The medium specific narrative. The kind of paint used? What underground is used? Objective properties? — Raymond
How would that look like for the two lines? — Raymond
What are the objectives everyone sees? How do you tell someone who doesn't see the painting? Or should he see it during the narrative? Do you offer generally applicable instructions to conceptually reconstruct? I haven't read the whole theorem you offered yet, but is that the aim? A kind of objective theory of everything in the realm of products of art? With the aim to intensify pleasure? — Raymond
say the painting a Jackson Pollock-like mess, well too bad. The goal is to intensify pleasure, yeah.
10mReplyOptions — thaumasnot
A JP like mess is sufficient for pleasure...A sufficient, but not necessary condition. Two orthogonal lines do just as well. Unless you don't view a JP-like mess as sufficient for pleasure... — Raymond
if they let go of any preconception — thaumasnot
You think all people share the same instinctive narrative? — Raymond
It has value only relative to the reader/listener, as a helper. — thaumasnot
Can you accept this division for me, between what is shown right there, explicit, in the content (the piece) and what is left to the imagination, or implied? And would you agree that the artist's mode of operation is often to stimulate the imagination, this being fundamental to the aesthetic experience? — Metaphysician Undercover
So if you propose to start with what is explicit, and build on that, how do you get beyond this problem of determining what is explicit? — Metaphysician Undercover
Somehow this discussion looks like a discussion I read on this forum.Look here.
There is spoken of a manifesto, like you speak about it. And in the same way, more or less, a conceptual reconstruction of science and its foundation is made. I don't say you have to read it, but the similarity is remarkable. — Raymond
I think that the division implicit/explicit might be too academic for what reconstruction is trying to achieve. It's not so much implicit/explicit that matters here, than the ability to match the reconstruction to the content. So if I say "The music starts with a motif M (0:2 to 0:8) that gets repeated in the next phrase (0:10 to 0:18)", it doesn't matter that what I observe is explicit or implicit. — thaumasnot
So the real problem is not determining what is explicit versus implicit, but determining what I choose to focus on while experiencing the content (implicit or explicit). Since the motivation is hedonistic, this is an empirical problem. In reconstructionism, the choice is to focus on things like melodic motifs. As you noted, motifs can be looked at from different perspectives, in practice it's not too much of a problem because the way the music is, motifs will often jump at you without you spending much effort. In addition, in your example of looking at a larger structure, you can do it at the same time as keeping in mind the repetition of M (that's the attention span I talk about). Networks of correlation are difficult to keep in mind (many data), and a compromise must typically be struck, where you'll ignore certain parts of the medium. For example, when I listen to listen to metal music, I will focus on the guitar riffs and not pay too much attention to the drums or vocals. There is a certain sensuality in the medium of music that helps filter "useless" correlations (it's empirical of course, and not always the best choice, which is why we share reconstructions, so that others may improve on them or improve theirs). Why would someone do this exercise, which sounds like tedious work ? Because there's sometimes a big payoff at the end, in the form of "beautiful" resolutions (that only narratives can bring). Triumph can only be attained through great adversity. — thaumasnot
The point was that the content isn't necessarily explicit. So if you take what appears to be explicit content, when the true content is implicit, then you have a false start. You are not really starting with the content at all. Are you familiar with Wittgenstein's rabbit-duck? Suppose you see an explicit duck, in a scenario like this, and you state "duck" as the content. Someone else might call the same content "rabbit". If you do not see it as both a duck and a rabbit, as that is what is intended by the author, and describe it as both, you have not correctly represented the content. So when the content is open to interpretation, i.e. there is nothing explicit, it is all implicit, how do you know that you are describing it correctly? Maybe your technique is only good for certain types of work? — Metaphysician Undercover
To me, this sems to contradict what you said, that the value of the reconstruction is as a helper. If you just pick and choose from the content, to decide how you want to represent it, how can this help anyone else? Any other person might just pick and choose in one's own way, so why would they want to be influenced by someone else, who might actually ruin one's own experience of the piece. It would be like study notes where the author of the Notes just arbitrarily decided which parts of the work to focus on. That would not be a help. — Metaphysician Undercover
* People tend to NOT listen making these kinds of observations, don't care about patterns and correlations, etc. They're distracted by other factors, including emotion, aesthetics, immediate sensations
* It's hard to apply the same discipline of observation over a whole song. The reconstruction, as a whole, helps to conceptualize a wide narrative resulting from correlating many observations distributed throughout the song. — thaumasnot
It would be like study notes where the author of the Notes just arbitrarily decided which parts of the work to focus on. — Metaphysician Undercover
What's the real view? Is the creator of the work important? Is it important what they wanted to say? What if it's an image of gods or a mathematical expression? Or an image trying to convey the meaning of freedom or suffering? What if we look at the Quernica picture by Picasso? Should we take the war or his family into consideration, or just the painting "as it is"? — Raymond
What's the real view? Is the creator of the work important? Is it important what they wanted to say? What if it's an image of gods or a mathematical expression? Or an image trying to convey the meaning of freedom or suffering? What if we look at the Quernica picture by Picasso? Should we take the war or his family into consideration, or just the painting "as it is"? — Raymond
The problem I find is that in many cases the whole narrative might be arbitrary, imaginary, fictional, simply made up. Like in my analogy of a photograph, or still painting, there is absolutely no objective narrative in that medium, because there is no temporal extension, regardless of whether it's a snap shot of an action scene, as a narrative requires temporal extension. So whatever narrative which one comes up with, it would be imaginary, fictional or made up. — Metaphysician Undercover
This is why I suggested that reconstructionism might be better suited to some forms of art than others. — Metaphysician Undercover
But then I don't understand the point, because to be true you'd just want to copy the original as close as possible, — Metaphysician Undercover
What type of art do you consider is more suited to reconstruction? One with temporal extension, and a real narrative, or one without temporal extension, therefore no inherent narrative? — Metaphysician Undercover
Not really. There are many things in a medium that can be redundant, distracting (e.g., as I mentioned, drums and vocals in metal music), or not an essential part of the narrative ("essential" here is subjective, dictated by the appreciation of the reconstructionist). — thaumasnot
Undoubtedly, music. Then, on par, I'd go with text, movies, comics. Then groups of paintings (triptychs). Last would be standalone paintings. So you can guess that the main criterion is the ability to lay out a narrative temporally. Music is first because it's a focused and still very malleable medium. In theory, movies should be first, but in practice they are not (the medium is comically under-exploited IMO). — thaumasnot
I wouldn't agree with your interpretation of metal music. Drums are essential to all rock music, setting the intricacies of the rhythm. — Metaphysician Undercover
Why concentrate on the guitar, when it all sounds the same from one piece to the next? — Metaphysician Undercover
Like in my analogy of a photograph, or still painting, there is absolutely no objective narrative in that medium, because there is no temporal extension, regardless of whether it's a snap shot of an action scene, as a narrative requires temporal extension. — Metaphysician Undercover
That's why I said reconstruction is a helper. A reconstruction of metal music would totally change how you listen to music (whether it's for the better remains to be seen), even though it just "copies". Your analysis of rock music is very typical (in fact, it isn't far from what in the Manifesto is described as "description for the blind/deaf"), and reconstructionism is historically a separation from the trend it represents. — thaumasnot
A painting tells a story that unfolds temporally as one’s gaze moves from one object to another within the frame, and then circles back after having formed bits of narrative to be embellished or reconfigured by further looking. — Joshs
The more we stare at a painting, the more it seems
to be doing and changing. — Joshs
The point was that this "story" is not explicit, therefore whatever story you imagine, it's not at all objective. — Metaphysician Undercover
Oh sorry, I didn't realize this was a school of art appreciation for acid trippers — Metaphysician Undercover
Any artist will tell you that the design of a painting explicitly directs the viewer’s
attention as a temporal unfolding. So the view may not recognize the story as explicit, but the creator of the art does. — Joshs
Is the notion of freedom an objective feature of the painting? — Raymond
Well, if peas are supposed to be good for me, I might want to develop a taste for peas, therefore follow the technique. But how is something like metal music good for me, so why would I want to develop the taste if I didn't already have it? — Metaphysician Undercover
And if I already had the taste for it, that taste would be based in something personal, so how would the reconstruction do anything but subtract from my enjoyment of it, through distraction? — Metaphysician Undercover
Is the notion of freedom an objective feature of the painting? — Raymond
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.