Weaponized

Can't refute my point so bring up something else huh

__________________

WhiskeyFace

This whole conversation is about semantics ya dingbat.

You justify your interpretation from evidence that is objective within the piece, which is the nature of criticism.

__________________
Red Bird~

'There is hope - but not for us'

progdude93

So you're saying the standard of interpretive justification is based on what is objectively in the piece? Gotcha.

...so then how does identifying objective phenomena within a piece of art, for example, the use of chiaroscuro in a baroque painting, lead to logically justifiable statements of intent (because while you might use different words, you were criticizing people who extrapolate too much because they ignore the artist's intent), aesthetic judgments, or final causes?

There's a gap that your logic fails to address, and that is the gap between objective terms and aesthetic terms.

WhiskeyFace

Ok, the intention of the artist is irrelevant to when the art is being interpreted (if I said something contrary to this earlier then I take that back), but it is important if we are to discuss quality of art, but that's a separate matter.

Intention is also important because I don't believe in accidental art.

And my criticism of people who extrapolate too much was more to do with how they refuse to accept that objectivity in art actually has value.

__________________
Red Bird~

'There is hope - but not for us'

Todd Hart

The intention for the piece to be art has to be there, but the authors intentions with regards to the 'meaning' of his or her art has been known for quite a while to be completely irrelevant to any form of criticism/discussion of meaning. One of the worst possible things you can do when studying an art is to take more than a passing glance at the biography of the author/artist/musician.

__________________

progdude93

But how can you claim objectivity has value in art when aesthetic terms aren't condition-governed terms? There could always be someone who criticizes YOU for extrapolating too much, and you wouldn't be able to prove him wrong. Why? Because aesthetic terms aren't condition-governed terms. The objectivity you're talking about seems to be oddly subjective....





That's odd, because I've never met somebody who studied art who did not also study the artists. Nobody looks at the paintings and ignores the names. Psychical distancing is bullshit. Art is gestural. And gestures rely on context, whether personal, subjective, or objective.

WhiskeyFace

EDIT:^ What do you mean by 'condition-governed'? And I could justify my own extrapolation by pointing to evidence within the piece

Another way to think of it is that art is a language, and every piece of art a statement. You can say something while actually meaning something else, and it's not the 'listeners' fault if they don't get that.

Also, art would be pointless if we could express all our feelings and ideas perfectly through words.

__________________
Red Bird~

'There is hope - but not for us'

Todd Hart

Ever since the development of New criticism in the '20s it's been pretty much universally agreed by art critics and literary theorists that biographical readings are a non-starting point. The fact that plenty of universities still rely on biography just proves how behind much of the academy is.

__________________

progdude93

There are three types of condition governance:

1. Strictly condition governed terms. Example: triangle. This kind of term has necessary conditions/strict definitions. A three sided geometric figure whose angles add up to 180 degrees is a triangle, and must always be a triangle. If those conditions are not met, it is not a triangle.
2. Loosely condition governed terms. Example: intelligent. This kind of term has a set of sufficient conditions (like initiative, creativity, problem solving, et al), but it has an unbounded set, and it has no necessary conditions. This means that while there is a certain combination of sufficient conditions for "intelligence" to be satisfied, the amount of sufficient conditions is unspecified and cannot be necessarily true. Meaning that while most people would agree that someone who satisfies many of those conditions is intelligent, it cannot NECESSARILY be true.
3. Defeasible terms. Example: contract. This kind of term can be proven inapplicable by a single property. I forget the distinction between this kind of term and the first kind but there is one. But the distinction isn't too important in this instance.

Since aesthetic terms are not condition-governed, meaning they can never be proven false, you can't really claim there's much objectivity in art. Yes, there may be certain patterns in a painting. But why the **** does that logically justify normative claims? The reality is that the important part of art lies in the reaction of the subject. It's the aesthetic emotion that makes art art. And aesthetic emotion is distinct from the regular term emotion. And by no means am I saying that aesthetic emotion is ALL art has. But it is the unifying principle of art, that all art has.

treborillusion

So why can't we all be like
"What ever gets you through the night."
?

Y'know, who cares if people don't believe in the same shit?

WhiskeyFace

Because racism. There's one reason. You can figure out the rest yourself.


Yeah, and the point of criticism is to identify why it is we reacted a certain way to a piece of art by pointing to objective evidence within the piece.

__________________
Red Bird~

'There is hope - but not for us'

progdude93

So now "pretty much" universal agreement passes for truth? I don't care what a bunch of people bundled under the umbrella of art critics and literary theorists have to say. I think knowing the artist's background and personal philosophy can be quite useful and interesting in evaluating art, though it must certainly be taken with a grain of salt. Context is a tool, not the toolbelt.

Todd Hart

Yes, that's how science and philosophy, but especially literary and artistic theory, have worked since the Greeks.

__________________

progdude93

And it's a piss poor metric for truth.

EDIT: And it's not how science and philosophy work. Remember, science was very different than it is now.

SlackerBabbath

__________________
“Our life is what our thoughts make it.”
― Marcus Aurelius




Slacker's Gallery Feel free to view my paintings and leave comments.

captaincrunk

truth is nothing more than what the body of perceivers would agree to with perfect information. given that information, it's actually the best metric for truth

__________________

NEW UG ALBUM! GET UG ELECTRONIC ALBUM: DISC THREE TODAY!

SlackerBabbath

But that's a mistranslation, in the original Masoretic Text, Psalm 22:16 said "they bite like a lion at my hands and my feet"", but when it was translated into Greek for the Septuagint around the late 2nd century BC it somehow became "they pierced my hands and my feet."

__________________
“Our life is what our thoughts make it.”
― Marcus Aurelius




Slacker's Gallery Feel free to view my paintings and leave comments.

progdude93

But that's all guesswork. The reality is that we react to a piece of art due to our individual context. Like I referenced before, Cone wrote a fascinating essay, but I forgot the title

He makes his case about music in particular, but that's because some people claimed music wasn't art. His principles apply to all art, however. See, art is gestural, like I said before. Why? Because it relies on expression in various forms, and yet it is not expressive on its own. The piece of art itself doesn't express anything until it is contextualized. It can't. It's like the word "oh." That word can mean any number of things, but until it is contextualized, it is meaningless gibberish. It could be out of shock, pleasure, fear, pain, anything really. It's like the Ditto of the semantic world.

Imagine looking at a piece of music written out on sheet music. As that song is on a piece of paper, and you can't hear it, you can't properly contextualize it. At that point, the piece of paper with notation on it isn't art, because we have no connection or reaction to it. But once it is played, we can listen to it, enjoy it, contextualize it, react to it, and connect to it. At that point, it is art.

So speak of the objective criteria within the artwork all you want, but it's not the key issue.



But nobody has perfect information, so it's an awful metric for truth.



That's quite a convenient mistranslation for them to have made....

PS, slackerbabbath, your paintings are pretty boss.

captaincrunk

it's the only metric you could possibly have, so it's therefore the best metric

__________________

NEW UG ALBUM! GET UG ELECTRONIC ALBUM: DISC THREE TODAY!