Graffiti & Girls

[Pastabake]

I think we understand what art is better.

Art is a human construct. We don't understand nature or our response to nature by imposing such an artificial filter in-between. I'm always reminded by the fact that a wine aficionado is just someone who has trained themselves to enjoy expensive wine.

[Hereandnow]

Nearly all of this woman's paintings are vaginas, hidden in flower blooms.

But they're not difficult to see at all. All too easy. O'keeffe said that with this kind of thing, critics are just talking about themselves. Of course, whether it's a Jungian archetype or Freudian repression the artist is the last to know. It takes a critic. Then again, critics are talking about themselves and everyone esle when they bring these symbolic values out.

-- Updated July 2nd, 2013, 8:38 pm to add the following --

Art is a human construct. We don't understand nature or our response to nature by imposing such an artificial filter in-between. I'm always reminded by the fact that a wine aficionado is just someone who has trained themselves to enjoy expensive wine.

You can say art is a human construct, but you have to tell me why, Pastabake. I told you why it is not just this; now you tell me: for art to be art, why does a constructed medium have to be part of it?

Ad re. the fine wine. There is richer aesthetic in fine wine than in Mogin Davis (sp?) Training helps you see this.But what of the experience itself in the context of a subjective world where fine wines are not there to compare and raise judgment? High brow aesthetic values entirely contrived, are they? But the thing is, once you get to understand these values you realize they are not contrived. Beethoven's sonatas are amazing to behold--the balance, the form, the perfection. But there is, admittedly, a rub: what is better, playing Beethoven or having a good mud fight at the beach, say (providing you're young and healthy andl love this kind of thing.) It does make high brow taste seem like a contrived elitism.

[Pastabake]

You can say art is a human construct, but you have to tell me why, Pastabake.

Art is a word that has a meaning that defines it as a human construct. I realise that we can stretch this definition to include 'skill and craft(thing)ship' of items constructed by animals - such as nest etc.

... now stretch this idea of constructing to include 'conceptualisation', after all poets are artists ... so when a natural feature is photographed, filmed, or picked up as in the case of your driftwood ... the act of that 'picking' is the construction.

The piece of driftwood, the funny looking cloud are all just beautiful and possibly interesting natural phenomena, but by picking you've constructed a conceptual layer and it is primarily that layer that is appreciated as art ... not the inherent beauty of the driftwood.

When you look at a cloud and call it art what you are really appreciating is your own conceptualisation of it. A form of narcissistic self appreciation.

Natural beauty doesn't need to be described in terms of art, because it is flawless and without meaning.

once you get to understand these values you realize they are not contrived.

That is only because you can't possibly get to understand those values without yourself being changed. It's a process of self indoctrination.

The difference between a person who likes Lambrusco or Liebfraumilch (dirt cheap wine) and a wine aficionados is solely the amount of money they spend to get high. They both enjoy their wine and they both enjoy the feeling they get from drinking it.

Now of course there is a social/psychological element to all of this and I note that there were very few water aficionados until the cost of bottled water started to rise into silly prices.

Have you ever tasted 1000 year old eggs? Or Surströmming ... or any other culturally acquired tastes?

The trouble is that humans have complex psychologies and the drivers for appreciating anything does not merely come down to whether you at first like it. Humans spend an inordinate amount of time learning to like stuff.

[Hereandnow]

When you look at a cloud and call it art what you are really appreciating is your own conceptualisation of it. A form of narcissistic self appreciation.

Well, that is close to my point, although I dont' think our aethetic responses are properly named narcissistic; or, I'll allow this bit about narcissism if you concede that all gratifications are like this. I appreciate a fine wine, a well written thesis, a comfortable couch, a drive through the country, etc. All narcissistic; but this doesnt stop intersubjective agreement on cetain significant forms that evoke aesthetic rapture. And in this agreement there are objects out there that are nuanced and complex tht make up the terms of intelligent discussion and theory.

Natural beauty doesn't need to be described in terms of art, because it is flawless and without meaning.

I don't follow this: Without meaning? I see a sunset and I am moved. Why is there no meaning? I see a landscape by Maxfield Parrish, I am moved. The rule is, you have to judge like cses in a like manner. That one is natural is merely incidental UNLESS you say why it is important.

That is only because you can't possibly get to understand those values without yourself being changed. It's a process of self indoctrination.

The difference between a person who likes Lambrusco or Liebfraumilch (dirt cheap wine) and a wine aficionados is solely the amount of money they spend to get high. They both enjoy their wine and they both enjoy the feeling they get from drinking it.

I have to admit I have never heard this one before. You think wine connaisseurs are just kidding themselves when they talk about the woody quality, or this or that? But that's just crazy. Do you also think this regarding music and literature; do you think a Spiderman comic is just as good as Gatsby? Hmmmm. I think you haven't really studied these things.

The trouble is that humans have complex psychologies and the drivers for appreciating anything does not merely come down to whether you at first like it. Humans spend an inordinate amount of time learning to like stuff.

Things get complicated, to be sure. Art rests with the aesthetic experience and the complexity brings in novel forms of aesthetic responses. Keep in mind that the simple things, the things you "like at first" are not at all simple; they just seem that way becasue you already have a backdrop of complexity that makes for the aesthetic experience, but arise spontaneously, much in the way driving is so simple now, but at first alien to you. I could make the case that you and your bad wine take a great deal of acclimation. You would have to move back your standards yet again to make the point: Sap from trees would be just as good. But you know ths is not true.

[Pastabake]

I don't follow this: Without meaning? I see a sunset and I am moved. Why is there no meaning?

It relates back to my first point. Any artistic meaning is provided by you the viewer. It's narcissistic because it's auto satisfaction.

Unlike nature, when you experience a piece of art it's not a one way street, your experience is moderated and framed by an external meaning ... that of the artist.

You think wine connoisseurs are just kidding themselves when they talk about the woody quality, or this or that? But that's just crazy.

Yes they are, a grand delusion, a self constructed prison.

I really don't understand what you are getting at when you try to introduce literature. I personally don't think that A Spiderman Comic is better than The Great Gatsby .. but then I am forced to remember that when TGG was first published it wasn't received particularly well. What exactly are we saying when we claim that TGG is better than SM? That trends come and go and that there are many once brilliant writers whose works have almost vanished from memory makes me wonder if any literary standard has any enduring value whatsoever.

I think you haven't really studied these things.

I'm not at all sure what you mean. Are you suggesting that my opinions only have worth if they're the result of indoctrination?

Sap from trees would be just as good. But you know this is not true.

Birch sap wine is rather nice, so I hear.

[Hereandnow]

Ok, ok; I can't fight you on these matters of taste Pastabake. But I can bring Mill in to my rescue. Mill poses the question, Is it better to a a pig satisfied than philosopher unsatisfied? A satisfied pig is the ultimate hedonist here, a hedoistic epicurean where the good life is one of easily gotten pleasures, limited disappointments, etc. The philosopher struggles with grand ideas. Mill chooses, of course, the life of the philosopher because only s/he knows both. an chooses to be a philosiopher. Pigs only know the pigs values and have no experiences of the virtues of philosophy, so how can they choose objectively?

It is a tough issue, but Mill has a point. While I cannot argue that Bach is better than Beiber on strict aesthetic grounds, one "feeling" vs another, I can say to one on the outside, a Beiber fan, that I have been through my pop music phase and if s/he were to move into the world of Debussy, a musical conversion wold be forthcoming because one aesthetic is in fact superior to the other, but you have to experience these yourself to know the difference and appreciate them.

I would also rally support from Clive Bell and his book "Art". SIgnificant form invokes aesthetic rapture. See the artful complexity of Fitzgerald, the way he weaves meanings together in a rich fabric of words. See the human condition laid bare, then artfully stitched and patterned, and so forth. Incredible forms here, forms of depth and majesty (see his allusion to Jacob's ladder in the nostolgic recollection of Gatsby's first encounter with Daisy. So beautiful!. I mean, argument aside; and you bring in this platonic conception he is trying to realize--there's no denying at all that you are have a profound aesthetic experience. Compare this to the "ZAP' and Ugh" and "Wham" of comic books. Primitive and artless. (Not that I dont love comics; it's just an argument.)

A last thought: We were discussing words the other day and a comparison between the word 'crave' and yearn' came up. Long story short: 'Yearn' points beyond itself to a lofty value, beautiful to imagine, but unrealized; 'crave' is about that banana split at Dairy Queen. Now, I love banana splits, but which is better? You can say they are equal, but Mill and I would only say you must not know both to say such a thing.

[Pastabake]

The issue isn't whether Bach is better than Beiber the issue is whether there is any meaningful way of saying that one persons appreciation of one is better than another's appreciate of the other.

While it is possible to understand the anatomy of a cow by dissecting it, you get no closer to understanding the cow.

Mills point is somewhat questionable considering that (a) utilitarian thinking puts happiness as a goal and by definition an unsatisfied philosopher is going to be unhappier than a satisfied pig and (b) Mills was a hot housed child that went on to have a mental breakdown so hardly a poster boy.

Pigs only know the pigs values and have no experiences of the virtues of philosophy, so how can they choose objectively?

I think you're asking a bit too much of philosophy here ... my take on it is that it only provides more questions.

But how can you objectively choose that which moves you? You don't decide to be moved by the sunset, it just happens.

I would also rally support from Clive Bell and his book "Art". SIgnificant form invokes aesthetic rapture.

This doesn't answer the troublesome question of why so many once great writers have fallen out of fashion ... not just among the uneducated hoi polloi but also among intellectuals. How many people have read and actually enjoy Aristophanes, Euripides or Aeschylus? Or for that matter how many none Russian Lit students read Turgenev or Dostoyevsky? While almost everyone reads Tolstoy - or at least attempts to.

So while I might agree that significant form invokes aesthetic rapture, it seems that what counts as significant form changes over time. So I'm left wondering where the objectivity is in all this?

I have been through my pop music phase and if s/he were to move into the world of Debussy

I started out listening to classical music until I was ten and then moved on to punk rock ... does that make punk rock aesthetically superior to Beethoven, Debussy, Vivaldi and Strauss? Or did it just mean that punk rock was more in fitting with my aesthetic? Of course now I'm just as likely to listen to Jazz or Rap than I am to either Classical or Punk. I see it more as a response to my mood and requirements than anything else.

I don't know whether you saw Glastonbury this year but 90k+ seemed to enjoy the Rolling Stones live and I have no idea how many watched it on TV .. now 30-40 years ago they might have been great but last week they were old and pathetic ... so why did so many people enjoy it?

The answer to that explains why so many once great artists of all forms drift out of the public eye.

[Hereandnow]

You know, I was going to go after this and pursue it tooth and nail, but the truth be told, I was just playing the devil's advocate; you know, just for fun. In fact, I don't think states of mind can be compared valuatively (though, we are not dissecting cows; we are all cows, and there is considerable reason to affirm that we live in like aesthetic worlds). Some of my greatest joys are the simplest and least respected by the art authorities (not to even mention the establishment in which, as one critic put it, art artwork itself is almost altogether absent).

I would play this out more fully; in fact, that is the only way to clarify thoughts--defend the opposing arguments. After all, aesthetic judgment is not arbitrary, but it would come down to comparing mental states that are complex and involve vagaries of experiential possibility that are difficult even to imagine. My heart isn't in it for now. Cheers!

[Pastabake]

That's a shame as I would have been interested in seeing it.

I wasn't suggesting that aesthetics was arbitrary for the individual, I was suggesting that no two individuals are the same so the meaning they get from any activity is going to be different ... even if they like the same thing.

Aesthetics seems to imply that you can dissect something you love and you will find the reason for loving it ... I'm saying that you'd get closer to the truth by dissecting yourself. Even if you were to find the reasons - which I have my doubts - they would only hold for you, they wouldn't be universal.

[Greendolphin]

That's a shame as I would have been interested in seeing it.

I wasn't suggesting that aesthetics was arbitrary for the individual, I was suggesting that no two individuals are the same so the meaning they get from any activity is going to be different ... even if they like the same thing.

Aesthetics seems to imply that you can dissect something you love and you will find the reason for loving it ... I'm saying that you'd get closer to the truth by dissecting yourself. Even if you were to find the reasons - which I have my doubts - they would only hold for you, they wouldn't be universal.

What about Edmund Burke's account of beauty in his famous treatise on aesthetics : "A Philosophical Investigation into the Sublime and Beautiful?"

Burke said that beautiful things were those things that caused us to love them, and that all beautiful things had certain properties in common: they were smooth, they were relatively small, they were gradually variated ( i.e.streamlined), they did not possess glaring/lurid colours, etc, etc.

I think he was right!

What do you think?

Regards,

John

[Pastabake]

I'll give it a read. My first thought though is that people love ugly things as well. Pug dogs for instance.

[Hereandnow]

I wasn't suggesting that aesthetics was arbitrary for the individual, I was suggesting that no two individuals are the same so the meaning they get from any activity is going to be different ... even if they like the same thing.

But then, why are they not the same? There is plenty in the intersubjectivity in which experiences are shared in great detail to suggest our experiences are very much alike, often identical: a red light is probably red for you and me in exactly the same way. Why would aesthetic responses any different?

[Pastabake]

Because they are the result of their own unique set of experiences made even more unique by the very individual nature of who they are.

The colour blind person doesn't see red in the same way as a 'normal' person.

Nor can you account for someone liking the colour purple by reference to the properties of the colour itself.

I'm not denying that we can't analyse commonalities to cobble together an idea of what makes the perfect picture. I just have my doubts that many people would like the resultant picture.

[Hereandnow]

Because they are the result of their own unique set of experiences made even more unique by the very individual nature of who they are.

The colour blind person doesn't see red in the same way as a 'normal' person.

Nor can you account for someone liking the colour purple by reference to the properties of the colour itself.

I'm not denying that we can't analyse commonalities to cobble together an idea of what makes the perfect picture. I just have my doubts that many people would like the resultant picture.

But what are you suggesting, that the argeement we have regarding our experiences are, in the exchange of symbols used in a systematically communicative language, is just lucky in its success? You mean to say that all that I have within and put into intersubjectivity is different from others?


Then how, as Russell asked long ago, do you get this kind of agreement and in such specificity? The only answer is that there is sufficient agreement in actual content to account for the agreement in intersubjective communication.

Now, it is also clear that while our complex semiotic systems in play indicate a great deal of agreement, it is not the case that my experiences are the same as another's. Indeed, they are wholly other; that is, existentially (or ontologically) unique, singular. The issue does seem to rest with our ability to infer similarity from the degree of intersubjective agreement. High degrees (as with math, say) means high similarity; low degrees, as with taste, indicate low similarity.

Just how low is agreement. It could be argued that it is certainly high enough to warrent systems of aesthetic language: systems in music, visual art, gastronomy, and so forth. Hence, the "objectivity" of judgments we make for or against rests with these systems. The argumnt, I believe, does indicate a fairly high degree meaningful aesthetic judgment is warrented.

[Pastabake]

Then how, as Russell asked long ago, do you get this kind of agreement and in such specificity? The only answer is that there is sufficient agreement in actual content to account for the agreement in intersubjective communication.

What are we agreeing on exactly?