lets say I was inspired by this manifesto, how exactly would I construct a review in this manner?
I would be glad to discuss the concept/project with you. In addition, I’m particularly looking for criticism about my writing (is it readable? is it logically sound? is it repeating something that already exists?). You can message me if you’re interested in reading the book or knowing more about the project, or we can discuss things here. — thaumasnot
I do tend to conflate interpretation and reviewing. I’m not rigorous about it, so please bear with me. — thaumasnot
I just finished a book about “conceptual reconstructionism,” — thaumasnot
Conceptual reconstructionism can be seen as a style of interpretation (of art and various other types of content) that consciously avoids value judgments and focuses on the “reconstruction” of works, which is the process of looking at (and transcribing) what I call their “medium-specific narratives.” The main motivation is a dissatisfaction with reviewing and analysis in general and how they fail to capture a certain uniqueness in certain works. — thaumasnot
Under careful examination, the description is a grab-bag of geographical, economical, political, cultural and demographical considerations which give rise to a mosaic. That is, it is based on juxtaposition rather than other types of relation (temporal order, cause-effect, deduction, formal similarity, etc.). It characteristically builds up into a familiar “messy” whole: while it is conventional and reads well, the mosaic typically doesn’t have a clear direction, — thaumasnot
Consuming reviews and interpretations can be:
1. for information
2. for pleasure
The mosaic suits the consumption for information. — thaumasnot
In the context of the consumption for pleasure, we enjoy the work’s content united to the mosaic of interpretation, although the connection has a fundamentally conjectural quality. Take the live performance of a song. The enjoyment of the song is heightened by the belief in a certain connection to the musicians, the technicality of their performance, how they seem to enjoy themselves too, etc. Even if the connection is real, the conjecturing is always in the background: the audience always has to transcend a fundamental doubt, however small, regarding the connection (playback, autotune, whether the performance is that difficult to pull off, and so on). — thaumasnot
A notable labelling act is the value judgment. A statement such as “I like this work” is always a highly compromised abstraction of a rich experience. It tries to cram a more or less unique cognitive process into one quantity (informal or numerical, it doesn’t matter). — thaumasnot
The interpretation of the average value doesn’t match the actual experiencing of content, which is a process with a narrative quality. Not narrative in the sense of a traditional story, but in a medium-specific sense. For example, if the medium is painting, a medium-specific narrative is based on visual perceptions (“events”) and how they relate to each other (through morphology, color, transformation, topology, etc.) on a timeline affixed to the viewer’s roaming gaze. Even in a text-based medium, a medium-specific narrative doesn’t always coincide with the traditional concept of story or plot. That’s because medium-specific specificity isn’t so much about what the words mean, but how they are told. — thaumasnot
The interpretation of the medium-specific narrative restores the granularity, temporality and epiphanic quality of content... Reconstruction is a product of the interpretation of the medium-specific narratives. It consists in transcribing a medium-specific narrative perceived in a work. — thaumasnot
The interest of reconstruction is in pushing the scope of the perceived narrative to the physical boundaries of the medium. — thaumasnot
Reconstruction is based on 2 conventions... Conventional medium delimitation... Pure referentiality — thaumasnot
The mosaic, as a format of content, is just one symptom of amnesic thought processes that forget narrative relations, leading to a simplistic interpretation of information and reality, with unfortunate philosophical and cultural consequences like excessive vulgarization and false lifestyle dichotomies (for example, being a commercially successful mainstream artist versus staying “authentic” and underground). In particular, value-based interpretation creates artificial communication barriers that become social barriers. Role segregation is a consequence of the opacity of value judgments (e.g., a renowned critic’s opinion is unfalsifiable but considered authoritative), and feeds into an inferiority complex. It paints “great” artists as geniuses, and “great” critics as authority figures. — thaumasnot
With the focus of interpretation moving away from value judgments, not only do the critics lose all their privileges, but the gravity center of communities, now educated on on the sterile and manipulative aspects of value, shifts to the sharing of perceived content. Let me quote a random thread about a game on a gaming forum: — thaumasnot
The focus on experiencing individual works and what makes each unique (as medium-specific narratives rather than consumerist novelties based on aesthetics, theme, and so on) directly contradicts the need for grand theories (what is Art, what is great Art, etc.). Reconstruction isn’t so much a theory as the cognitive process of finding medium-specific narratives. — thaumasnot
You can't turn art into words, even verbal art like poetry or literature. Interpretation, review, whatever you want to call it can only legitimately address the viewer's/reader's experience. Ok, enough of that. — T Clark
Sure, if value judgement is all there is. On the other hand, why would I interpret something that wasn't at least interesting? I write reviews on Amazon, Yelp, or Chowhound from time to time, almost all for things I have strong feelings about or interest in. I've been known to end a review with "I love this book." — T Clark
I'm interested in this, especially in media where I am not familiar with technical aspects. I know that bluegrass and old time country music sound and feel different, but what is it about them that makes that difference? — T Clark
I'm trying to figure out what, exactly, this means. As I said, I think I have work to do. — T Clark
I need to see some examples. I see you have provided at least one in later posts. That's the homework. — T Clark
This gets at a question a lot of unsophisticated people like me have about art. Sure, the Mona Lisa is a nice painting about a pretty woman. What's so great about it. — T Clark
I also only interpret something I find interesting. The only difference is that I don’t try to articulate _why_ it matters to me (which is actually impossible because taste is not Ascommunicable), but the _what_, and this “what” happens to be objective, so we all win. — thaumasnot
The medium-specific narratives are genre-less (or cross-genre, if you will). They actually show music in a light that make genre/subgenre considerations pretty much worthless if you find value in medium-specific narratives (which is my case). — thaumasnot
Idem — thaumasnot
Actually, my goal is NOT to explain why this or that work is great. This is actually the contrary. My goal is to show content in a certain way that was overlooked and may actually the most important thing. In the case of Mona Lisa, I have actually nothing to report (for me it’s just straightforward artwork worthlessly hyped by interpretation and the context it brings with it). — thaumasnot
I'm not sure about this. I find that taste is one of the primary things I find meaningful and useful in a review. A good reviewer is trying to share his taste with me. Share, not impose. — T Clark
For my money the key fact about art is in the aesthetic experience - there is always a risk in analysis that such an enterprise may rob a work of its reason for being and miss the point. This process can be like people with no sense of humour trying to explain the punchline of a joke.
Generally however I want value judgements from my reviewing. It's the main reason I would read a review. From criticism, what I want is further information to enrich my understanding of a work. I think you are aiming at the latter. — Tom Storm
It's a fascinating area and my most acrimonious discussions with others over the years have not involved religion or politics, but art and how it can be understood and assessed. — Tom Storm
The OP seems to be working towards trying to capture the uniqueness in a work that may have been missed by conventional means of discussing works. I think this has merit. But to me this will often be a side dish to the main course. In some art what makes it 'unique' might be the least interesting aspect of that work. — Tom Storm
Well written perspective but I confess it was long and detailed and I struggled to understand some of your specifics. But it's good to see this kind of content. — Tom Storm
The OP seems to be working towards trying to capture the uniqueness in a work that may have been missed by conventional means of discussing works. I think this has merit. But to me this will often be a side dish to the main course. In some art what makes it 'unique' might be the least interesting aspect of that work. — Tom Storm
Your conceptual reconstruction of Ode on a Grecian Urn is what I expected from what you described. I can see the value and agree it might be helpful, especially after I read the poem once. — T Clark
But what you wrote here seems different from what you posted at the links you sent me. — T Clark
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.