How Learning to Look at Paintings Can Help One Better Appreciate Films
I think we’ve already said what there is to say here…
But I’m wondering if every work of art can be translated into statements like this. Again, I’m thinking specifically of instrumental music like jazz. What statement does “Salt Peanuts” make? We could identify feelings that the musical pieces express, and maybe we could extrapolate general notions about the artist’s concepts and worldview (even that might be sketchy), but I don’t know if we can find the type of statement you’re looking for.
Suppose the musicians just want to make something that sounds really good—that gives someone aesthetic pleasure—either by expressing some form of sorrow or joy? I’m not a musician, but I’m starting to feel that a lot of them approach the music this way. They don’t necessarily have a specific opinion or belief that they’re trying to express—and that’s OK, imo.
If the music has nothing to teach us, then it has nothing to teach us. I listened to Salt Peanuts and I think you’re right: it doesn’t teach us a thing about the world, but that’s not a good thing. I read it as a one-dimensional note of joy, about how life is great and one shouldn’t worry. It says much more than that about the world though but it would take someone more accustomed to jazz to tell you. We know this because there are similar one-note expressions of joy in other genres that sound vastly different. In comparison to something like Charles Mingus’s Moanin’ , which seems to suggest the struggle of one to resist becoming depressed and find a bright side to life, Salt Peanuts becomes more obviously shallow. In doing so, it challenges the viewer a little more. It is a little deeper. Listen to Cornel West read philosophy into jazz vs blues: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKCZ1I9VVJw
Here’s another way of looking at it that might help. Although we may not be able to unearth statements from the music, the music may still be profound and even serious. I’m talking about the way expressions of feelings can be profound or shallow, true or false. Proving which music expresses feelings in a profound way isn’t easy, but I’m do think great music does “contain” profound feelings.
Based on what? Your criteria is intersujective, yes? What you’re offering is a purely subjective basis for the artistic merit of Salt Peanuts. It feels pleasant therefore it must express deep feelings. The line you’re drawing between great art and not great art is decided by tastes rather than standards for what to value. Anybody can proclaim any feeling is profound. If one wants to defend their proclamation, they’d have to bring ideas into the discussion.
@Odi
When you listen to music, are you thinking about the sheet music? No. You listen to the music first.
But when I listen to music (not just as background music), I’m listening for several things—a) I’m following the melody and the way its developing; b) I’m listening to the specific instruments and the way they fit into the larger whole, etc. I’m not sure if this is “analysis” or “thinking” but my mind isn’t a blank. This type of approach is really important for me—if I want to really appreciate and enjoy the music (especially instrumental music). Now, I can enjoy music without really listening this intently, but my enjoyment is greatly enhanced when I do.
I’m asking for something similar when looking at visual art, and I assume people who like visual art do something similar. See what I mean?
@Michael
I listened to Salt Peanuts and I think you’re right: it doesn’t teach us a thing about the world, but that’s not a good thing. I read it as a one-dimensional note of joy, about how life is great and one shouldn’t worry.
This makes me bristle a bit because “Salt Peanuts”, imo, isn’t very different from many of Dizzy Gillespie’s other tunes, imo. Indeed, it’s not significantly different—at least in terms of ideas relating to how one should live—from a lot of be-bop, imo. And, imo, be-bop is a terrific style of music. Dizzy Gillespie and Charlie Parker are also great musicians.
I like listening to people like Cornel West and Wynton Marsalis when they talk about the concepts and ideas relating to jazz, but those comments are more generalized—about jazz itself or specific musicians—not specific pieces of music. And while they may (and can) speak about the ideas of specific pieces of jazz music, I’m arguing that many great jazz compositions/performances don’t necessarily have the kind of ideas you’re talking about.
Based on what? Your criteria is intersujective, yes? What you’re offering is a purely subjective basis for the artistic merit of Salt Peanuts.
Hold on. My comments about the profound feelings evoked by “Salt Peanuts” isn’t my complete defense of it. My point—and it’s one point—is that “Salt Peanuts”—and some art in general—can be deep without having profound ideas. In other words, ideas aren’t the only thing that can be profound.
Now, if I were going to make a case for the greatness of the song, I would rely on several different intersubjective criteria—originality, wholeness, timelessness, etc. But I also think that the emotional impact of a work of art can also be intersubjective. In what way is emotional impact intersubjective? Imo, it is intersubjective when there is a consensus from others—when many others react in a similar fashion. That may not be satisfying (it’s not completely satisfying to me), but I think the notion of profound ideas are also subject to similar problem.
The line you’re drawing between great art and not great art is decided by tastes rather than standards for what to value.
There isn’t a clean division between tastes and standards of excellence, imo—especially when we apply general standards of excellence (intersubjective criteria). We can’t escape from the influence of our personal tastes, preferences, experiences, etc. Intersubjective is not objective.
And while they may (and can) speak about the ideas of specific pieces of jazz music, I’m arguing that many great jazz compositions/performances don’t necessarily have the kind of ideas you’re talking about.
My main point is that the supposed unwillingness of these musicians to comment on life or make statements about the world in the way I’m talking about is in itself a statement about the world and a suggestion of multiple other compatible statements and values. It is the beginning of a philosophy. In this sense art is a form of philosophy but it is less precise because it’s symbols are more open to interpretation. But there is still a great deal can be done with its tools to express a worldview, even in non-word based mediums.
@Michael
My main point is that the supposed unwillingness of these musicians to comment on life or make statements about the world in the way I’m talking about is in itself a statement about the world and a suggestion of multiple other compatible statements and values.
Really, I’m not totally against this view, and if you were talking to my twenty-year-old self, I would probably agree with you completely. But I’m not longer so sure about this. Honestly, it sounds like you’re trying to force art (in this case, music) to fit into your notion that it must make a statement of the world—that each piece of music must have a philosophy unique to it.
If we were to talk to jazz musicians, some of them might support what you’re saying, but I have a feeling that many would not. (Then again, maybe not.) I think they play music because it sounds good; because they like many other people feel good. That’s not to say that they don’t have ideas and concepts behind their music, but the notion that each piece has unique set of lessons or information that one could help one live life seems off base. Do you know what I mean, or do you really thinking I’m off base, here?
….it must make a statement of the world—that each piece of music must have a philosophy unique to it.
“If it sounds good, it IS good.” Duke Ellington
like
I think they play music because it sounds good; because they like many other people feel good.
To me that’s a very political characteristic as it suggests a lot about the artist sees life, art, people. It suggests a worldview as much as any intentionally political statement in the work.
That’s not to say that they don’t have ideas and concepts behind their music, but the notion that each piece has unique set of lessons or information that one could help one live life seems off base.
No, the average piece of music doesn’t have lessons that could help us live life (although messages could be extracted). Great works of art have messages that help us live life.
If two things are not identical, then they have differences.
If they have differences, then we can explain those differences.
If the things were man-made, then we can attribute those differences to differences in two individuals’ philosophy or psychology.
But then you claimed to believe in a god, so if you also believe in free will and souls, then I suppose you could deny the third principle.
Kind of a low blow there Michael – you honestly believe Jazz doesn’t see differences?
Not intended as a lowblow but I don’t see a way outside the steps I just listed providing one has a kind of deterministic view. The only way outside of it I see is if one believes in the possibility of people to not be determined by their biology and environment. My view is based on the assumption that this is not possible.
It sounds like you are both agreeing on this:
unwillingness ….to comment on life or make statements about the world….is in itself a statement about the world and a suggestion of multiple other compatible statements and values.
I’m asking for something similar when looking at visual art, and I assume people who like visual art do something similar. See what I mean?
Jazz, being the non-conformist that I am (lol ar ar ar), I seriously would club someone if they tried to make me think about anything that doesn’t make sense to me as an individual. Honestly I take a very primitive approach to art when I first encounter it, and that’s fine. I can still discuss it once the sensory experience fades a little and my intellect kicks in, but I wouldn’t expect others to understand things the same way that I do.
So I guess… I have little to add to this discussion other than that people take their environment and learning in differently but that doesn’t make them less able to connect to others in discussion. To me experience is a personal thing. It’s like your body — it’s different from everyone else’s, and unless you lose a leg and get a fake one that looks like everyone else’s, there’s no way that your leg is going to exactly walk like anyone else’s on the planet. This is even more true when it comes to brains and personalities.
In other words, it’s kind of hard to give feedback on such a subject if you don’t tailor it firstly to the way each person tends to look at art.
Robert, he blatantly disagreed with that statement, saying: Honestly, it sounds like you’re trying to force art (in this case, music) to fit into your notion that it must make a statement of the world
Free will is the very issue at hand.
The question is where do the particular details and nuances of a work of art come from? If not from the brain of an artist (environment + biology) then they must come from the soul, something that is outside environment and biology and is not determined by them.
@Odi
Honestly I take a very primitive approach to art when I first encounter it, and that’s fine.
And if I looked inside your head in your first encounter with an artwork, what would I see? That’s what I’m looking for—and I don’t think what I would see is what we think of as analysis (although I believe that technically it is a form of analysis, just not what we normally think of). For example, Francisco shared some of his thought process on the first page: “The first time I see it I try to see the whole thing. Then I try to think about the elements/areas that interest me the most and examine them one at a time.” It’s more of an approach to viewing a painting. See what I mean?
So, I’m not really talking about your specific emotional or intellectual response to a specific painting so much as your approach—the thought process and thoughts that go on; how you look at painting, etc. I think hearing from painters such as yourself and photographers ( like Robert) are especially interesting.
Oh God, Jazz how would I explain that? It’s all emotion, sensory, response to color, line, etc. I can’t really articulate it — if you looked inside my head, the only way you could experience things through my eyes is to get sucked into my emotions.
This is me when I first encounter art — no language, just wild hair and wild glancing, grunt grunt:
Then I graduate to this, after the above.
@ MICHAEL
Is Jazz talking about artist motivation?
I’m not sure why a distinction is being made – God (soul) is within the environment as a concept and biology as chemical reaction e.g. dimethyltryptamine
@Michael
To me that’s a very political characteristic as it suggests a lot about the artist sees life, art, people. It suggests a worldview as much as any intentionally political statement in the work.
See, I don’t associate the desire to make people feel good via art with the ideas in an artwork, and calling this a political statement just seems strange and perplexing to me.
Great works of art have messages that help us live life.
It could—but why does it have to? Why is this an essential quality of great art? I’m not unsympathetic to this position, but I’m no longer as certain as you are.
Now, if we had two great works of art before us—one having important life lessons, the other not—I have more sympathy with the notion that the former is better than the latter. But I wouldn’t necessarily say the latter isn’t a great work of art. Why is this profound message necessary? If an artwork never set out to convey a deep message—directly or indirectly—is it fair to penalize the artwork for something it never set out to accomplish? That doesn’t seem right to me.
I agree that profundity is a valid intersubjective quality in a work of art—but why can’t it manifest itself in other ways besides a “message that helps one live his/her life?” Moreover, I want to hear why a profound message is essential for every great work of art? To me, you can weight this criterion more highly than others, but wouldn’t you say that this weighting is influenced by personal taste and preference? For example, another person may say that all great art must evoke intense, sublime feelings. One might be able to profound information that helps one live life better, but if it doesn’t evoke an intense, sublime feeling, it’s not great. A sublime feeling is a valid criterion for great art, but giving it the highest priority is a matter of personal preference and tastes, imo.
If two things are not identical, then they have differences.
If they have differences, then we can explain those differences.
If the things were man-made, then we can attribute those differences to differences in two individuals’ philosophy or psychology.
You lost me here. What is this referring to? What differences are we talking about—differences between one piece of music from another? differences between artist’s? ?
But then you claimed to believe in a god, so if you also believe in free will and souls, then I suppose you could deny the third principle.
I’m even more lost after this.(How is free will involved in this?)
Robert, he blatantly disagreed with that statement, saying: Honestly, it sounds like you’re trying to force art (in this case, music) to fit into your notion that it must make a statement of the world
I don’t know if I “blatantly” disagreed but, yes, I don’t really agree—or I’m not comfortable with the idea that playing music to make people happy is equal to a political statement or some deep idea that helps one live life. This seems odd and inappropriate. (And maybe this is primarily an issue of semantics—involving the terms “political” and “message helping one live life.”)
Michael, you seem to be operating from an assumption that all great art has profound ideas—and this is what I mean by “forcing art into your notion….” Again, I sympathize with this assumption, to some degree, but I want to hear a case for why this is an essential condition for great art. Imo, there’s a principle that overrides your position—and that principle goes like this: great art does what it sets out to do—in an extraordinary fashion. Generally speaking, what it sets out do—what it’s really about—doesn’t seem to be really crucial. (I suspect that the evaluation and ranking of various subjects/themes/issues/genres/styles is more a matter of personal preference and taste than anything else.) Now, I suspect a lot of great works of art are profound to some degree—especially if we define profound in a very broad way; however, defined more narrowly—i.e., “a message that helps one live his/her life”—I think the number of great works of art that have this quality (i.e., there are great works of art that don’t have this message) are significantly less than you suggest.
@Odi
I can’t really articulate it — if you looked inside my head, the only way you could experience things through my eyes is to get sucked into my emotions.
Do you think that what I’m asking for might be so instinctive or operating in the subconscious level that you don’t think anything is happening? Or maybe it’s so banal to you that you think it’s not worth mentioning? That would make sense because you’re an artist, one who paints and works in visual media.
Jazz, I know something is happening, but I just don’t have the ability to put it into words. I mean, I’m not good at that sort of thing, which is why, I suppose, I prefer to express myself visually and with very few verbal clues. It’s enough for me to appreciate it in my heart, with little or no analysis.
There’s nothing banal about that, I mean, there may be people who are better at articulating things like that. But generally I’ve found, that a lot of artists don’t like to, because it doesn’t make sense to them to do it. They just … do what they do.
I brought up free will because you seemed to be denying the connection between the artist and some of the content in the work, as if certain central ideas in the work were crafted by the artist but the details are incidental and can’t really be traced back to the artist in any meaningful way. For example, there might be an orange chair in the background of a painting. Why can’t it be an orange stool or a red chair? I think somebody that doesn’t believe in free will and thus has a more mechanistic view of the human (artist, in this case) would be more likely to appreciate the significance of the differences between the orange stool, the orange chair, and the red chair, because they’d believe that all of the artist’s behaviour (creative decisions) can be traced back to the artist’s worldview and/or cultural environment. Whereas someone that believed that human thoughts are not predetermined by other factors and that humans have a degree of free will, where creative decisions can come without a history of physical causes and effects to precede it, would be more likely to attribute minor details to being the by-products of other ideas or little accidents that can’t tell us much about the maker.
re: “political” – that’s just the word I like to use lol, but really I just mean that we can learn about the author from looking at the work.
re: If an artwork never set out to convey a deep message—directly or indirectly—is it fair to penalize the artwork for something it never set out to accomplish? That doesn’t seem right to me.
and great art does what it sets out to do—in an extraordinary fashion.
Your approach is useful in that it allows you to appreciate everything but I don’t think it’s ideal for identifying great art. I think that we should try to bring values into art criticism. Not only should we identify talent, who is good at what, but then we should look at what the things people are good at are worth? Einstein and Michael Jordan are both very talented but who do we value more? What about the man that can eat the most hot dogs in sixty seconds? Steven Spielberg is also extremely talented and knowledgeable about what he does, but do we value him like we do Tarkovsky? No, because it isn’t enough to be talented. You need to be talented at things that matter. That is what having standards is, holding people to what you think matters. So if an artwork does what it intends to do but what it attempts to do is something we deem worthless, then we shouldn’t call it great art. You want to celebrate great talent, I want to celebrate great art.
But then what matters? Obviously, at a certain point, we’re all making up our own definitions of great art and our criteria for what makes something great but the fact that there is no universal criteria and never will be, should not deter us from having standards. I think it’s easy enough to argue that one of our values, if not THE value, for great art is that it teaches us valuable, useful, wise things about life (which is arguably a sub-value of humanism). Then we ask how a work of art can teach us about life and a number of other guidelines follow to form a constellation.
One could still appreciate other kinds of movies, they would just fall outside the realm of great art. Where do the borders of this realm come from? Values. Where do these values come from? Biology (e.g. people prefer being healthy to being sick therefore medicine should try to cure sick people). For me that is a solid enough basis.
@Odi
I know something is happening, but I just don’t have the ability to put it into words. I mean, I’m not good at that sort of thing, which is why, I suppose, I prefer to express myself visually and with very few verbal clues. It’s enough for me to appreciate it in my heart, with little or no analysis.
This makes total sense to me, and I don’t think this is a problem.
There’s nothing banal about that,…
I just meant that the thoughts I’m talking about might be second-nature that artists may not see these thoughts as something unusual or special. For non-artists and novices, the way of looking at visual art may not be natural or second nature. It might be something they have to actively develop.
@Michael
I brought up free will because you seemed to be denying the connection between the artist and some of the content in the work, as if certain central ideas in the work were crafted by the artist but the details are incidental and can’t really be traced back to the artist in any meaningful way.
OK, I think I know what you’re getting at.
…but really I just mean that we can learn about the author from looking at the work.
Oh, if that’s what you mean, then I agree with you. But when you expect an individual work to give you information on how to live life, that’s something entirely different, imo. That’s the part I’m having trouble with. For example, you say later, “I think it’s easy enough to argue that one of our values, if not THE value, for great art is that it teaches us valuable, useful, wise things about life (which is arguably a sub-value of humanism).”
As I’ve said, the teaching of valuable things is one valid criterion we could use to evaluate or justify an artwork’s greatness—but if you’re saying it is the most important and absolutely essential standard that must be met, I want to hear a case for this.
Moreover, and equally important, suppose an artwork never tries to “teach us anything wise or useful about life”—suppose it primarily wants to offer something beautiful and sublime or make people laugh and smile? If it succeeds magnificently at either, saying it’s not good for something it never attempted seems doesn’t seem appropriate.
So if an artwork does what it intends to do but what it attempts to do is something we deem worthless, then we shouldn’t call it great art.
What would be some examples of worthless objectives and attempts?
Where do the borders of this realm come from? Values. Where do these values come from? Biology (e.g. people prefer being healthy to being sick therefore medicine should try to cure sick people). For me that is a solid enough basis.
Wait, you lost me at the link between aesthetic values and biology. How does biology (e.g., desire to be healthy) relate to the values that determine good from bad art?
In summary:
It is as if we have the right brain / left brain argument.
Left: great art ….primarily(sic) ….teaches us valuable, useful, wise things about life
Right: great art(sic)…primarily … offers something beautiful and sublime or make(s) people laugh and smile
If great art can do both, we eliminate a false dichotomy. I think great art exists in the area in between the emotions and the intellect. An area that is temporarily ineffable.
If Micheal’s position represents the past and Jazz’s position the present, then the ineffable’*’ area is a future time where the work joins a historical narrative and becomes great art of the past.
We have a nice coffeetable book of prints taken from Auguste Renoir’s paintings. I once flipped through the pages of this book while watching his son Jean’s first color film, The River, and enjoyed noting the compositional influences, intentional or otherwise. Criterion’s edition of The River is beautiful.
Here’s where I would go with art as beauty vs. art as ideas: Kant says that beauty is the expression of aesthetic ideas (as apposed to rational ideas)—they “seek to approximate to an exhibition” of rational ideas. And to me this dovetails nicely back into Clive Bell and aesthetic emotion.
It would be difficult for purely instrumental music (or, for that matter, use of color), for example, to express rational (language-based) ideas per se, but that doesn’t necessarily mean the absolute music theory automatically applies.
I just meant that the thoughts I’m talking about might be second-nature that artists may not see these thoughts as something unusual or special. For non-artists and novices, the way of looking at visual art may not be natural or second nature. It might be something they have to actively develop.
Mmm, I’m not sure. It’s hard to tell really, because I don’t know anyone else’s brain very well… and then again, I have trouble trying to understand my own. LOL (Like how I reduce all arguments to nothing? Let’s go get a beer now)!
But actually, I think one of the ways you can sort of get on the same page is by trying something. For example, if you love music, try learning to play an instrument. If you love visual art, try taking a drawing class. You don’t have to be good or anything, but you can start to appreciate what you’re experiencing in a different way. I think that really works.
I’m a big believer in building up the non-rational part of your mind. This has more to do with action, physical action, than intellect. A lot of what happens when you play an instrument, play a sport, make something with your hands (and this is the BIG difference between working on a computer and writing by hand), is a physical experience and it’s a very different, more “primitive” and in touch kind of experience. It’s essential and natural and one of the things we seem to always want to move away from in our quest to get to the “least animalistic” kind of society. Duh, we’re still animals. We still do things intuitively and physically. Unless you are messing around inside a computer with its parts, working on a computer has to be the most REMOTE thing you can do in your life. To me, anyway. It’s like touching a baby in an incubator with big fat yellow rubber gloves.
It would be difficult for purely instrumental music (or, for that matter, use of color), for example, to express rational (language-based) ideas per se
It is difficult but an omniscient person would be able to. In other words, we can’t identify the precise meaning of instrumental music because that would involve tracking millions of little intertwining connections, not because there is something mystical about art or beauty or the human that is beyond the laws of cause and effect.
What would be some examples of worthless objectives and attempts?
Getting the world record for eating the most raisinettes in three hours. Being able to shoot an elastic band an impressive distance. For movies, trying to make a movie that makes the most money possible. Anything absurd.
Wait, you lost me at the link between aesthetic values and biology. How does biology (e.g., desire to be healthy) relate to the values that determine good from bad art?
I see two kinds of widespread values here: values that come directly from our biology and values that are socially constructed. I respect only the biological ones. If a society holds X value, I don’t consider it above reproach but I believe in respecting the values that are forced on us as humans.
-The aversion to pain (and ensuing desire to be healthy) is built into us, biologically innate. It applies to virtually every person. It makes a solid basis for the field of medicine.
-The desire to use experience to understand the future is one that is intuitive to all humans. Thus we have a solid basis for science.
Etc. (Whereas the value that it’s rude to put one’s elbows on the table is socially constructed.)
These fundamental values are the kind that I think we should build our philosophy on rather than relying on social constructions or on pretending we have objective knowledge or in refusing to have opinions at all.
As I’ve said, the teaching of valuable things is one valid criterion we could use to evaluate or justify an artwork’s greatness—but if you’re saying it is the most important and absolutely essential standard that must be met, I want to hear a case for this.
The basis for philosophy is the intuitiveness of logic and our desire to use concepts to understand the world. We can question the legitimacy of logic, and I wouldn’t be able to give you a defense as it can only be justified with appeal to more logic, but I don’t think that’s a helpful avenue to take. I think we have to at some point assume that certain things work and logic is one of them.
So we have a desire to use reason to understand the world, we have a will to learn from the past to be able to better manage our futures, we have the aversion of pain and the desire of pleasure/comfort – what else do we have? Also we have an innate appreciation of beauty. What is beauty? Beauty comes from a complex mixture of sensations, understandings, memories, and reflections that dance with each other in complicated ways. Is this process of appreciating beauty too complicated to be laid down precisely in words? Yes. Does that mean that the process is somehow magical and supernatural? No. In theory, one could type out a step-by-step blueprint of all the little flows and forces. Since all works of art are man-made and thus are expressions of the minds of artists, the omniscient person would be able to trace the components of the expression back to the artist, in other words, would be able to translate symbols into words, ideas.
When we decide what to value as great art, we are deciding what is worth being good at. I think that in order to be beautiful art must refer to or represent things that we know from experience. We have no real use for art that doesn’t remind us of our own reality. That’s why most works of art feature humans and are at least somewhat realistic (alien versions of our world). My argument is that works of art make statements about the world that can be traced back to the artist. We can categorize these statements in terms of how accurate, wise, or interesting they are. It is absolutely intuitive to say that it is better for a work to make wise statements than unwise statements.
But then what if something trumps wisdom? If being clever is better than not being clever, what do we make of a wise and not clever movie compared to a clever and shallow movie? I think wisdom trumps cleverness because it is more logically bound to the values that I argued are our basis for thinking: the desire to know the world via sensibility and understanding. Works that make profound statements about the world are entirely consistent with this basis whereas works that make shallow statements but have other benefits are somewhat in tension with the basis I’m building upon. Cleverness appeals to our senses and reason but it does so in a way that can corrupt the original purposes of our criteria. For example, it might indulge us and steer us from our path of inquiry, often blinding us from the real substance in works of art. The same can be said for pleasure. We said earlier that the aversion of pain and desire of pleasure was a fundamental biological value but there is still the possibility of someone being “spoiled” by being handed too much. If people please themselves too much they adopt a fantastical version of reality that might be an exchange of long term benefit for short term satisfaction. Just take your example in the other thread of people learning about relationships from Hollywood movies. It makes people happy to think of themselves and the world the Hollywood way but it isn’t good for them long term. So satisfaction needs to be regulated and balanced with an openness to be challenged. I don’t really see any comparable drawbacks to wisdom.
“It is difficult but an omniscient person would be able to.”
You mean compose a single work that would communicate precisely the same rational idea to all people abstractly? I actually don’t think so, because I think that’s assuming that a complete decoding process for converting an aesthetic idea into a rational idea 1) is possible, and 2) is objective in the sense that it would produce exactly the same idea in all people, regardless of any and all sensory, cognitive, and emotional variables.
@Robert
It is as if we have the right brain / left brain argument.
Maybe. I wonder how Michael feels about that.
If great art can do both, we eliminate a false dichotomy.
That’s what I’m saying—and I don’t think it’s necessarily limited to both, either.
I think great art exists in the area in between the emotions and the intellect. An area that is temporarily ineffable.
That sounds good, and I want to say I agree, but I’m not entirely sure.
…then the ineffable’’ area is a future time where the work joins a historical narrative and becomes great art of the past.*
You mean, the passage of time will allow us to see more clearly the artwork—by seeing its relationship to the history of art more clearly?
Yes. From a formalist approach, the work already has the properties needed to make it art – it is matter of we having a better perspective by way of distance, such that we can make out all the connections.
You mean compose a single work that would communicate precisely the same rational idea to all people abstractly? I actually don’t think so, because I think that’s assuming that a complete decoding process for converting an aesthetic idea into a rational idea 1) is possible, and 2) is objective in the sense that it would produce exactly the same idea in all people, regardless of any and all sensory, cognitive, and emotional variables.
No, no one can compose a universally understandable work of art. I said/meant that an omniscient person would be able to trace everything in the work back to the artist’s mind – and would be able to unpack the decoding process of each individual viewer. So objection #2 isn’t really a problem here, but #1 still applies. A translation implies that two things are not identical, that something is lost in one department and gained in another. I’m not sure if an omniscient being would be able to make a perfect translation where this doesn’t apply. But even if not, my point is only that all this “beauty, powerful, emotional, feelings” stuff about art is only mysterious and difficult to articulate because it involves such an incredibly complex number of variables that nobody will ever be able to calculate, and not because there is something mystical, supernatural, or inherently indescribable going on.
Maybe. I wonder how Michael feels about that.
I thought the left brain-right brain distinction wasn’t valued much anymore in psychology. But anyway, taken as a metaphor, I don’t really like being thrown in the rationalist side. Only about a year ago or less I was on here preaching relativism to you.
odilonvert
Jazz, what Kamran is saying is to allow your sensory experience to filter in without getting your intellect all tangled up in it first. When you listen to music, are you thinking about the sheet music? No. You listen to the music first. Then if you know about the sheet music and want to get analytical about it, you delve into that after the first sensory experience, or you read about the musicians’ lives, etc. etc. The sensory experience comes first, then the intellectual analysis.
I always look at paintings that way. I don’t want some analysis thrown at me till after I get a first impression (and even then, it might be a while before I want to read ANYTHING about what I just saw). I take it in with my intuitive sense.
Of course, this may also be why I’m not fond of purely conceptual/referential/philosophical art. To me, that’s what books and dialogue – i.e. words – are for. But that’s my thing. My response to things tends to prefer the emotional first, followed (if necessary) by the intellectual.