4 ms·

(The below is with an intent of explaining my view of Paul's essay and is written with the tone of a devil's advocate) Sorry I prefer quoting Feynman - art the

by fsloth 5y ago

(The below is with an intent of explaining my view of Paul's essay and is written with the tone of a devil's advocate) Sorry I prefer quoting Feynman - art theory is about as usefull for enjoying and doing art as ornithology is for birds. The original quote was "Philosophy of science is about as useful for science as ornithology is for birds." Note! This does not denigrate the "useless" fields as such - but the point of view is that their usefulness for the field they claim to study is at most limited. As a trained physicist and hobbyist artist I can pretty much agree with this. Doing physics and doing art is so friggin hard that while focusing on them, human cognition has no space for analysis in any other domain. Want to analyse a classical painting? Well, there is a very good technique for this but it requires a huge amount of labour - replicate it. I realize this is a very technical point of view, but having a hands-on experience, it's very hard to convince me any other way would offer superior understanding of the core issues at play. I must repeat that I am not discounting analysis - but they are only secondary in importance to the ding an sich. Sorry. This is getting a very long winded way of expressing my point of view. I read Paul's essay from this very specifically technical point of view that acknowledges the inherent complexity in the chosen domain (classical art) and hence takes it obvious that there are some works 'better' than others. But there is no numerical metric we can use to gauge paintings - hence we must refer to an intuitive understanding of the quality of a work. Paul calls this 'intuitive understanding of quality' taste. I think the whole point was to point out that some things can be considered rationally better than others, even though we don't have an objective numerical measure for this goodness.

pyrale 5y ago
> I think the whole point was to point out that some things can be considered rationally better than others While it's anyone's right to pass their opinion as a fact, it helps little in terms of explaining how different people react to art. > art theory is about as usefull for enjoying and doing art as ornithology is for birds. I believe the trouble here is that birds rarely try to pass as ornithologists. Trying to formulate a general theory about what makes art or artistic taste is sociology work, not art. > some things can be considered rationally better than others I hope blue is your favorite color, because it's mine; and if it's not yours, you're wrong.
- fsloth 5y ago
  "I hope blue is your favorite color, because it's mine; and if it's not yours, you're wrong" No, but if we both are at a painting course and painting the same still life, it is plausible we can come to a honest agreement about whose painting we prefer, which details are better presented in the others work and so on. We are obviously talking of two entirely different things - art as a social phenomenon, and art as art (a technical skill, an aesthetic experience ). "Taste as a metric" has entirely different meaning in these two contexts. In the sociological context I completely agree with you. But in the "art as craft to be done, not merely observed because that is boring" sense the sociological analysis offers nothing (for the skill or the aesthetic experience). We could be discussing of racing - the sociological aspect of observing the race - or of the actual driving which operate on completely two context. So sociology studies audiences, while I am talking about actually driving/painting and how the perceptions in that domain have nothing to do with sociology but the craft based aspects only. Considering the complexity,we are beyond the point where the work is so difficult that Taylorian external analysis of purely mechanical facts leads to an incomplete understanding of the actual work done. So if someone would focus only on the sociological, observe-without-learning-craft type of analysis, their viewpoint would not envelope the art-ding-an-sich. Which is totally fine - but external to actually _doing art_.
  - pyrale 5y ago
    3 examples of still life: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bd/Jan_Bruegel_%28I%29_-_Bouquet_of_Flowers_in_a_Ceramic_Vase.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bd/Jan_Brue... https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/437317 https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/437317 https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/490581 https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/490581 As you can see, the three artists didn't value the same things in their composition. All three are recognized enough to have their place in a museum. And I seriously doubt you can find a consensus about a general theory to rank their work.
    - fsloth 5y ago
      Yes, which means all of whom have recognized mastery of their art. So in a way they all are at the top. But can we "rank art" at all? I think we can but we need to look not at the masters, but at the multitude of nameless students, most of which will never get their works displayed. Let's take an thought experiment - an art class of local hobbyists is given the task of copying only one of them, let's say the Pissarro one. After everyone considers their work done, each student is given the task of distributing the paintings to two groups, "the better half" and "the not-as-good" half. Are the groupings random, or is there "a sense of taste and quality" guiding the students? If you agree that it is likely that this grouping can be done in a way that is not random, we can agree on my point that there is a non-numerical-yet-not-random way to rate art that can be applied at least some of the time. If we disagree, we disagree and that's fine. Another example: Our daughter likes to draw a lot in her own style. Now she is revisiting her old drawings and redrawing them few years later. While her earlier work has some naive charm, she tends to prefer her later pieces, and indeed I do find her current work "better" in the sense that the characters are "more" there - they are more skilfully renderered and have "more character". I think she is "a better artist" a few years later. Would others agree on this? Again, I would imagine they do. I think the condensed version of my claim is "There are scenarios where within a given genre/style art can be rated by a non-random yet non-numerical measure". I think piano competitions, especially the ones where the contestants play the same pieces work this way - there is a non-numerical, yet non-random measure guided by the jurys taste on who is the best. I do appreciate you have the patience to continue this dialogue!

by fsloth 5y ago

pyrale 5y ago

> I think the whole point was to point out that some things can be considered rationally better than others While it's anyone's right to pass their opinion as a fact, it helps little in terms of explaining how different people react to art. > art theory is about as usefull for enjoying and doing art as ornithology is for birds. I believe the trouble here is that birds rarely try to pass as ornithologists. Trying to formulate a general theory about what makes art or artistic taste is sociology work, not art. > some things can be considered rationally better than others I hope blue is your favorite color, because it's mine; and if it's not yours, you're wrong.

fsloth 5y ago
"I hope blue is your favorite color, because it's mine; and if it's not yours, you're wrong" No, but if we both are at a painting course and painting the same still life, it is plausible we can come to a honest agreement about whose painting we prefer, which details are better presented in the others work and so on. We are obviously talking of two entirely different things - art as a social phenomenon, and art as art (a technical skill, an aesthetic experience ). "Taste as a metric" has entirely different meaning in these two contexts. In the sociological context I completely agree with you. But in the "art as craft to be done, not merely observed because that is boring" sense the sociological analysis offers nothing (for the skill or the aesthetic experience). We could be discussing of racing - the sociological aspect of observing the race - or of the actual driving which operate on completely two context. So sociology studies audiences, while I am talking about actually driving/painting and how the perceptions in that domain have nothing to do with sociology but the craft based aspects only. Considering the complexity,we are beyond the point where the work is so difficult that Taylorian external analysis of purely mechanical facts leads to an incomplete understanding of the actual work done. So if someone would focus only on the sociological, observe-without-learning-craft type of analysis, their viewpoint would not envelope the art-ding-an-sich. Which is totally fine - but external to actually _doing art_.
- pyrale 5y ago
  3 examples of still life: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bd/Jan_Bruegel_%28I%29_-_Bouquet_of_Flowers_in_a_Ceramic_Vase.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bd/Jan_Brue... https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/437317 https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/437317 https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/490581 https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/490581 As you can see, the three artists didn't value the same things in their composition. All three are recognized enough to have their place in a museum. And I seriously doubt you can find a consensus about a general theory to rank their work.
  - fsloth 5y ago
    Yes, which means all of whom have recognized mastery of their art. So in a way they all are at the top. But can we "rank art" at all? I think we can but we need to look not at the masters, but at the multitude of nameless students, most of which will never get their works displayed. Let's take an thought experiment - an art class of local hobbyists is given the task of copying only one of them, let's say the Pissarro one. After everyone considers their work done, each student is given the task of distributing the paintings to two groups, "the better half" and "the not-as-good" half. Are the groupings random, or is there "a sense of taste and quality" guiding the students? If you agree that it is likely that this grouping can be done in a way that is not random, we can agree on my point that there is a non-numerical-yet-not-random way to rate art that can be applied at least some of the time. If we disagree, we disagree and that's fine. Another example: Our daughter likes to draw a lot in her own style. Now she is revisiting her old drawings and redrawing them few years later. While her earlier work has some naive charm, she tends to prefer her later pieces, and indeed I do find her current work "better" in the sense that the characters are "more" there - they are more skilfully renderered and have "more character". I think she is "a better artist" a few years later. Would others agree on this? Again, I would imagine they do. I think the condensed version of my claim is "There are scenarios where within a given genre/style art can be rated by a non-random yet non-numerical measure". I think piano competitions, especially the ones where the contestants play the same pieces work this way - there is a non-numerical, yet non-random measure guided by the jurys taste on who is the best. I do appreciate you have the patience to continue this dialogue!