Which hermeneutical method is the most appropriate way to evaluate a piece of art?

Use this forum to have philosophical discussions about aesthetics and art. What is art? What is beauty? What makes art good? You can also use this forum to discuss philosophy in the arts, namely to discuss the philosophical points in any particular movie, TV show, book or story.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Which hermeneutical method is the most appropriate way to evaluate a piece of art?

Post by Terrapin Station »

Count Lucanor wrote: August 20th, 2020, 9:58 pm All value statements, regardless of their nature, reduce to subjective preferences.
Right.
That will not hinder the possibility of systematically studying our preferences, and even producing guiding models to our preferences,
Sure.
which become socially objective models that people adhere to or reject.
I wouldn't say that they're objective models, really, but sure, they become models about which we can interact socially.
There are aesthetic philosophies and aesthetic ideals following some rationale that can be objectively described.
Again, the objective part of the description wouldn't include meaning, for example, but sure, insofar as an description can be objective (the text string aspect of a description, for example), they can be objectively described.
There are conventions and instituted practices that serve as a reference for the objective analysis of aesthetic objects.
This part, no, though. The analysis can't be objective. The analysis can be with respect to common subjective preferences that we learned via surveys, etc.--part of our study of subjective preferences, but the analysis itself isn't going to be objective--the analysis is something that a person is doing as a mental activity, and there's nothing other than a subjective preference that would say that it's any better to analyze anything with respect to common preferences (including standards in certain milieus) than otherwise.
So we know what Cubism represents in relation to previous figurative art
You can know what various people think about that, and what it's common to think, but that doesn't make what they think universal or correct. Cubism can represent different things to different people. They're not wrong just because they have an unusual view in that. They'd only be wrong if they were to say something like, "To most people, Cubism represents x," where that's not the case per our surveys.
and we can say how that distinction relates to conceptions of the function of art in society, the role of the artist, etc., as well as to the autonomous evolution of aesthetic ideas in relation to techniques and mediums, theories of forms, ideals of beauty, etc.
Sure, but again, only with respect to what particular people, including particular larger sets of people, have thought about those things, and what they thought wasn't correct or incorrect just because it was more or less common.
That's certainly a bunch of complex issues not reducible to mere subjective preferences.
Sure. But we can never get to anything even remotely like objective or correct aesthetic evaluations, interpretations, etc.
User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 2318
Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
Location: Panama
Contact:

Re: Which hermeneutical method is the most appropriate way to evaluate a piece of art?

Post by Count Lucanor »

Terrapin Station wrote: August 21st, 2020, 8:49 am
Count Lucanor wrote: August 20th, 2020, 9:58 pm which become socially objective models that people adhere to or reject.
I wouldn't say that they're objective models, really, but sure, they become models about which we can interact socially.
If they are explicitly described and made public as aesthetic standards which people can adopt or reject, I would call those objective models, since they exist, despite the levels of abstraction required to devise and assimilate them, independently of the individuals. Surely, the material of all this is an intellectual elaboration of complex human interests, which tends to be fuzzy, unlike the material of sciences such as physics. To that extent, it could be called relative to particular human interests (thus, subjective), but once it is placed in the public (social) domain, it is something else, I call it a cultural object. If we cannot call something like a scientific research program or a philosophical program a subjective approach based on personal preferences, I don't think we can call an aesthetic program the same either.
Terrapin Station wrote: August 21st, 2020, 8:49 am
Count Lucanor wrote: August 20th, 2020, 9:58 pm There are aesthetic philosophies and aesthetic ideals following some rationale that can be objectively described.
Again, the objective part of the description wouldn't include meaning, for example, but sure, insofar as an description can be objective (the text string aspect of a description, for example), they can be objectively described.
The explicitly attributed meanings of any expression can be described objectively, given the semantic codes are shared by the community of speakers. The statement in the US Constitution: "we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness..." was directed to a community of speakers that could grab directly the intended meaning of the declaration and act upon it. Even if the declaration was so ambiguous that any singular speaker could attribute to it his own meaning, once he made explicit his interpretation, that interpretation itself would join the public domain and the effect would be just the same. As long as aesthetic philosophies and aesthetic ideals are identifiable in the public domain (which can happen in academia or other intellectual fields), that they form schools of thought, advance specific worldviews, pursue specific social goals, etc., I think they can be described objectively.
Terrapin Station wrote: August 21st, 2020, 8:49 am
Count Lucanor wrote: August 20th, 2020, 9:58 pm There are conventions and instituted practices that serve as a reference for the objective analysis of aesthetic objects.
This part, no, though. The analysis can't be objective. The analysis can be with respect to common subjective preferences that we learned via surveys, etc.--part of our study of subjective preferences, but the analysis itself isn't going to be objective--the analysis is something that a person is doing as a mental activity, and there's nothing other than a subjective preference that would say that it's any better to analyze anything with respect to common preferences (including standards in certain milieus) than otherwise.
I disagree. The analysis can be either objective or subjective. If the person involved in the analysis applies a set of criteria defined on his own, guided by his own exclusive, personal, subjective interests, we can say his analysis is subjective. The outcome applies only to that person's view of the object of analysis. And it happens, there are tons of subjective-based assessments across all human practices, including art. On the other hand, if the person involved in the analysis applies a set of rules previously defined as a conventional or standard criteria to evaluate aesthetic objects, a convention that surpasses the limits of the person's subjective preferences, something that is beyond him, except for its rejection or endorsement, then we can say that this analysis objectively corresponds to that model. It doesn't need to be a model or system acknowledged by many, but objectively described so that it can be identified by others.
Terrapin Station wrote: August 21st, 2020, 8:49 am
Count Lucanor wrote: August 20th, 2020, 9:58 pm So we know what Cubism represents in relation to previous figurative art
You can know what various people think about that, and what it's common to think, but that doesn't make what they think universal or correct. Cubism can represent different things to different people. They're not wrong just because they have an unusual view in that. They'd only be wrong if they were to say something like, "To most people, Cubism represents x," where that's not the case per our surveys.
We can forget about surveys, they will produce no useful insights, and they are not what make something universal or correct. In any case, it's an issue of less importance whether any value assessment is universal or correct, since it is not about the actual state of the world, but about human interests. Yet, human interests are not just individual preferences, but social constructions that can be objectively identified. Taste can be subjective and visceral, it can appeal to personal emotions and life experiences, which is often called the agreeable, the pure pleasure. But taste can also be intellectual, rational, appealing to certain concepts and ideals. Subjectively speaking, Cubism can represent different things to different people, but objectively speaking, Cubism is a specific painting school with an identifiable mode of representation that contrasts with other modes of representation inside a particular artistic tradition (European art in 19th and 20th century). The objects produced by that school have some clearly identifiable characteristics which will make impossible to confuse them with, let's say, Impressionism, in other words, they can be put in relation as typical objects and the objective differences can be identified. And the artists who made them, well aware of those differences or similarities, worked with the modes of representation to make meaningful symbolic statements inside that cultural context, including the visual effects the works could produce, given the public's known codes of pictorial representation. Anyone could make an assessment of how apt were the technical means and the formal structure of the work to achieve the production of a meaningful statement in the art world, an assessment that will become the critic's statement. No one that holds a natural attitude towards art, will expect that these need to be scientific, factual statements, in order to be objective, but to be rational and systematic. And more importantly, they don't have to coincide with the critic's own subjective taste.
The wise are instructed by reason, average minds by experience, the stupid by necessity and the brute by instinct.
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Which hermeneutical method is the most appropriate way to evaluate a piece of art?

Post by Terrapin Station »

Holy crap, man. Why do people have to keep introducing more and more issues in longer and longer posts in these discussions? How is that going to settle anything?
Count Lucanor wrote: August 21st, 2020, 10:47 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: August 21st, 2020, 8:49 am

I wouldn't say that they're objective models, really, but sure, they become models about which we can interact socially.
If they are explicitly described and made public as aesthetic standards which people can adopt or reject, I would call those objective models, since they exist, despite the levels of abstraction required to devise and assimilate them, independently of the individuals. Surely, the material of all this is an intellectual elaboration of complex human interests, which tends to be fuzzy, unlike the material of sciences such as physics. To that extent, it could be called relative to particular human interests (thus, subjective), but once it is placed in the public (social) domain, it is something else, I call it a cultural object. If we cannot call something like a scientific research program or a philosophical program a subjective approach based on personal preferences, I don't think we can call an aesthetic program the same either.
Terrapin Station wrote: August 21st, 2020, 8:49 am

Again, the objective part of the description wouldn't include meaning, for example, but sure, insofar as an description can be objective (the text string aspect of a description, for example), they can be objectively described.
The explicitly attributed meanings of any expression can be described objectively, given the semantic codes are shared by the community of speakers. The statement in the US Constitution: "we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness..." was directed to a community of speakers that could grab directly the intended meaning of the declaration and act upon it. Even if the declaration was so ambiguous that any singular speaker could attribute to it his own meaning, once he made explicit his interpretation, that interpretation itself would join the public domain and the effect would be just the same. As long as aesthetic philosophies and aesthetic ideals are identifiable in the public domain (which can happen in academia or other intellectual fields), that they form schools of thought, advance specific worldviews, pursue specific social goals, etc., I think they can be described objectively.
Terrapin Station wrote: August 21st, 2020, 8:49 am

This part, no, though. The analysis can't be objective. The analysis can be with respect to common subjective preferences that we learned via surveys, etc.--part of our study of subjective preferences, but the analysis itself isn't going to be objective--the analysis is something that a person is doing as a mental activity, and there's nothing other than a subjective preference that would say that it's any better to analyze anything with respect to common preferences (including standards in certain milieus) than otherwise.
I disagree. The analysis can be either objective or subjective. If the person involved in the analysis applies a set of criteria defined on his own, guided by his own exclusive, personal, subjective interests, we can say his analysis is subjective. The outcome applies only to that person's view of the object of analysis. And it happens, there are tons of subjective-based assessments across all human practices, including art. On the other hand, if the person involved in the analysis applies a set of rules previously defined as a conventional or standard criteria to evaluate aesthetic objects, a convention that surpasses the limits of the person's subjective preferences, something that is beyond him, except for its rejection or endorsement, then we can say that this analysis objectively corresponds to that model. It doesn't need to be a model or system acknowledged by many, but objectively described so that it can be identified by others.
Terrapin Station wrote: August 21st, 2020, 8:49 am

You can know what various people think about that, and what it's common to think, but that doesn't make what they think universal or correct. Cubism can represent different things to different people. They're not wrong just because they have an unusual view in that. They'd only be wrong if they were to say something like, "To most people, Cubism represents x," where that's not the case per our surveys.
We can forget about surveys, they will produce no useful insights, and they are not what make something universal or correct. In any case, it's an issue of less importance whether any value assessment is universal or correct, since it is not about the actual state of the world, but about human interests. Yet, human interests are not just individual preferences, but social constructions that can be objectively identified. Taste can be subjective and visceral, it can appeal to personal emotions and life experiences, which is often called the agreeable, the pure pleasure. But taste can also be intellectual, rational, appealing to certain concepts and ideals. Subjectively speaking, Cubism can represent different things to different people, but objectively speaking, Cubism is a specific painting school with an identifiable mode of representation that contrasts with other modes of representation inside a particular artistic tradition (European art in 19th and 20th century). The objects produced by that school have some clearly identifiable characteristics which will make impossible to confuse them with, let's say, Impressionism, in other words, they can be put in relation as typical objects and the objective differences can be identified. And the artists who made them, well aware of those differences or similarities, worked with the modes of representation to make meaningful symbolic statements inside that cultural context, including the visual effects the works could produce, given the public's known codes of pictorial representation. Anyone could make an assessment of how apt were the technical means and the formal structure of the work to achieve the production of a meaningful statement in the art world, an assessment that will become the critic's statement. No one that holds a natural attitude towards art, will expect that these need to be scientific, factual statements, in order to be objective, but to be rational and systematic. And more importantly, they don't have to coincide with the critic's own subjective taste.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Which hermeneutical method is the most appropriate way to evaluate a piece of art?

Post by Terrapin Station »

So I'm just going to address parts of this or otherwise the responses will keep growing longer and longer and introducing more and more issues, and I can't figure out what anyone thinks is the point of doing that.
Count Lucanor wrote: August 21st, 2020, 10:47 pm If they are explicitly described and made public as aesthetic standards which people can adopt or reject, I would call those objective models, since they exist, despite the levels of abstraction required to devise and assimilate them, independently of the individuals.
I already explained this. The text strings, or sounds or whatever would exist independently of the individuals, but the meaning does not. You're disagreeing, as you explain below, because on my view, you have an incorrect--albeit quite popular--theory of meaning.

So we'd have to get into the brass tacks of our different theories of meaning, which would be a major tangent and which would take a long time to do.
If we cannot call something like a scientific research program or a philosophical program a subjective approach based on personal preferences, I don't think we can call an aesthetic program the same either.


You can't call most subjective approaches based on personal preferences, because the focus usually isn't personal preferences. They're subjective approaches about things that are not personal preferences. In the case of aesthetic evaluations, we're talking about things that are only personal preferences. That's not the case when we're talking about things like rocks.

The explicitly attributed meanings of any expression can be described objectively,
"Described objectively" in the sense that we can personally correlate text strings with the meanings we assign, and the text strings will exist independently of us.
given the semantic codes are shared by the community of speakers.
First off, they're not literally shared while being numerically distinct, because nominalism has things right. Aside from that, we can't actually observe anyone else's semantic activities. Because they're mental-only activities. We can only observe objective stuff correlated to those semantic activities. But since we can't ever observe the semantic activities of others, there's no way to begin to make a "key" to say just how similar the semantic activities are.
On the other hand, if the person involved in the analysis applies a set of rules previously defined as a conventional or standard criteria to evaluate aesthetic objects, a convention that surpasses the limits of the person's subjective preferences, something that is beyond him, except for its rejection or endorsement, then we can say that this analysis objectively corresponds to that model.
You could say that of course, but saying that A corresponds to B can't be done objectively--it's a mental activity that people have to engage in, where among other things, they're applying meanings, and the analysis itself isn't going to be objective. You can call anything whatever you like of course. The words don't matter, really. What matters is what's really going on ontologically, whatever we call it.
We can forget about surveys, they will produce no useful insights, and they are not what make something universal or correct. In any case, it's an issue of less importance whether any value assessment is universal or correct, since it is not about the actual state of the world, but about human interests.
You can't know "human interests" without surveying people! And you'll discover that different humans have different interests, of course. There will be many things said in common, too, of course (though again, you can't know this without surveying people), but those things have no more normative (at least) objective weight just because they're common. An individual can prefer something because it's common, but that's just an individual preference.
Yet, human interests are not just individual preferences,
Yes they are.
but social constructions
There's no such thing as socially-constructed mental phenomena. All you'd be talking about here are interests that people have in common and ways that their subjective interests can be influenced by environmental observations they make (which would include observations about the people around them). The interests themselves are something that only individuals can have, though.
objectively speaking, Cubism is a specific painting school with an identifiable mode of representation that contrasts with other modes of representation
Again, at best this would only be talking about something that many individuals executing Cubism had in common with each other--not all of them (unless you're just definitionally stipulating that "I'm not going to call x 'Cubism' unless the artist said y about it." None of that makes "Cubism has this mode of representation" correct and other statements incorrect. You'd have to frame it as, "Most Cubist artists said such and such about their work."
Anyone could make an assessment of how apt were the technical means and the formal structure of the work to achieve the production of a meaningful statement in the art world,
Which would simply amount to something like "I have a preference that the artist does such and such this way relative to common practices."

How about we tackle less than 50 issues a post for the next round? Maybe we can try to keep making this more concise so that we can focus on one or two issues and settle something about them?
User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 2318
Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
Location: Panama
Contact:

Re: Which hermeneutical method is the most appropriate way to evaluate a piece of art?

Post by Count Lucanor »

Terrapin Station wrote: August 22nd, 2020, 8:47 am Holy crap, man. Why do people have to keep introducing more and more issues in longer and longer posts in these discussions? How is that going to settle anything?
Well, I see it exactly the opposite way: why keep reducing issues to their bare minimum, as if reduction was the one and only method of approaching philosophical discussions? I'm pretty sure that superficial approach will not settle anything, as most disagreements can only be clarified going deeper into the details and nuances.
The wise are instructed by reason, average minds by experience, the stupid by necessity and the brute by instinct.
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 2318
Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
Location: Panama
Contact:

Re: Which hermeneutical method is the most appropriate way to evaluate a piece of art?

Post by Count Lucanor »

Terrapin Station wrote: August 22nd, 2020, 9:32 am
I already explained this. The text strings, or sounds or whatever would exist independently of the individuals, but the meaning does not. You're disagreeing, as you explain below, because on my view, you have an incorrect--albeit quite popular--theory of meaning.

So we'd have to get into the brass tacks of our different theories of meaning, which would be a major tangent and which would take a long time to do.

No, you haven't explained it and yes, we have different theories of meaning. I think mine is the right one, but I guess we'll never get into that discussion.
Terrapin Station wrote: August 22nd, 2020, 9:32 am You can't call most subjective approaches based on personal preferences, because the focus usually isn't personal preferences. They're subjective approaches about things that are not personal preferences. In the case of aesthetic evaluations, we're talking about things that are only personal preferences. That's not the case when we're talking about things like rocks.

No, that an Impressionist paint is a different form of representation than an hyperrealist paint is not a matter of personal preferences. As it is not that a layer of mineral sediment is composed of different materials as another, even though it is a subject making that assessment. Or that the trees of a mountain are of a different kind than the trees of another.
Terrapin Station wrote: August 22nd, 2020, 9:32 am
Count Lucanor wrote: The explicitly attributed meanings of any expression can be described objectively,
"Described objectively" in the sense that we can personally correlate text strings with the meanings we assign, and the text strings will exist independently of us.
What is "us"? Unless one thought that other people did not exist, there's no reason to believe that their interpretations do not exist independently of the subject making the analysis.
Terrapin Station wrote: August 22nd, 2020, 9:32 am
Count Lucanor wrote: given the semantic codes are shared by the community of speakers.
First off, they're not literally shared while being numerically distinct, because nominalism has things right.
If nominalism had things right the way you're assuming it has, then nominalism per se would not literally exist, which is of course a contradiction. How can something that do not exist be right about anything?
Terrapin Station wrote: August 22nd, 2020, 9:32 am Aside from that, we can't actually observe anyone else's semantic activities. Because they're mental-only activities. We can only observe objective stuff correlated to those semantic activities. But since we can't ever observe the semantic activities of others, there's no way to begin to make a "key" to say just how similar the semantic activities are.
The reduction of semantic activities only to mental activities is typical idealism. Acts of speech and other symbolic activities are observable semantic activities and they are inseparable from the meaning itself.
Terrapin Station wrote: August 22nd, 2020, 9:32 am
Count Lucanor wrote: On the other hand, if the person involved in the analysis applies a set of rules previously defined as a conventional or standard criteria to evaluate aesthetic objects, a convention that surpasses the limits of the person's subjective preferences, something that is beyond him, except for its rejection or endorsement, then we can say that this analysis objectively corresponds to that model.
You could say that of course, but saying that A corresponds to B can't be done objectively--it's a mental activity that people have to engage in, where among other things, they're applying meanings, and the analysis itself isn't going to be objective. You can call anything whatever you like of course. The words don't matter, really. What matters is what's really going on ontologically, whatever we call it.
What you're implying is that human objectivity is impossible, a typical idealist claim which extends even to scientific observations (made by people that use their minds). I just don't agree with idealism.
Terrapin Station wrote: August 22nd, 2020, 9:32 am
Count Lucanor wrote:We can forget about surveys, they will produce no useful insights, and they are not what make something universal or correct. In any case, it's an issue of less importance whether any value assessment is universal or correct, since it is not about the actual state of the world, but about human interests.
You can't know "human interests" without surveying people!
What's the difference from surveying 10 philosophers that you asked something and the same 10 philosophers putting on record on their own what they think about it?
Terrapin Station wrote: August 22nd, 2020, 9:32 am And you'll discover that different humans have different interests, of course. There will be many things said in common, too, of course (though again, you can't know this without surveying people), but those things have no more normative (at least) objective weight just because they're common. An individual can prefer something because it's common, but that's just an individual preference.
Individual preferences only emerge, become observable and are ultimately determined in social contexts, are part of an objective social world. If individual preferences stayed within the subjective personal realm of the agents, then one could refer to them as subjective preferences. What is the act of surveying if not trying to bring them into the social realm?
Terrapin Station wrote: August 22nd, 2020, 9:32 am
Count Lucanor wrote:but social constructions
There's no such thing as socially-constructed mental phenomena.
There's no individual without the social world where they are born, so there's no possibility of arguing that even the most basic level of socialization (the relation between mother and infant) has no influence in cognition. And that only for a basic level in the relationship of the subject with the world, now imagine the full scope.
Terrapin Station wrote: August 22nd, 2020, 9:32 am The interests themselves are something that only individuals can have, though.
How would you know it then? According to your theory, you cannot know what individuals can have.
Terrapin Station wrote: August 22nd, 2020, 9:32 am
Count Lucanor wrote: objectively speaking, Cubism is a specific painting school with an identifiable mode of representation that contrasts with other modes of representation
Again, at best this would only be talking about something that many individuals executing Cubism had in common with each other--not all of them (unless you're just definitionally stipulating that "I'm not going to call x 'Cubism' unless the artist said y about it." None of that makes "Cubism has this mode of representation" correct and other statements incorrect. You'd have to frame it as, "Most Cubist artists said such and such about their work."
You're wrongly assuming that only Cubist artists could know and make statements about Cubist art. An art historian or the public could make such assessments as well, and they would be talking about something independent of them, just as when people make distinctions between the characteristics of many other things in the world.
Terrapin Station wrote: August 22nd, 2020, 9:32 am
Count Lucanor wrote:Anyone could make an assessment of how apt were the technical means and the formal structure of the work to achieve the production of a meaningful statement in the art world,
Which would simply amount to something like "I have a preference that the artist does such and such this way relative to common practices."
No, that is like saying that "I have a preference that European colonizers had more sophisticated weaponry than indigenous people in America which gave them an advantage". So everyone could say something different based on their subjective preference and the statement would be equally valid.
Terrapin Station wrote: August 22nd, 2020, 9:32 am How about we tackle less than 50 issues a post for the next round? Maybe we can try to keep making this more concise so that we can focus on one or two issues and settle something about them?
Pick any issue you want to talk about, but maybe we can go into a deeper analysis than just one sentence dismissals of an entire complex subject. Otherwise I would recommend a Facebook thread, which as I always said, is a kind of cocktail party conversation.
The wise are instructed by reason, average minds by experience, the stupid by necessity and the brute by instinct.
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Which hermeneutical method is the most appropriate way to evaluate a piece of art?

Post by Terrapin Station »

Count Lucanor wrote: August 22nd, 2020, 2:46 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: August 22nd, 2020, 8:47 am Holy crap, man. Why do people have to keep introducing more and more issues in longer and longer posts in these discussions? How is that going to settle anything?
Well, I see it exactly the opposite way: why keep reducing issues to their bare minimum, as if reduction was the one and only method of approaching philosophical discussions? I'm pretty sure that superficial approach will not settle anything, as most disagreements can only be clarified going deeper into the details and nuances.
You keep introducing more and more issues, which amounts to only being able to cover those issues as superficially as possible, if at all.

If you want to do anything in depth and get anywhere with it, we need to focus on one thing at a time. We could write an in-depth book about just one topic, no? Why would we try to do that about 50 different topics at once?
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Which hermeneutical method is the most appropriate way to evaluate a piece of art?

Post by Terrapin Station »

Count Lucanor wrote: August 22nd, 2020, 4:35 pm No, you haven't explained it and yes, we have different theories of meaning. I think mine is the right one, but I guess we'll never get into that discussion.
We could do that first. Is that what you want to talk about in-depth first, theories of meaning? (We should probably start a different thread on it, though, as it's getting pretty far off-topic with respect to evaluating artworks.)
User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 2318
Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
Location: Panama
Contact:

Re: Which hermeneutical method is the most appropriate way to evaluate a piece of art?

Post by Count Lucanor »

Terrapin Station wrote: August 22nd, 2020, 6:12 pm
You keep introducing more and more issues, which amounts to only being able to cover those issues as superficially as possible, if at all.

If you want to do anything in depth and get anywhere with it, we need to focus on one thing at a time. We could write an in-depth book about just one topic, no? Why would we try to do that about 50 different topics at once?
It's OK trying to shorten the length of the posts, however, it seems to me that what you call "introducing more and more issues" is actually introducing more angles from different disciplines, all of which contribute to understanding the subject we're focusing on. This is for me what modern philosophy does, a synoptic approach, requiring an interdisciplinary cooperation between different fields, each one contributing its own specialized knowledge.

So, sure, one issue at the time is OK, just don't make it one angle at the time. A field like Aesthetics does have a lot of disciplines that enrich its inquiries.
The wise are instructed by reason, average minds by experience, the stupid by necessity and the brute by instinct.
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 2318
Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
Location: Panama
Contact:

Re: Which hermeneutical method is the most appropriate way to evaluate a piece of art?

Post by Count Lucanor »

Terrapin Station wrote: August 22nd, 2020, 6:14 pm
Count Lucanor wrote: August 22nd, 2020, 4:35 pm No, you haven't explained it and yes, we have different theories of meaning. I think mine is the right one, but I guess we'll never get into that discussion.
We could do that first. Is that what you want to talk about in-depth first, theories of meaning? (We should probably start a different thread on it, though, as it's getting pretty far off-topic with respect to evaluating artworks.)
I'm in if you start it.
The wise are instructed by reason, average minds by experience, the stupid by necessity and the brute by instinct.
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Which hermeneutical method is the most appropriate way to evaluate a piece of art?

Post by Terrapin Station »

Count Lucanor wrote: August 22nd, 2020, 7:32 pm It's OK trying to shorten the length of the posts, however, it seems to me that what you call "introducing more and more issues" is actually introducing more angles from different disciplines, all of which contribute to understanding the subject we're focusing on. This is for me what modern philosophy does, a synoptic approach, requiring an interdisciplinary cooperation between different fields, each one contributing its own specialized knowledge.

So, sure, one issue at the time is OK, just don't make it one angle at the time. A field like Aesthetics does have a lot of disciplines that enrich its inquiries.
That's fine, but the problem is when one reads a post and says, "Oy, this is wrong about what meaning is/how it works, and now it's also wrong about what truth is/how it works, and now it's also wrong about what standards are, and now it's also wrong about . . ." So that there becomes not 5 (as in a first post), but now 10 (in the response to the response) and now 20 (in the next response), etc. things that need to be hashed out in a lot of detail to get anywhere.

In other words, if we keep piling on more and more stuff that the other person thinks has things completely wrong, then it's just futile. In that case there's a need to simplify and find at least one simple thing that can be agreed upon, and then try to build from there, exploring in detail just where divergences are occurring.
User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 2318
Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
Location: Panama
Contact:

Re: Which hermeneutical method is the most appropriate way to evaluate a piece of art?

Post by Count Lucanor »

Terrapin Station wrote: August 22nd, 2020, 7:51 pm
Count Lucanor wrote: August 22nd, 2020, 7:32 pm It's OK trying to shorten the length of the posts, however, it seems to me that what you call "introducing more and more issues" is actually introducing more angles from different disciplines, all of which contribute to understanding the subject we're focusing on. This is for me what modern philosophy does, a synoptic approach, requiring an interdisciplinary cooperation between different fields, each one contributing its own specialized knowledge.

So, sure, one issue at the time is OK, just don't make it one angle at the time. A field like Aesthetics does have a lot of disciplines that enrich its inquiries.
That's fine, but the problem is when one reads a post and says, "Oy, this is wrong about what meaning is/how it works, and now it's also wrong about what truth is/how it works, and now it's also wrong about what standards are, and now it's also wrong about . . ." So that there becomes not 5 (as in a first post), but now 10 (in the response to the response) and now 20 (in the next response), etc. things that need to be hashed out in a lot of detail to get anywhere.

In other words, if we keep piling on more and more stuff that the other person thinks has things completely wrong, then it's just futile. In that case there's a need to simplify and find at least one simple thing that can be agreed upon, and then try to build from there, exploring in detail just where divergences are occurring.
To be honest, I really don't mind the piling up of stuff. Not everyone is comfortable with it, I guess. If you get two complete strangers from different backgrounds and with different worldviews, which is the most likely scenario in forums like these, lots of ideas will be poured in to make each one's case, to clarify where their views come from. One thing I have learned over the years is that for some discussions to land quickly in practical results, a previous common ground is needed, some fundamental agreements that allow the rest of the conversation to go on fluidly. If you put a fundamental Christian and an atheist to debate how the end suffering in the world, that will be a long discussion and very unlikely to finish in an agreement on practical steps.

The point is: for narrowing the debates to very specific, practical issues, one must agree on the fundamentals. My point of views in Aesthetics come from philosophical realism and a materialist approach to cultural history, such as one can find in Raymond William's sociology of culture. And although usually regarded as an idealist, I take R. G. Collingwood's history of art as very insightful in terms of the approach to philosophy of history, his views of history as a science and on the meaning of actions, which somehow connect with materialist approaches. I also hold in high intellectual esteem the Italian realist reaction against the Romantic mysticism of idealist philosopher Benedetto Croce: Gramsci, Paryeson and especially Galvano della Volpe. For a materialist theory of culture, I also take from Umberto Eco's research on semiotics. So, if your positions are some distance apart from these views, you might expect that our debates on the topic of art will be hindered by major disagreements in fundamental issues from the start.
The wise are instructed by reason, average minds by experience, the stupid by necessity and the brute by instinct.
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Which hermeneutical method is the most appropriate way to evaluate a piece of art?

Post by Terrapin Station »

Count Lucanor wrote: August 22nd, 2020, 9:59 pm
To be honest, I really don't mind the piling up of stuff. Not everyone is comfortable with it, I guess. If you get two complete strangers from different backgrounds and with different worldviews, which is the most likely scenario in forums like these, lots of ideas will be poured in to make each one's case,
Which always winds up being a waste of time and effort in my opinion (an opinion formed after getting into and observing these discussions for over 25 years now). The two people spend so much time and energy typing ad nauseum, and they both end up in the same place they were prior to starting, where they'll usually repeat the same points again and again if prompted. That's a waste of time in my opinion.

What I'm ultimately looking for is "progress" in the sense of "settling" something, even if that only amounts to realizing there's some irreconcilable difference where each party could give the other's view where the other would feel it's an accurate, good-faith paraphrase. That means that they're at least listening to each other and seriously considering the other's views.

What I like to see is that someone claims something--something simple, and the other person either agrees or gives a specific, detailed objection explaining why they don't agree, where the objection is dealt with in a detailed way, either by agreeing or by explaining why it doesn't work, and so on. That can be a lengthy process that needs to get into background topics, which is why it's best to focus on one simple thing at a time, because thousands and thousands of words might wind up needing to be written (not all at once) back and forth to just make progress on one simple thing.
The point is: for narrowing the debates to very specific, practical issues, one must agree on the fundamentals. My point of views in Aesthetics come from philosophical realism and a materialist approach to cultural history, such as one can find in Raymond William's sociology of culture. And although usually regarded as an idealist, I take R. G. Collingwood's history of art as very insightful in terms of the approach to philosophy of history, his views of history as a science and on the meaning of actions, which somehow connect with materialist approaches. I also hold in high intellectual esteem the Italian realist reaction against the Romantic mysticism of idealist philosopher Benedetto Croce: Gramsci, Paryeson and especially Galvano della Volpe. For a materialist theory of culture, I also take from Umberto Eco's research on semiotics. So, if your positions are some distance apart from these views, you might expect that our debates on the topic of art will be hindered by major disagreements in fundamental issues from the start.
Giving that as background certainly doesn't simplify anything, lol, as we're referencing tons of literature there, at least some of which is stuff where I have multiple disagreements with every single sentence when I read it. In general, even philosophers that I'm a fan of I tend to disagree with at least half of the time. Philosophers that I'm not a fan of I can easily disagree with multiple times per sentence. In my opinion, a large percentage of the literature of philosophy has been completely stupid, poorly conceived, too-often incoherent and poorly-written-to-boot crap--a lot of it so stupid that it strikes me as bizarre how it's not immediately seen as such, which is one of the primary factors that attracted me to study philosophy in the first place. I wanted a better handle on why people would claim such ridiculous/stupid things.

At any rate, I'm also a "materialist" (I prefer "physicalist," partially because of the historical associations of "materialism" with Marxism, where Marx is one of the philosophers I disagree with multiple times per sentence). But on my view, mental phenomena, which are completely physical, are also inherently first-person, and phenomena such as aesthetic responses, meaning, valuations, etc. are mental-only, even if they're influenced in various ways by things (such as culture, of course) that are not mental-only. Influence is not identity, of course.
User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 2318
Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
Location: Panama
Contact:

Re: Which hermeneutical method is the most appropriate way to evaluate a piece of art?

Post by Count Lucanor »

Terrapin Station wrote: August 23rd, 2020, 8:13 am
Which always winds up being a waste of time and effort in my opinion (an opinion formed after getting into and observing these discussions for over 25 years now). The two people spend so much time and energy typing ad nauseum, and they both end up in the same place they were prior to starting, where they'll usually repeat the same points again and again if prompted. That's a waste of time in my opinion.
I have been in discussion groups for around 25 years too, so I get what you're talking about, but it also depends on the general orientation of the forums, their sub-forums and the particular topics. There may be several motivations to get into a discussion, which for me go from casual fun (without any intellectual gain expected) to trying to gain insights on a thought-provoking issue. The latter is scarce or you simply find that newbies bring up topics that you have already discussed extensively for years, so it may get boring repeating yourself all over again. The least important of motivations is trying to convince someone; I learned since very early that no one convinces anyone, they convince themselves. So one must choose the topic to engage with, but I don't mind the time and energy if I'm gaining something myself, whether that could mean strengthening my original position or changing it.
Terrapin Station wrote: August 23rd, 2020, 8:13 am At any rate, I'm also a "materialist" (I prefer "physicalist," partially because of the historical associations of "materialism" with Marxism, where Marx is one of the philosophers I disagree with multiple times per sentence). But on my view, mental phenomena, which are completely physical, are also inherently first-person, and phenomena such as aesthetic responses, meaning, valuations, etc. are mental-only, even if they're influenced in various ways by things (such as culture, of course) that are not mental-only. Influence is not identity, of course.
I'm aware we're different kind of materialists (or physicalists) and will have major disagreements, starting with our views on Marx, although perhaps that's not the only line of thought in realism and materialism that we'll disagree with. I generally distrust psychological and first-person experiences as explanations for human affairs, and will give more weight to sociological or anthropological views. I do trust neuroscience and cognitive research (not the one oriented towards computational theories of mind). For me, the category of praxis is fundamental. So, while my theory of art necessarily will look at the historical developments and the relation between creative endeavors and the social context from where they emerge, yours probably not.
The wise are instructed by reason, average minds by experience, the stupid by necessity and the brute by instinct.
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of the Arts and Philosophy in the Arts”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021