I would certainly be curious to know what your stance would be after being exposed to reconstructions. — thaumasnot

I'd have to see an example in action. Much of what you write is highly complex and I am not sure I understand your intent.

For instance, I don't understand this:

Reconstruction is only of the medium-specific narrative. The narrative aspect stresses not details/aspects in isolation, but how they are leveraged within a composition, how they fit together. — thaumasnot

I don't understand this paragraph:

. The cliché is informative, but a cliché nonetheless. It has a characteristic quality of contingency that makes you question how essential it really is to enjoyment. You can, as a mind game, attribute various authors to the content, and see that it works the same way as when the “real” author is involved: the chosen author colors the work uniquely, but its impact on our experiencing of the content (as opposed to the appreciation of its meaning and context) is limited and diffuse. I call this method of assessing the relative merits of conjecturing the inconsequential conjecture test. It can be applied to any feature of the mosaic, including meaning, historical significance, virtuosity, emotionality, etc. — thaumasnot

On reflection, what I tend to enjoy most is reading how a critic's tastes and views interacted with the text, rather than an attempt at objectivist understanding. I like it best when a critic has an angle on something I hadn't considered. I like celebrations of taste and personal experience - as long as the reviewer has a good mind and a rich command of language. So I may not be of any use to you

I went through the 1980's reading a lot of film crit and literary crit theory - none of it helped me much. But I did love film reviews written by Pauline Kael.

Sending you a PM.

I don't understand this paragraph — Tom Storm

I’ll rewrite it. What it says is basically that when a review/criticism is not taken as just being informative (in which case there is nothing to criticize), we can subject it to the same judgment criteria that we use to judge the content. For example, we can criticize something they say for being cliché (speaking about the author for example), or for being inconsequential (for example, they explain why a certain thing is there in a painting, and that thing doesn’t matter at all to how we experience the content).

I'd have to see an example in action. Much of what you write is highly complex and I am not sure I understand your intent. — Tom Storm

I've asked the moderators if I could post a link to @thaumasnot's webpage so others can see what he's done. I don't want to piss anyone off or get anyone into trouble.

Hi T Clark,

I’ve PM’ed you a proposal. I sent Tom the links, he doesn’t see the point of the reconstructions, and that’s fine. It’s a very novel thing, it will take time to sink in.

I had a look at the reconstructions, they weren't of any use to me. See how you go.

Yes, we look for patterns, patterns that have been ignored. While this yields a formal kind of review, it's not like an AI though, because in the last instance we're guided by personal inclinations when choosing the patterns. In fact, if anyone publishes a reconstruction, it’s probably because they found patterns they deemed remarkable. An essential difference from traditional reviews is that this personal inclination is implicit and not a focus, and the patterns are content that can be shared objectively and can ultimately lead to emotions (but this is not talked of, because it's something best left to the discretion of the reader IMO). My hope is to show patterns that are worth your while, but whether they are is yours to decide. — thaumasnot

So I don't really understand where the "reconstruction" comes from. Let's take a simple pattern for example. Suppose a piece of music has a rhythm, a beat, and this you choose as a medium-specific narrative. So you might go through the whole piece and determine what parts are the fundamental rhythm, and what parts are variations, or maybe some parts are even completely different. That's an analysis, but where does the reconstruction come into play? How would a reconstruction differ from an analysis? What am I missing?

So you might go through the whole piece and determine what parts are the fundamental rhythm, and what parts are variations, or maybe some parts are even completely different. That's an analysis, but where does the reconstruction come into play? How would a reconstruction differ from an analysis? What am I missing? — Metaphysician Undercover

If we take your example, the reconstruction would be like: rhythm accelerates a little, rhythm slows down big, rhythm sustains etc. Even though it’s not interesting, it’s different from analysis in that reconstruction transcribes variations almost transparently. It makes no effort to add value to the content (except try to be readable and not too tedious). It won’t even try to categorize the piece. In practice, it will rather apply to melody (not harmony), more precisely the motifs. It will transcribe how patterns arise from correlating melodic structures. This is already unusual (not unique, of course), but it will take that approach further by looking at piece-wide networks of correlations. The content that is reconstructed also kind of matters. Some pieces arguably lend themselves better than others to that approach. I have a certain experience in this area that can be interesting to some.

Even though it’s not interesting, it’s different from analysis in that reconstruction transcribes variations almost transparently. It makes no effort to add value to the content (except try to be readable and not too tedious). — thaumasnot

Isn't that exactly what analysis is though, to break something down into its parts, in an objective way? This is to make the divisions in accordance with what is inherent within the piece, rather than according to some values. It is synthesis, when we put the parts back together (reconstruction), which is necessarily guided by values. We cannot "reconstruct" in a manner which is not value-driven because the end, or goal, of the reconstruction must be chosen, and it acts as a guide in the reconstructing activity.

It won’t even try to categorize the piece. In practice, it will rather apply to melody (not harmony), more precisely the motifs. It will transcribe how patterns arise from correlating melodic structures. This is already unusual (not unique, of course), but it will take that approach further by looking at piece-wide networks of correlations. — thaumasnot

So I think the issue is these "correlations". This is how the parts are supposed to be related to each other. An artist will proceed with a very unique, peculiar, or even mysterious idiolect, or way of correlating parts in general. Let's say that the reconstructionist breaks down the parts, and starts to describe a correlation of parts, attributing this correlation to the artist. How does the reconstructionist know that these correlations are the ones produced by the artist, rather than ones created by the synthesis (complete with inherent intention and values) of the reconstructionist?

Isn't that exactly what analysis is though, to break something down into its parts, in an objective way? This is to make the divisions in accordance with what is inherent within the piece, rather than according to some values. It is synthesis, when we put the parts back together (reconstruction), which is necessarily guided by values. We cannot "reconstruct" in a manner which is not value-driven because the end, or goal, of the reconstruction must be chosen, and it acts as a guide in the reconstructing activity. — Metaphysician Undercover

That’s true. If analysis only quotes the content (guided by value-based predilections) for the purpose of extracting a medium-specific narrative (so in our case, a network of melodic motifs), it is fundamentally the same as reconstruction. You could maybe say reconstruction is a subset of analysis. I will usually oppose them, but that may be an abuse of language.

How does the reconstructionist know that these correlations are the ones produced by the artist, rather than ones created by the synthesis (complete with inherent intention and values) of the reconstructionist? — Metaphysician Undercover

As you said, the reconstructionist is guided by values, and reconstructionism is essentially hedonistic, it makes no claim of being right. On the contrary, even though it sticks to the content like a dog to his bone, it isn’t at all about being right (cf. Manifesto). To summarize, what’s subjective is the choice of these correlations. What’s objective is the quoted content and the correlations. These are formal correlations by the way: transpositions, inversion, repetition, scaling, and so on.

So I don't really understand where the "reconstruction" comes from. Let's take a simple pattern for example. Suppose a piece of music has a rhythm, a beat, and this you choose as a medium-specific narrative. So you might go through the whole piece and determine what parts are the fundamental rhythm, and what parts are variations, or maybe some parts are even completely different. That's an analysis, but where does the reconstruction come into play? How would a reconstruction differ from an analysis? What am I missing? — Metaphysician Undercover

The questions you are asking are the same sorts of ones I have.

Even though it’s not interesting, it’s different from analysis in that reconstruction transcribes variations almost transparently. It makes no effort to add value to the content (except try to be readable and not too tedious). — thaumasnot

I think this gets at the heart of my questions. Why would I want to look at the reconstruction of the work of art if it's not telling me something interesting. That's what I'm looking for, someone who maybe knows a bit more than I do to pick out parts of the work that contribute to the effect it has. There are so many ways you can break down a work - word counts, uses of figures of speech, rhythm and rhyme, symbols, references to other works, references to mythology... and on an on.

That brings up another question, which is especially important to me for media I am not familiar with. What standards are you applying? I don't know what "verticality" or "convexity" mean, represent, or imply with visual art. It's a language I'm not familiar with. Is it yours or is it a standard way of analyzing that type of work. I think it would help if you provide a written summary at the beginning for each type of work of art that describes the classification methods and standards, where they come from, and what they signify.

A specific question for "As I Lay Dying," the only work other than "Ode on a Grecian Urn" I am familiar with. All the other works are short or, like the photograph, all one thing. "As I Lay Dying" is long and you've only presented a few analyses of the text. Are the ways of analyzing you've provided intended to be exhaustive? Does that cover all the aspects of the writing it's worth looking at?

As @Metaphysician Undercover noted, I'm not really sure how these differ from an ordinary analysis, even after I read your response.

This eerily reminds me of Alexandre's paper. A breakthrough in perspective, this time not in physics but art and literature.

I think this gets at the heart of my questions. Why would I want to look at the reconstruction of the work of art if it's not telling me something interesting. — T Clark

I said it was not interesting if we use rhythm as the basis for a reconstruction. It goes without saying that I wouldn’t want to write a reconstruction if it wasn’t interesting.

That brings up another question, which is especially important to me for media I am not familiar with. What standards are you applying? I don't know what "verticality" or "convexity" mean, represent, or imply with visual art. — T Clark

Good question. “Verticality” or “convexity” are used as referential terms. You point to a weakness in my approach, as I didn’t mention that you have to look at the following annotated picture to find what these terms refer to. Other terms could have been chosen. “Verticality” was chosen because it’s the geometrical property I want to emphasize. And so on. The exact choice of term is not the most important part, it’s the referentiality, but the choice of term needs to be intuitive enough to make the reading comfortable.

All the other works are short or, like the photograph, all one thing. "As I Lay Dying" is long and you've only presented a few analyses of the text. Are the ways of analyzing you've provided intended to be exhaustive? Does that cover all the aspects of the writing it's worth looking at? — T Clark

No, of course not. The reconstruction is one narrative carefully selected to represent the content (it doesn’t make the claim that it’s the best way, it would non-sensical to try to claim that). Exhaustivity is more the domain of the mosaic of the interpretation of the average value (cf. Manifesto).

This eerily reminds me of Alexandre's paper. A breakthrough in perspective, this time not in physics but art and literature. — jgill

I don’t know if it’s a breakthrough, but I do know it’s much more difficult to get my points across than I expected.

As you said, the reconstructionist is guided by values, and reconstructionism is essentially hedonistic, it makes no claim of being right. On the contrary, even though it sticks to the content like a dog to his bone, it isn’t at all about being right (cf. Manifesto). To summarize, what’s subjective is the choice of these correlations. What’s objective is the quoted content and the correlations. These are formal correlations by the way: transpositions, inversion, repetition, scaling, and so on. — thaumasnot

I don't see that you have any claim to objectivity. Content is inherently subjective, the subject matter. The artist chooses the medium so the medium is subjective. The only way that art approaches objectivity is through the form, the correlations which the artist employs. A semblance of objectivity is obtained if the artist can use these correlations to achieve some sort of meaning or aesthetic value in a universal way.

If you strip the piece down to its most subjective level, and reconstruct, then all you are doing is creating a new level of subjectivity by removing any semblance of objectivity which the piece might have had in the first place. Even if you leave in place some of the "formal correlations", by changing others you are allowing your own subjectivity to invade the objective aspect.

If you strip the piece down to its most subjective level — Metaphysician Undercover

I’m not sure where I “strip down the piece down to its most subjective level” ? There must be some misunderstanding here.

Even if you leave in place some of the "formal correlations", by changing others you are allowing your own subjectivity to invade the objective aspect. — Metaphysician Undercover

By “changing others”, do you mean “changing other correlations” ? Then I’m not sure where you come from, since I’m not changing anything.

The best way to eliminate any ambiguity about what we mean (the most useful definition of objectivity for me is Karl Popper’s, which equates it to “interpersonal subjectivity”, but if you don’t agree, I can use “interpersonal subjectivity” instead of “objectivity”) is by looking at an example. Let’s assume a reconstruction of music starts as follows:

“The music starts with a motif M (0:2 to 0:8)” that gets repeated in the next phrase (0:10 to 0:18).”

The music is “quoted” and a correlation (the repetititon) is noted. What is not objective for you here ?

I wonder how you can reconstruct a work. Reconstructing means pulling a work out of its context and give it a new, seemingly objective new context of apparently objective measures. Isn't that exactly what you do? Every claim to objectivity, is a claim to subjectively assigned values of importance. The same is done in scientific reconstructions. An old theory is put under the microscope of modern day claims of objectivity.

Every claim to objectivity, is a claim to subjectively assigned values of importance. — Raymond

I think it would be more productive if we frame this discussion with a concrete example, as I told Metaphysician Undercover:

Let’s assume a reconstruction of music starts as follows:

“The music starts with a motif M (0:2 to 0:8)” that gets repeated in the next phrase (0:10 to 0:18).”

The music is “quoted” and a correlation (the repetititon) is noted. What is not objective for you here ? — thaumasnot

If by "a claim to subjectively assigned values of importance", you mean that it's subjective that I picked the motif M and this correlation, then absolutely. There's no debate here. I'm saying that the reconstruction is objective only in the fact that M does exist, and so does the repetition of M.

think it would be more productive if we frame this discussion with a concrete example, as I told Metaphysician Undercover: — thaumasnot

That's exactly what I wanted to propose! :wink:

Let’s assume a reconstruction of music starts as follows:

“The music starts with a motif M (0:2 to 0:8)” that gets repeated in the next phrase (0:10 to 0:18).”

The music is “quoted” and a correlation (the repetititon) is noted. What is not objective for you here ? — thaumasnot

It's objective if we both agree to reconstruct the piece in the language of "motives", "contrapoints", or other terms of classical music. Isn't the record itself the best reconstruction?

What's the essence of a piece of music? The decomposition of the soundwaves? Then maybe the most objective way is using Fourier transforms piecewise.

It's objective if we both agree to reconstruct the piece in the language of "motives", "contrapoints", or other terms of classical music. Isn't the record itself the best reconstruction? — Raymond

Yes it is. That's why in the Manifesto I wrote that reconstruction is not a substitute for the content, just a guide.

We reconstruct an abstraction of the work (hence "conceptual" reconstructionism) to help the consumer of the content re-focus on the content. Consumption of content tends to be distracted by a million factors (for example, the search for meaning and context), that's where reconstruction comes in.

What's the essence of a piece of music? The decomposition of the soundwaves? Then maybe the most objective way is using Fourier transforms piecewise. — Raymond

Reconstructionism isn't a theory about what is essential (or a theory at all). It is hedonistic : we look for a perspective that will provide enjoyment.

We reconstruct an abstraction of the work (hence "conceptual" reconstructionism) to help the consumer of the content re-focus on the content. Consumption of content tends to be distracted by a million factors (for example, the search for meaning and context), that's where reconstruction comes in. — thaumasnot

I see. That's clear. But how to determine the concepts? Suppose I look at the New York Boogie Woogie painting, by Mondriaan? What would be the concepts? Should I ignore the title? Or the atmosphere in New York?

It is hedonistic : we look for a perspective that will provide enjoyment. — thaumasnot

That's shining a nice light! So it's an aid for the beholder. Not throwing in useless context info, but concentrating on the piece "as it is"?

But how to determine the concepts? Suppose I look at the New York Boogie Woogie painting, by Mondriaan? What would be the concepts? Should I ignore the title? Or the atmosphere in New York? — Raymond

If you start anew, the process of determining the concepts will be empirical. In my case, I found something in some medium-specific narratives. Reconstruction is for sharing them with others.

For your specific questions (should I ignore the title?), you can test out empirically how that improves your enjoyment. In my manifesto, I refer to this as "conventional medium delimitation". You decide what is the content, and then you analyze it.

That's shining a nice light! So it's an aid for the beholder. Not throwing in useless context info, but concentrating on the piece "as it is"? — Raymond

Exactly. And I believe it's surprising how far that can go, when you don't look for meaning and context at every turn. Just let the medium do its work. But you have to help it if you want to maximize it. Reconstruction helps with that.

That's a nice approach. I think I even use it myself, when listening to music. Beside the emotions and crazy dances I sometimes dance, I discover new pieces of guitar, drum patterns I didn't notice before, bass lines repeating, or whatever. Is that the stuff you write about? Sounds like a discovery tour somehow! Great!

That's a nice approach. I think I even use it myself, when listening to music. Beside the emotions and crazy dances I sometimes dance, I discover new pieces of guitar, drum patterns I didn't notice before, bass lines repeating, or whatever. Is that the stuff you write about? Sounds like a discovery tour somehow! Great! — Raymond

Yes, that's the kind of stuff. Reusing this reconstruction "The music starts with a motif M (0:2 to 0:8)” that gets repeated in the next phrase (0:10 to 0:18)", what happens if we continue to unfold the network of relationships throughout the whole piece? That's the experiment.