly recognized as such, as in the examples I just given. We often create symbols of our own. Some things symbolize, represent, have a special meaning for us regarding some other things, persons, events etc. in our life. We can call these "personal" symbols.

And now I can now talk about emotion, by simply saying that any thing can create in us some emotion. It can be a simple thing, like a shiny green pebble: it can remind us of a beach we have been in the past. Or a more complicated thing, like a ship: it can remind us of a trip we did. We can say they these things act as "symbols" that represent special things in our life. And their remembrance may create an emotion in us, which can range from barely noticeable to very strong. In this case, we can call them "emotional symbols".

The subject can be expanded to a considerable degree, but I better stop here! :smile:

Consider traffic lights. One might say that red means stop because people stop when the red light shows, and equally that people stop when the red light shows because red means stop. This is the social construction of meaning. One learns the meaning, one acts on the meaning and, one's action exemplifies and conveys the meaning. In other words (that will become boring if you hang around here long enough) "meaning is use". And usage is customary.

one might expect everyone to have similar preferences — TheVeryIdea

Wikipedia Novelty Seeking writes - "In psychology, novelty seeking (NS) is a personality trait associated with exploratory activity in response to novel stimulation, impulsive decision making, extravagance in approach to reward cues, quick loss of temper, and avoidance of frustration. Although the exact causes for novelty seeking behaviours is unknown, there may be a link to genetics". This novelty gene is thought to appear in a portion of the human population, something that may explain the differences in our temperaments.

IE, as the worlds of art are fueled by a thirst for novelty, novel creations also carry their own aesthetic merit.

However other more complex symbology, which is often seen as operating at a higher level, is more intellectual and less evolutionary, less base-instinct and perhaps that is why we value it more. — TheVeryIdea

As every object has a temperature, every object is an artwork and has an aesthetic, but not all artworks are of the same quality, as not every object is of the same temperature.

Some artwork appeals to our simplistic nature, such as Bob Ross's Mountain with Lake, and some artwork appeals to our more sophisticated nature, such as Monet's Sunset in Venice.

Simple is different to simplistic, in that Matisse's Cut-Outs are simple, yet sophisticated.

However, the intellect is a product of evolution, meaning that even the most sophisticated aesthetic is still a product of evolution.

By "symbols" I am thinking of those things within an art work that draw us in and with which we make an emotional connection. ... Is there a general philosophical concept that successfully describes why symbolic things have emotional meaning to an audience as opposed to the creator? — TheVeryIdea

Philosophy is a rational enterprise that has, following Plato, been divorced from creative arts. The notion that art is technical imitation persists and much vulgar critique is still based on perfection of depiction. A lifelike cute puppy will always sell.

Symbolic things are not philosophical but social and cultural. Art that rides the memes, even better creates one will be judged as great. The artist who works on expressing personal psychological meaning starts out alone. Should the expression turn out to evoke emotional meaning from the viewer/audience then it is successful. Prediction ought to depend on knowing the inclinations of one's intended audience. Why are Michelangelo's Pieta and the Mona Lisa vastly popular while the artistically much greater Slaves at the Uffizi Gallery less so?

We have no idea.

We can gesture at some vague notions of "symmetry", or "simplicity" or "elegance", and have not a clue why we find things meaningful in the arts.