Art highlights the elitism of opinion
It seems a given in educated circles that Shakespeare and DaVinci created "better" art than, lets say, Michael Bay (makes movies that many would consider "low brow" like Transformers or Armageddon). Is there even a little justification for this?
However, once convinced of their superiority, the elites are happy to force their tastes on the rest of us (I never learned anything about Michael Bay movies in school) and they even have the audacity to suggest I am wrong when I say "I like x better than y". Why are we teaching opinions in school? I appreciate the discussion of opinion in school but there should only be judgement of the justification, not the opinion itself.
I think this idea applies to philosophy (and other areas as well), but every time I write my thoughts on that it seems like I will be insulting somebody, and I don't know enough philosophy to justify any insults :grimace: I do feel comfortable enough in my knowledge of education or the arts to justify any insults - for example: Shakespeare is OK at best (brilliant use of language but garbage stories).
However, once convinced of their superiority, the elites are happy to force their tastes on the rest of us (I never learned anything about Michael Bay movies in school) and they even have the audacity to suggest I am wrong when I say "I like x better than y". Why are we teaching opinions in school? I appreciate the discussion of opinion in school but there should only be judgement of the justification, not the opinion itself.
I think this idea applies to philosophy (and other areas as well), but every time I write my thoughts on that it seems like I will be insulting somebody, and I don't know enough philosophy to justify any insults :grimace: I do feel comfortable enough in my knowledge of education or the arts to justify any insults - for example: Shakespeare is OK at best (brilliant use of language but garbage stories).
Comments (821)
OK, what is the justification then? Why is Hamlet, for example, a garbage story compared to, say, the story of Transformers or whatever?
I agree, we are definitely forced to agree with the supposedly 'intelligent' opinions of those in the arts. Shakespeare, Da Vinci, Michelangelo, etc. Why should the Mona Lisa still be considered something important in our history, when learning about the now(Current times) is possibly more fruitful? And who deemed those paintings and stories as 'the greats'? If we ran a poll, would the world still prefer old vs new or historical vs modern?
Shakespeare can be pretty tiresome to study at school, probably because at that age you can’t see beyond yourself. But the plays do offer an opportunity to think about human behaviour, including your own, which as a youth you don’t bother to consider: everyone else being wrong.
Many writers of novels also like to write plays, presumably they see opportunities for looking st characters that they can’t find in novels. So the play does seem to have a special significance.
Shakespeare is valued on a number of levels; the language and the subject. But it’s true that today most people wouldn’t go to see Shakespeare, so if the elite didn’t keep Shakespeare alive it might disappear. Some might say, so what? And I don’t know how to answer that, except to say that I regard it as worth preserving.
Michael Bay is not Shakespeare for many reasons. He can’t produce anything without huge sums of money, and because of that he’s compromised. Maybe he doesn’t feel that himself. But I don’t see his films as revealing much about human nature except on a very superficial level and really what there is of it is a narrative tool. His objective is to make entertainment, which is fine and he has a huge audience who love what he does.
Here's someone justifying why Transformers (and Michael Bay) is crap.
And here's someone justifying why Shakespeare isn't:
Lots of justifications for both opinions in there. Have at them!
I don't think we are forced to agree. There are reasons why certain artists are considered more important than others, and the reasons have to do primarily, as @Brett pointed out, with what they offer us of value in terms of insights into human nature, truth, reality etc. And that's not just asserted, but explored and justified in depth in literature and other humanities courses. Nothing wrong with disagreeing. It's just that disagreement on the merits of the greats isn't going to carry much weight unless a consensus develops around it. And there needs to be reasons for that development. But it does happen and things do move on. We're not stuck with classical art, for example—there are multiple other respected options.
Of course, it's unlikely Michael Bay will ever be one of them, but I doubt that matters to him because he's not trying to do art, he's trying to make money. And that claim, or at least the claim that his movies are garbage, can be rationally argued on the basis of a number of criteria including characterization, plot, use of language, imagery, quality of acting, etc. etc. In other words, we're talking of opinions, but not just opinions. Some opinions matter more than others because they're supported better.
You have a point, but throughout grade school I was asked questions in history and social studies concerning these great 'teachers'. Writing out my own opinion in those tests would have resulted in low marks, and I prided myself in being a straight A student. So I was 'forced' (I use this term loosely) to agree with a so called 'standard' that was set a couple hundred years ago.
Well, if you had valid reasons for your opinion and could point to evidence for it, you should have been given credit for that. So, maybe it was bad pedagogy. Certainly, the last thing a teacher should be doing is stifling original thought. Of course, just because something is original doesn't mean it involves thought either.
Thank-you, and yes. My opinion, however, is that they are great only for what they have done for us as a society, but the questions I had to answer revolved more on the 'Why this is artistic' or 'This is good writing/painting because...'(The author/writer is gifted in talented work, they had good taste, along these lines) Perhaps these people are not talented, yet their work reflects us as human beings?
Why do most continental philosophers keep commg back to Plato and Aristotle? It 's because they developed a vocabulary and method of thinking that is still implicit in, and relevant to, today's philosophies. Can the same be said about Da Vinci? In a way, yes.
What are considered the 'masters' changes over time, but in general, we keep coming back to past greats because they still have relevance to us because of their ability to invent forms of expression that we can still learn from.
Perhaps 'sophistication' is a better word than 'education' here. Do young people really take the tastes of their professors seriously? Maybe a few. They are forced to pretend to study this or that book as they chase a piece of paper that will help them get a career they want. Free them from that insincere role, however, and they may passionately distinguish between this and that TV show or pop musician --often the art that actually moves them and informs their identity.
Some of the books one studies at school are great IMO and others not so great. Personally I think Seinfeld is more important than Plato for students now. I don't have historical importance in mind, and it's that historical importance (what has moved people) that arguably justifies taking a look at books that are otherwise over-praised. To pick on Plato for a moment, I was recently reading the Apology and found it melodramatic and sentimental. It was a sermon. It was propaganda. But then lots of serious talk is like that. It wants your soul.
These people you refer to as ‘they’, presumably meaning the great artists (and time must surely sort the good from the mediocre), have not done anything for society, nor was that their intent. They do it for art, and in a strange kind of way, they have no interest in what you think.
In terms of writing, if you are studying it, the difference between good and bad writing is very clear. Just look at this forum as an example. The difference between accepted styles and modern approaches is a different story. James Joyce’s ‘Ulysses’ was greeted with scorn and derision from the conservative school of writing, but it has survived as a great work. I’m sure someone will now come along and say they don’t like, but that means nothing. Modern works of art always faces that opposition. But that’s not the same as comparing good and bad writing,
It only makes you elite if you think you have better tastes in art or literature than I do.
Quoting Baden
Whoops, I was not clear enough. It is only my opinion that it is garbage. I am not saying it IS garbage. Just that I think it is. How can someone be right or wrong on their opinion of what is good art? We could be more or less wrong on opinions of morality for example (whether subjectively or objectively, just trying to make a point hopefully not open that can o' worms now), but how can someone tell me I am wrong that I like x more than y?
Sounds great. My thoughts exactly :grin:
And anyone who disagrees with those opinions is an idiot who doesn't know anything about art, right?
Does one have to know anything about art to say "I like that one, the other one, not so much"?
No, you can say that. But that’s where it ends because you don’t know enough about art to take it any further, otherwise you would say more than just, ‘ I like that one’.
This doesn’t suggest a knowledge of art. If anything it suggests very little understanding of art. If you had a better understanding of art but didn’t like a piece then I’m pretty sure you’d express it differently.
Haha, OK. Just to clarify, I picked Michael Bay because I know he is crapped on as simply spitting out generic crap. Yet millions of people choose to watch his movies (repeatedly). Is it really fair to just label them all as "bumpkins who know nothing or real art"?
Quoting Baden
Well this was not my intention, but if that is what you and @Brett want to emphasize, I am happy to do a bit of Shakespeare bashing. Can you two name some of the insights into human nature that Shakespeare provided? Like most people I know Romeo & Juliet better than the rest (I do some English tutoring but probably only end up with 1 or 2 hamlet or macbeth lessons per year) so any insights from that story will be particularly easy to counter.
Quoting Baden An example of the elitism I was talking about. So Transformers is not even art? Can any movie be art if some movies are not? Even a documentary has many artistic elements that would not exist in text (and some text is rather dry while some has more artistic elements).
Fair enough. You caught me there. My actual point is we ALL know art well enough to be justified in liking or disliking something.
Sorry Brett, I have a lot to discuss with you here. I am responding quickly for the night. I will definitely put more time into this in coming days.
If we are talking about something serious (bad word choice, but I might count science, morality, or politics as things that require an INFORMED opinion, art does not), I am fine with that. But it is not right (to me) to say that art that teaches us something is good, but art that only entertains is bad.
Personally (yes just my opinion) I prefer to learn from dry and direct sources (and maybe the occasional post from @Bitter Crank). Art is for entertainment.
Arg, gotta get going. I may be absent a day or two, but please continue to smash my position and I will attempt to defend it then :smile:
Not to the artist. Entertainment is for entertainers.
No it doesn’t. If you think Transformers is a film to be regarded as a good, or very good, work of art then your judgement isn’t that great I’m afraid - that is not to say it doesn’t look at all good in freeze frames. The thing is a good film draws on more qualitities than the surface appearance.
Art appreciation is a very touchy subject for some. At the end of the day no one can take away the pleasure you may get from any given experience though so I wouldn’t worry about it too much. I don’t understand why people rave about Picasso, but I don’t assume that everyone else who says he’s a genius is an art snob. Maybe one day I’ll get it, and maybe not. Either way I agree with the judgement of other artists and I can appeciate what Picasso was trying to do - just doesn’t work for me at the moment and I’m not massively invested in critiquing art.
Just to add, I don’t see what the fuss surrounding the Mona Lisa is all about either. I looked at it, shrugged, and moved quickly onward. Monet’s stuff held my attention for much, much longer!
Some people will act in a pretentious manner about art though. There is something to it all though. Fro example if you take some abstract art (like Kadinsky) and turn it upside down, on average people don’t find it anywhere near as appealing (everyday folk, not art critics). This shows us that they are able to tap into something that others recognise. I personally think the subjectivity of art is to do with each persons emotional disposition. Depending on your character and experiences your more likely to find artwork X more engaging than artwork Y because either X taps into emotions ou wish to explore whilst Y taps into emotions don’t wish to explore ... this is not to say “positive” or “negative” emotions as this woudl depend on where ou are in our life and the kind of questions that matter to you.
Anyway, blah blah blah, you get the idea! :)
If you can say that, I am with you :smile:
And to your "sophisticated" point, that makes sense. But we must refer to the one judging the art as sophisticated or not (and even then we should be careful). We can not (should not) say Shakespeare's work is sophisticated and Jerry Seinfeld's is not.
This sounds good, but I assume if someone likes artwork x, and x is transformers, then they are morons and nothing you said above applies?
That is obviously half-joking, but only half :grin:
Except your students will most likely fail their philosophy exams.
It might be a mistake to think that ‘emotions’ is what art is about.
I’m not sure, though I lean towards being sure, that artists are producing work targeted at your emotions. If it was the case that they were, then they would only be able to target a very small audience, being the ones who respond to that particular emotion. People might respond emotionally to a piece of art, but that may not have been the artists intent. That emotional response; sudden tears, is more to do with the observers emotional state at the time. It’s hard to imagine any artist preparing work with the intention of causing an emotional response. The artist’s only concern is their relationship with the work, which is gone when it’s finished. Your life is of no interest to them.
No, I’m not suggesting you did. You just asked me to make a point about my statement that art may not be about emotions.
Just to be sure, I do understand what you mean by this. And if the subjectivity is to do with emotions then I don’t think that’s enough to say whether a work is good or bad, in fact if anything it’s a very bad way to judge art. And maybe that’s the problem.
I made a comment that I think the differences in opinion about some piece of artwork is possibly, in part, due to the persons character and emotional state. As an example someone may me a very rigid personality, austere and precise, and when “viewing” some artwork this personal sensibility plays off the art in either a positive or negative way (not necessarily as good or bad - as I stated). So at some juncture in a person’s life, after certain experiences, a piece of artwork that previously did nothing much for them - or maybe even repulsed them -comes to the fore as they’ve grown emotionally and/or have a more investigative interest in art in general.
So if someone says “that does nothing for me” it may be because they’re not ready to face that part of their emotional being (an inbuilt psychological defense) or that they simply don’t appreciate it aesthetcially due to lack of exposure to that particular “style”.
You wrote a bit too much to reply to it all, but on these central points.
1) Am I claiming that everyone who doesn't appreciate art is a moron?
No, I never said anything like that. There are different ways to be smart. Some very smart people probably don't appreciate art.
2) Is art just entertainment?
No, art is supposed to convey emotions and/or ideas of significant value. Entertainment need not do that. So, the two are different even though they may overlap in some instances. You can refuse to recognize the difference if you want but there's nothing particularly "elitist" in it—it's generally accepted even by those who are not into art.
If you want to learn about the plight of the poor, study history. If you want to learn about emotions, study psychology. It bothers me that we put such a high bar to evidence in the respective scientific fields and yet can label, essentially what one film director 'rekons', as being a "fascinating insight into the struggles of inner-city life", or whatever.
I think art has has duty which it's current obsession with 'ideas' is neglecting. Art may reflect life, but life also reflects art in that it influences the way we think. So if art makes even a tiny error in its reflection, that error will be copied, magnified, copied again and so on.
I'm happy to enjoy a painting for the way it looks, or a story for the way it makes me feel, but the moment it starts making claims of "saying something about the humans condition", I'll pick up my psychology textbook instead. I prefer my received opinions to have at least made the effort to be useful.
Why should art have a duty?
Why do you regard Dickens account as uncorrobated? He was there and wrote about what he saw.
I didn't say it should, I said I think it has. A different proposition. The reason I think it has is in the post. It has the potential to cause social change and social change (the direction of it) is important to me. I think any position of power carries the responsibility to use that power with consideration for the effects. I believe "Spiderman" made a similar point, but as that was 'low brow' entertainment, I expect it's just nonsense.
If anyone has corroborated Dickens' account by comparing it to others, adjusting for bias, checking material facts etc., then it is that work of corroboration that anyone seriously interested in the conditions of the poor in the era should be reading. Not a single biased source. Its pretty basic level stuff.
I think you’re probably talking about a kind of censorship here, that because of its potential art has a responsibility. But who decides what these responsibilities serve and what social change should be addressed? In the USSR artwork that didn’t serve Communist ideology was regarded as ‘decadent’ and crushed. Any art produced under these conditions is no longer art.
You need to do some reading on Charles Dickens.
The Artful Dodger.
I never mentioned that anything should be done about it, let alone government intervention. I'm appealing to makers and consumers of art, not demanding that the government step in and make what I reckon into law, I really don't where you might have got that impression from.
Quoting Brett
The artists and the people consuming the art.
Quoting Brett
I think what you're suggesting here is some kind of 1984-like social conformity. Governments demanding that we read certain texts before we can even speak publicly... Oh, wait, that was just your opinion. (you see what I did there).
Just wondering if you might agree that Dickens did actually carry out his ‘duty’ with his books.
Quoting Isaac
How do the artists decide what to produce without creating that error? How do they know what it is?
Personally... By erring on the side of caution. Something I think storytellers and artists intuitively got for the vast majority of human history. As I say, it only seems to me to be the last hundred years or so since art has had this obsession with reality. From Homer to Beowulf to Arthurian legend, the heroes are always better than any real person could ever be, the villains are always the epitome of evil, the trials always beyond any normal person. Basically they err on the side of caution with their presentation. No one's ever going to be as heroic as Hercules, no trial is ever going to be as insurmountable as Grendal, no villain ever as traitorous as Mordred.
These stories didn't attempt to portray reality, they didn't try to "say something" about the times. Their job was to inspire people to be something the authors thought was worthy of aspiring to. And they shot way over the mark. That way, when life reflects art, you get what the authors thought was a better society.
Quoting Brett
From what little I know of Dickens, I think he probably did, in that if he had a bias it was toward showing how bad things were, but if I were writing it Bill Sikes would have been killed by Nancy.
Well that’s quite interesting because it resembles a little what I wrote in a post on ‘Art and Morality’. So I’m inclined to agree with you there.
I shall have a read of that then.
Let's not criticize art for not being what it's not supposed to be. Fiction is called fiction to distinguish it from fact. Novels ought to be read with that in mind, and Dickens is not responsible for anyone making historical claims of accuracy re his works. So, yes, if you want unbiased, factually accurate and corroborated representations of reality, go for a history book by a reputable scholar and not Oliver Twist, that's obvious. But that doesn't imply that you can't learn something from Oliver Twist or any other novel. You just need to judge it by different standards.
I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at here, maybe the "different standards" bit is confusing me. When I use 'learn' I generally mean the acquisition of facts, data or something like that. Facts and data are the sorts of that really seem best handled by the experts in their respective fields, no?
So if we shouldn't look to Dickens to learn facts about history (but rather turn to historians for those), then I'd have thought we should equally not look to Dickens to learn fact about social interaction (but rather turn to sociologists), nor human nature (but rather turn to psychologists), nor the way people used to relate (but rather turn to anthropologists).
Mybe my fusty academic outlook, but I'm not seeing what there is left to 'learn' from, say Richard III, that a good psychology textbook and a History of England can't tell you better.
That's a rather narrow perspective on learning though. It's not primarily how you learned your language or how to ride a bike or about the foibles and idiosyncrasies of your family and friends etc. So, I agree it's difficult to quantify what you can learn from a novel or a work of art, but there are different types of knowledge that are more or less easy to make explicit and that ease does not necessarily define their worth. So, if statistics and data are the types of learning you value then yes, why wade through a novel when you can Google these facts or use Wikipedia or a textbook etc? But human nature is something you've been learning through observation since early childhood and good novels can provide virtual scenarios that are realistic and engaging enough to allow you to learn about social interaction and human psychology in a similar way to how you "naturally" learn it in everyday life—without having to be explicitly aware of exactly what you learned. In other words, you might not be able to put the new knowledge into words, but your character alters in such a way that you behave differently. And the behavioural change is the test of useful knowledge having been acquired.
Quoting Isaac
Here is maybe where it comes down to taste. There are people who are not very academic who would prefer to learn about history or psychology through a play rather than a textbook. And what they lose in accuracy they may make up for in depth. Again, it's fine to have a bunch of accurate statistics running about in your head, but without the question, what are they for? being answered, there is no way to measure whether that knowledge is of greater worth than whatever less explicit knowledge is gleaned through an alternative source, which may have a more direct (and positive) use/effect.
And these kinds of learning don't have to be in competition. The philosopher John Searle probably has more explicit knowledge filling up his head than the vast majority of us, but he says he learned most of what he knows about human nature from Dostoevsky. Go figure...
There are a lot of value objectivists around, even in academia.
Some of it might be due to people mistaking strongly stated opinions, where the bearer realizes that it's just an opinion, as objective claims, but definitely there are some value objectivists in academia.
I thought that's what you probably had in mind, and I have no problem calling those thing 'learning' but...
I'm not sure I'm so content with what seems a little slight of hand with defining these nebulous learning experiences as coming from art, on the one hand, and then on the other claiming that an art form's ability to provide these previously hazy experiences can be clearly seen, measured and compared.
So it's not so much that Hamlet can't provide any learning, it's that, if it does, such learning is difficult to measure, may well be subjectively better for some people than others and is of an indefinable sort. How then can one be so sure that Hamlet is definitely better at this sybilline task than any other story?
How would you rationally support an opinion that x characteriation is better than y characterization, a plot elements are better than b plot elements, etc.?
Just as with ethics, it's all going to simply come down to preferences that some individual(s) has.
I see things a bit differently. Do you like music? Have you ever listened to a really knowledgeable, widely experienced disk jockey who could lead you through a type of music he really cares and knows about? Playing examples, describing histories, comparing musical approaches. Explaining his preferences. An educated taste is a wonderful thing, it can lead you somewhere you've never been before. It can help you understand why people are moved by works of music. It can open up a whole new world of experiences. I've found that, even if I don't particularly like a type of music, jazz for example, listening to a knowledgeable jazz DJ is really eye opening and satisfying.
I remember when I lived in Cambridge Massachusetts in the 1970s. It was a great place to be in your 20s. Lots of cheap, good ethnic restaurants. Indian, Thai, Burmese, Italian, Chinese, Ethiopian. One of the local papers had a wonderful restaurant critic. He would go to restaurants and describe the
food and the experiences. The point of his reviews wasn't thumbs up or thumbs down, although he did make judgments. He had an educated taste that he loved to share with other people. He knew about the cuisines, how they differed and how they were similar. Their histories and how they developed. How Thai restaurants in the US were different from those in Thailand. He wasn't trying to force anyone to agree with him, he was offering us a chance to see food through his eyes. He wanted us to love it as much as he did.
I have always felt grateful to people like this, disk jockeys, art critics, teachers, friends, sports announcers. Knowledgeable people with passionate tastes who want to share them with others out of a love for food, visual art, architecture, writing, music, and on and on.
Maybe the way it's presented is heavy handed and arrogant. Maybe it comes off as more a punishment than an offer to share experiences, but the impetus behind the transmission of the canon, if you will, is to share things that have moved millions of people for thousands of years. To provide a common set of experiences and values.
Definitely valuable in my opinion to spend time with someone who knows some artform inside and out. They can help you understand it better, help you tune in to its nuances, etc.
We just have to be careful to not veer towards thinking that their aesthetic assessments--re what's good, bad, better, worse, etc.--are anything like facts, or that they can be correct or incorrect.
And we can gain just as much spending time with someone who knows Michael Bay-type films inside and out, or commercial pop music a la Britney Spears, Kesha, Pitbull, etc. Those folks can also help you understand that stuff better, help you tune in to its nuances, etc.
The world is full of wonderful things. You will never have time to know, understand, experience, be moved by all those things. There is no need for all of us to agree on what we like or don't like. That's not the same as saying it's all just a matter of taste. Some things have more significance - historical, spiritual, artistic, moral, political, intellectual - than other things. It is appropriate to put special emphasis on the most significant aspects of our society and culture, those aspects that have influenced and moved people greatly and for a long time.
There's a LOT actually. Depth of thought, values, artistic ability, complexity, etc.
Quoting ZhouBoTong
That's because it wouldn't teach you anything of value.
Quoting ZhouBoTong
Maybe your teachers worded this poorly, but absolutely no one is telling you what to like. You can like all the garbage reality TV you want, and there's little room for argument (one might be able to make a case that it rots your brain and imparts poor morals, I suppose). But some art is better than other art because it better fulfills what we want art to do. See above: deeper. more complex, more rich artistically.
Quoting ZhouBoTong
I think you ought to feel a lot less comfortable if that's something you're going to say. Shakespeare uses archetypal stories and overlays them with rich worlds of emotion and philosophy. Michael Bay and all the others borrow from these basic plots and fail catastrophically to create anything of great value.
That being said, I think Michael Bay does make good movies for what he sets out to do. He's not trying to create anything at a Shakespearean level. He's merely trying to entertain. I, and most Americans are entertained. Mission accomplished. I doubt even he would argue that his stuff is better than Hamlet, though.
Some people just don’t ‘see’ art.
Some people aren’t very tuned in to what’s going on around them.
Some people don’t respond to abstract idea.
Some people never use metaphors or similes.
Some people have no idea of why they do things or think things.
These people are never going to ‘get’ art. They don’t understand what others are talking about. But asked for their opinion on art and they will give you one. Most likely it will lean towards pedantic realism. These same people exist in elitist circles as well. When asked about art they’ll also have an opinion, the received opinions of the group they embed themselves in.
People who respond to art on a genuine level, that is they enjoy life through the prisms of life mentioned above, to mention only a few, recognise immediately those who cannot respond to life this way. If you are one of those people then it’s most likely you’ll regard those art lovers as elitists. It’s an open door you can never go through. So instead they try to deny that such a thing as good art exists, that no one can define good art, that it’s elitist and fatuous. Like I said, the artist doesn’t care.
On a personal level, I think we all have our preferences. Maybe we identify with sophistication or authenticity or some other concept. We'll probably praise the art we like with terms that we'd like applied to us and our kind of people. Am I eager to be understood as serious and intellectual? Or am I charmingly unpretentious? We can mildly signal group membership with the right references. I can mention Last Week Tonight or James Joyce or Harry Potter or Lil' Wayne. Our personal brand is largely a curated blend of references. I'm not complaining, because I think it's an effective and efficient system. If I know your 5 favorite writers or musical artists, that may be more than enough information --though these days I'm more likely to be interested in business relationships and therefore in skills and conscientiousness.
Good point. I think the process happens in reverse too. Lots of things I liked when younger are impossible to enjoy now.
I've never been able to relate to "outgrowing" any artworks. My tastes have always just broadened. I still like everything I used to like.
I think that still comes down to defining good art as ‘ I know what I like’, which doesn’t really help in deciding whether elitists are defining art and therefore owning it and forcing it on us.
My tastes have definitely broadened, but indeed I do find that only some of what I loved when younger is still enjoyable.
Fair enough. Let's focus on the elite. Do they have much power to control art these days? At one time it may have been important to drop learned references. But now just about everyone can leap into school debt and sit through an English class. 'Shakespeare' is more likely to indicate an out-of-touch pretentiousness than a connection to money and the levers of power. Same with Rembrandt or whomever. It's not that expensive to visit a museum or by a coffee table book. I guess I just don't see much forcing of art on anyone outside of school. Some have complained that art has become too political/ideological in schools. In any case, I don't think it's very potent. A sophisticated cynicism seems to be the rule. Conspiracy theory is the mood of the times. Someone somewhere is pulling the strings from behind a curtain. Plato's Allegory of the Cave, The Matrix, political talk. While some people have more of a tug than others, I'd still wager that the world is just too complex for anything more than influence. After all, where are those who believe what they are told about good art? They are likely to be young people trying to decide on a public persona, which is to say choose a tribe.
quote="ZhouBoTong;d5398"]However, once convinced of their superiority, the elites are happy to force their tastes on the rest of us[/
I find it amusing how, after all this discussion, it’s only now ( I might be mistaken) that the idea of the elite actually having this power is questioned. You’re right, I don’t think they do have this power. Shakespeare might be performed in London by The Royal Shakespeare Company and attended by the elite. What of it? That’s what they like and pay for it. Even if some students are asked to study one of Shakespeare’s play it’s hardly forcing it down their throats, it’s just an aspect of English studies. The fact that there is so much art and so much different art, high and low, suggests that the elites play very little part in art. Sotheby’s might sell painting for millions of dollars, but that has nothing to do with art, elite or not, it’s commerce. Of course there’s nothing to stop the very rich thinking they’re elite, let them, they pay a lot for it and they only influence each other in the end.
Indeed. And let's not forget the groundlings. If I remember correctly, the elite were snobby about Shakespeare. He was a self-made man, only slightly educated, and his plays were rough as opposed to polished. He was as much pop culture as high culture. The theater was disreputable. It was controversial, sinful, the rock-n-roll of its day perhaps. But wait a few centuries and what was once pop culture is understood as something higher than pop culture.
Quoting Brett
I agree, and it seems to me that English studies don't have much weight. It is important to choose one's words carefully, as always, but then we have direct access to those who are praised and blamed and the kind of language they are praised and blamed for. Anyone who really cares will read and write in their lives outside of school, in the wild where English really lives.
Quoting Brett
Right. And as I commented on another thread, the dominant art of our time is on Netflix and Spotify. A tiny group of rich people can spend millions of dollars on possessing one-of-a-kind 'magic' items. Conspicuous consumption will perhaps always be with us. On the flipside we'll have poor junkies making extreme noise music in basements and feeling above everything safe and tame. Perhaps one function of art is to serve as an indicator of 'true' and not merely apparent status. At its most intense, art seems like religious iconography, with subjective content substituted for supernatural content. And perhaps the supernatural was a language for subjective experience all along, at least for some or partially.
Very interesting.
Thanks.
Quoting Baden
I was trying to avoid this but your statement above seems to have added a great deal to the definition of "art"?
[i]art1
/ärt/Submit
noun
1.
the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.
"the art of the Renaissance"
synonyms: fine art, artwork, creative activity
"he studied art"
2.
the various branches of creative activity, such as painting, music, literature, and dance.[/i]
Quoting Isaac
No way. Just entertainment. You must have mis-interpreted that lesson :grin:
Quoting Brett
This case did not seem to be about Dickens carrying out duty but those who read him with the goal of real learning (I can "know" that poverty seems rough {understatement} from reading Dicken's, I don't "know" he is factually correct until I do research).
Quoting Isaac
Yes! I never saw an answer to this...did I miss it?
Quoting Terrapin Station
Again, dead on. And again, was there a response?
Quoting Isaac
More greatness. I am glad you and @Terrapin Station could represent my opinion for the last couple days (and often said it more clearly and more concise).
Quoting NKBJ
Ok? Please tell me what I learned from Shakespeare, Homer, Dickens, Tolstoy, Hemingway, Thoreau, etc. Then I will find some low brow pop culture crap (all my favorites) that teaches a very similar lesson.
Quoting NKBJ
Who is "we"? If Die Hard is what I (me) want out of "art", then why is "Hamlet" better?
Quoting NKBJ
I think this highlights the problem. Which is deeper, richer, and more complex, the Mona Lisa or a Jackson Pollock painting? How would I even begin to measure those things. What if I fill a paper with pencil scribbles? Certainly not "richer", but certainly more complex (in some way - less in others) and deeper is just a matter of what a viewer interprets (although absent interpretation layer upon layer of pencil scratches would be a type of depth).
Quoting NKBJ
Michael Bay has added FAR more value to MY life than Shakespeare. And at best he has mildly entertained me for a few dozen hours. All Shakespeare has done is taught me is that some people in the past had crap morals (pure opinion) which as @Isaac said I learned much better from history. And nearly EVERY old book teaches that lesson anyway. Oh, and minus a few lines of decent trash-talk, I have received almost ZERO entertainment value from Shakespeare.
Quoting Brett
Quoting Brett
Of course I do. They have just defined "art" as something beyond me. So all of this stuff in life that I like and thought was "art" (movies, tv, music, photography, paintings, literature, etc) actually is just "entertainment". If I want "real" "good" (better) "art" then I need to look at (or listen) the "art" ( (movies, tv, music, photography, paintings, literature, etc) that they have analyzed and approved as "good art"?
Come on. Give me more. What are the OBJECTIVE cut offs? Where is the line that says this movie is art and that one is just entertainment? What is in the definition of art that allows one work to be "better" than another?
Quoting Brett
I was really just referring to required reading in school. Did anyone NOT have to read Shakespeare in school? I have no more problem with a person liking Shakespeare than I do when a person likes Transformers. Just so long as they don't think they are right or better for that opinion.
Quoting old
Careful. This fits my line of thinking. Someone who thinks Shakespeare (or any "classics") is great will feel that 4 years of required English class in high school is well justified. My thoughts are that poetry and literature should be reduced to electives with the rest of the arts (just to add, I entirely support teaching or encouraging "art" in school. But if painting and movies are de-funded, poetry and literature shouldn't be taught as if they are something "more").
The fact that it's been remembered and celebrated for centuries is evidence, if not absolute proof, that it's better than most at whatever it does. Whether it's better in a particular context depends on the story it's being compared to, what's supposed to be being learned, and who is doing the learning. As in most cases, when you say A is better than B, it's advisable to qualify your statement. A is better than B, for what? for who? In what context? Some people will be immediately turned off Hamlet because of the difficulty of understanding the antiquated language. Some people just don't like plays. The plot may confuse or bore others. And if a work of art can't engage you, it probably can't teach you much.
On the other hand, this doesn't mean there are no criteria under which the potential for learning can be examined or under which to make aesthetic judgements. Basic grammar standards along with style manuals can guide judgements on how badly or well books are written. Colour theory helps inform criticism of painting. Plots have structures that can be analysed and evaluated etc.
Re the latter, for example, here's a plot for a short story:
A woman joins a philosophy forum, makes a post and then drinks a cup of tea and goes to bed. The next morning she wakes up and goes to work. When she's finished work, she comes home and has her dinner. She then goes to bed again.
Not very good, is it? Why? Well, for a start it's not structured in such a way as to engage the reader (it's not even in the genre of narrative, so there's an argument it's not even a story rather than just a recount of events). There's no suspense. Nothing of interest happens. To most people, this general point would be obvious. But some (I don't mean you btw) will insist on arguing the false dilemma that because there can be no absolutely objective criteria re judging art, anything goes, and there's no way to say any one piece of art has more value than another or to claim something as art and something as not, which is a tiresome and boring position to take that suggests not much more than said person knows nothing about art or art theory, and instead of learning something about it would rather do other things such as spend time watching shit movies and resenting anyone who doesn't, or making arguments that aren't really arguments but are just complaints, and generally employ the pretence of intelligence to dig a hole under common sense into which they hope to drag everyone else into. To which I respond, if it's elitist not to join them in their bunkers, I'll gladly don the mantel.
I don't know what YOU learned, but then you are not the barometer of artistic quality.
As for what one can learn from these, I'll refer you to the WorldCat so you can peruse at your leisure the millions and millions of pages of dissertations, analyses, and commentary on the authors you mention in regard to pretty much any philosophical topic. Right there you have your proof of their depth and complexity.
Michael Bay's work simply cannot live up to such scrutiny. I do, however, tip my hat to this fellow who gave it one heck of a shot. (You'll notice he cheated the word count though with excessive use of stills from the movies, bold font, and just general recapping instead of analysis.)
Quoting ZhouBoTong
It's true that we must first define art. And then define what makes art great. I think "we," and by that I mean a nebulous mass consisting of the culture at large and more specifically the people who care to think about these things, define great art as something that enlightens, ennobles, enriches.
As I already said, Bay and others make a certain kind of art very well: entertainment art, or "pop art." It's main purpose is to entertain. It does! I'm thoroughly entertained by these movies. But one does not walk away from them a better person, or filled with new ideas about philosophy, or enriched in any meaningful way. Maybe these movies have a moment here or there that sort of nod in the general direction of a thought, but it's not the multi-faceted approach you get from, say, Hamlet.
Quoting ZhouBoTong
That says more about you than it does about Shakespeare.
Quoting ZhouBoTong
This tells me you haven't spent much time actually analyzing Shakespeare. But maybe you have, and it's meaning has eluded you.
But show some humility for crikey's sake: Shakespeare has been read and admired for centuries by millions of people. Thousands of people have, as I pointed out above, written millions of pages explaining just how and why his words are deep. And here you, piddly little you, come along and want to claim with one fell sweep that because YOU can't understand Shakespeare it's suddenly not great art? That your personal favorite action movies could somehow even compare? It just doesn't make sense.
And before you tell me "well, just cause a lot of people believe something doesn't make it true." Sure. BUT, Okham's Razor says that if the majority believe it is, and you don't (for no good reason, I might add), then you're wrong.
I've like many of the classics, personally, but I do have my doubts about forcing them on students, especially when students have to pay for the privilege and the experience is tainted with having to squeeze points out of some teacher. To me there's something gross about using a profound work in a game of grade-chasing. Responses are graded, implying the inferiority of the student's perspective.
Let's say we free up the situation: no grades, just talk. Well anyone can do that already. Unless the professor is charismatic, there won't be any customers. I'm no Jordan Peterson fan, but that's an example of a more honest product, honest in terms of students gathering around someone charismatic willingly and not being randomly assigned to a hit-or-miss piece of the academic machinery. If the student isn't engaged and is just hacking some 'stupid requirement,' the class may even be counter-productive, a turn-off -- especially if the teacher doesn't inspire respect. It's just hard to see what purpose forced and graded literary studies serve other than indoctrination, and some of my classes in the humanities did feel like lengthy sermons, with a little knowledge sprinkled on top at no extra charge.
Fair a start this is a statistical inevitability, they've been around longer than these Michael Bay films that are being referred to (I should confess now I've not seen any, so I'm limping them in with general action films). It's therefore a biased comparison already to say they're probably better because they've stood the test of time.
Secondly, the judgement begs the question. It only works if, by "celebrated for centuries" you already mean "celebrated by the very elite whose authority your argument is supposed to demonstrate. Otherwise, the most celebrated book of all time is without a doubt The Lord of the Rings, which vies with the Bible for the most popular book of all time. There is, as I understand it, an entire subculture and an entire industry built off the back of it. I can't think of a much more objective definition of "celebrated" than the fact that more people have a copy of it than any other story in the world. Do we teach that book to our children in English class? No.
Quoting Baden
You've given a straw-man of an example. Even Harry Potter meets all the criteria you've set there. Readers are undeniably "engaged". Its definitely within a "genre", suspense is subjective, but to the degree we'd all agree on the definition, the book definitely has suspence. I read it to my children, and couldn't wait to find out what happened next on some evenings. It's abundantly clear that things of interest happen because thousands of children (and quite a few adults) are "interested" enough to have considerable discussions about it.
You're playing sleight of hand again. You're argument here is - "there are criteria we'd all agree with that make a goid/bad story... Therefore the art critics are right". Your logic just doesn't support the conclusion. It's not the very basics that are in dispute here, it's the claims of the sort that Hamlet is better, more worthy of study, than The Lord of the Rings.
Both are written in perfectly correct grammar (in fact, much of Chaucer's grammar is now incorrect, and we still study that, so that argument is bullshit for a start). Both engage readers, both have a narrative, both clearly interest people. So if you want to defend the notion that one is objectively better than the other, you'll have to do better than laying out a few basics.
Woah. So in the nineteenth century someone who believed that black people were of equal value to whites was "wrong"? What kind of bullshit argument is that?
The final part of my argument above wasn't aimed at your points, but at the superficial skeptics extant here. Establishing that Hamlet is 'better' than 'Harry Potter' or the 'Lord of the Rings' would require much qualification. Better at what? Better art? Probably... but all three works mentioned have definite merits and are the result of much skill and creativity, and it would take an extensive analysis to do a proper evaluative comparison. So, dismissing them out of hand would be elitist, I agree. A Michael Bay movie, on the other hand, is primarily a bunch of visual porn, the movie equivalent of a brief sugar high, and isn't worth discussing in terms of art.
You missed the part where he said 'for no good reason'.
There are posters around here who would, in the name of philosophy, point at turds in toilet bowls and babble "Why is this objectively worse than a gourmet meal! Prove it! PROVE IT! Objectively! Philosophically! Rationally!..? Why? Why? WHY?" falsely imagining because they said some words smart people regularly use, some of it must inevitably rub off on them. The correct response is: You feel thus? Fine, eat the turd, I'll stick to the chicken soup. Any further time spent on them is likely to be effort wasted.
But this is the exact point I'm interested in. The actual mechanics behind keeping a bridge up are complex beyond my level of understanding, but the measures by which a good bridge is distinguished from a bad one are there for all to see. Maybe not everyone will realise that, in addition to supporting the traffic, it may need to earthquake proof, resistant to salt spray, cost-efficient, but these are easily told. Maybe there are a small number of more comex measures of bridge quality that are too complex for the layman to understand, but these are undoubtedly minor, because the bridge serves a purpose that was not set by the engineers employed to build it. We (the bridge users) must understand the main purpose of the bridge because it is we who's asked for it.
We (the mass public) are the consumers of art, not just the artists, not just the art critics. Or else you have an extremely narrow definition of art. So for we, the consumers, to be told we don't understand what good art is, is patronising and elitist. We're the one who asked for it in the first place. Now I accept you could make an argument that a painter may still paint even if no one ever asked him to, and I accept that, but by entertaining the concept of art criticism, you are explicitly including the consumer of the art otherwise it has no one on which to have its effect.
Hence my accusation of sleight of hand. You seem to engineer your responses to shy away from a simple statement of the main things a work of art is supposed to do, such that art can be compared by its ability to achieve it. I'm not looking for an exhaustive list, but I am looking for some measures which support your claim of objectivity. All that has been given so far are measures like "engagement" which are entirely subjective, or measures like grammar, which are met by virtually every book that's seen a copy editor.
Quoting Baden
I didn't miss that part, I ignored it. The point you're making here is another straw-man. No one actually is arguing that turds are better than gourmet meals. The point these people (myself included) are arguing against is the misuse of common agreement to get controversial opinions passed without argument by appeal to it.
Personally I'd rather live in a philosophical climate where it was hard to say gourmet meals are better than turds than I would live in a society where it was easy to say Jews are a lesser species and point to the fact that "everyone knows that!" as my evidence.
You didn’t ask for it, it was given to you. I keep telling you, the artist doesn’t care about you.
I’m happy to exclude art critics, but if you are going to give the consumer the same understanding of art as the artist then you yourself don’t know anything about art.
Your analogy of the bridge doesn’t work because in art the purpose of the bridge was not set by the consumer.
I don't have any art 'given' to me. I'm not sure I understand your reference. I get the idea that artists make art whatever, that's a given. But we're not discussing why artists make art, we're discussing which works of art are better than others, and we're discussing it specifically in the context of the effect such works have on the consumer of that art.
If the question was "which artworks are better for the artist who makes them?", then maybe my point about creating a demand for art would be irrelevant, but we're not. Art has an effect on people because they consume it in some way. It is in the public domain to be consumed because there is a demand for it. If there weren't we'd have nothing to discuss here.
Then you obviously straw-manned him. There are good reasons why slavery was wrong (and why anti-semitism is wrong). Nobody is making an argument purely from popular opinion here otherwise Michael Bay would win out over Shakespeare hands down.
Quoting Isaac
Again, one example of that would be a claim that Michael Bay movies have artistic value because many people enjoy them.
Quoting Isaac
I'm not making a claim of "objectivity". There is no purely objective stance that can be taken on art. There are though good reasons to believe certain works are more artistic than others. Sometimes that justification needs to be made and sometimes it doesn't. And there are thousands of works out there on art theory and criticism that do justify artistic judgements.
So, can the elites get it wrong? Sure, of course, why not? But if by "elites", all you mean is people who actually make an effort at understanding, examining, analyzing and writing about art then it's at least more likely that they'll have something to say worth listening to than random people who make no effort to understand art, don't appreciate it, and speak primarily from a position of ignorance. Can we agree on that at least?
I’m saying you didn’t get it because you asked for it. You found it.
Well we are if you think it was made because you wanted it, that you asked for it.
Actually, whether there was a demand for it or not by consumers art would still exist and the discussion would still be alive.
It doesn't matter if its 'popular' opinion or the 'opinion' of some selected group (in this case art critics and academics). The danger remains the same. The delegation of reason to some group of people presumed to just 'know' what is best is a danger I'm not prepared to support. Where did those 'good' reasons get the Jewish people in Nazi Germany, or the millions of African-Americans in 19th Century America? Nowhere, because people simply declared that their opinions on the matter must be right because "look at {group x}, they all agree its right". Its bad philosophy simpliciter.
Quoting Baden
Yes, it would be, but that is not the claim here. The claim is that those films are no better or worse, than Hamlet. That is an ontological claim about the existence or otherwise of factors which objectively raise one above the other.
Quoting Baden
Claiming that there are 'good' reasons is the objective claim that I am objecting to. There are reasons, sure. But an argument that those reasons are 'good', as opposed to just ones you personally like, is an argument of objectivity.
Quoting Baden
No, I don't see any reason why that would be the case without begging the question.
Firstly, such people will definitely have more to say sensu lato, but I don't see any obvious reason reason why, what thay have to say is likely to be of more worth. What is the connection you're drawing between spending a lot of time analysing a piece of art in a particular way, and the results of that examination being of objective worth? Someone could spend years analysing the hue of the pages Beowulf was written on, they're certainly in a better position than others to give that information in exact chromatic scale, but does that automatically make their opinion on Beowulf more worth listening to? It seems to me something more is required to add worth than time spent.
Secondly, art critics are no less human than any other group. They will be just as affected by in-group bias, mutual-reinforcing of beliefs, fashions and errors as anyone, as a base. So the fact, alone, that they give a relatively unified answer that is different to the average, is not evidence of anything more than simple group psychology. You'd still need to show some reason why any analysis might yield insights, in order to make an argument that greater analysis will yield greater such insights. If there's nothing to find, more time looking will simply yield nothing still.
Basically, we haven't yet surmounted the fundamental problem of what art is supposed to do. If the things which art is supposed to do are nebulous, then any judgement about its ability to do that will be nebulous too.
I find shoes in a shop, I bring home and wear the ones I ask for. It is only those whose effect on me I can judge.
You're slippery but transparent.
False equivalency.
First of all, nobody is talking about race here. We're talking about art.
Second of all, race is an objectively poor measure by which to judge the worth of people. We have things to point to outside of ourselves that make that a dumb idea. Zhou is trying to claim that Shakespeare et.al. are not as great as previously thought not by reference to any objective standard of measure, but by reference purely to himself and his personal whims.
Third of all, if you find that the majority of people believe x, and you believe y, then you really should reconsider y, even if you think x might be immoral. And if through reconsidering you find the objective measures I mentioned above that support your y over x, you can stick with y. But if you can't, then show some humility.
Fourth of all, try using your brain and formulating an actual argument before just dismissing others crudely.
This is not a relevant point on its own. Cats are not dogs, that doesn't mean they're not both hairy. The fact alone that we're not talking about race doesn't make any equivalence I draw automatically false.
Quoting NKBJ
If race is an objectively poor measure by which to judge the worth of people, then why did so many people used to think it wasn't? All you've done is kicked the can. Now we have to decide if race is or isn't an objectively poor measure. Do we trust the majority here?
Quoting NKBJ
And what is it that makes you sure Zhou hasn't already done this... That he didn't reach the same conclusion as you? I've seen little in your responses along the lines of guiding Zhou through a process of looking at the objective measures used to judge art. I just see a lot of bluster and bare declarations.
Quoting NKBJ
I presume this is meant to be ironic?
That's only evidence of some combo of a lot of people liking it and/or the way that things become entrenched and socially transmitted due to certain endorsements, including academic entrenchment, and including the fact that people like you put more weight on works that have become socially entrenched--that becomes a self-perpetuating cycle.
None of that amounts to it actually being better, since there is no actual better/worse.
No, but your lack of establishing what the "hair" is does.
Quoting Isaac
That's a complex issue, but basically because slave labor is so gosh darn cheap and convenient.
Quoting Isaac
Which conclusions are you talking about?
Quoting Isaac
I did. I repeatedly explained that there is more philosophy in one Shakespeare play than in anything Bay ever did. Is this your somewhat awkward way to ask for more specific examples?
Quoting Isaac
You would presume wrongly. I try to refrain from such crudeness as you're inclined to exhibit.
Begging the question.
I think, looking back on history, the elites have always owned the art, whether it’s the Vatican or the rich. I imagine the individual, or individuals, who made the cave drawings of Lascaux weren’t your average tribe member and possessed something the others did not.
For some reason the elite are drawn to art for their own purposes. The fact that they pay attention to something then enhances the artefact. For a long time they were very traditional in their preferences, until Impressionism came along and upset things. But once again it was a new elite that picked it up and gave it cache. The movements that followed broke up that elite approach to art through the idea of ‘The Artist’, though I imagine this idea began a lot earlier. Their actual rebellion became the thing to have, so once again the elite took ownership. But it was no longer the establishment but money that became the new elite, and their actions defined art once again. Even if an artist refused to come out of his garret to take part it only added to the mystique of the artist.
So the elite have always owned art. Even street artists like Basquiat were eventually swallowed by the elite. Art today is a managed career, so we can no longer look on it as we have in the past. We might even ask, Is it still art?, have we gone past the point of what art is? There are more artists and art around than there have ever been, art is more affordable, so we get more consumer driven art.
Consumers often forget that they drive the market. The public get angry at the greed of businessmen then go and buy their products. So today, at a level below the elite, consumers feel confident enough to say what good and bad art is, or that there is no difference. Everyone has an opinion. Until we reach a point where someone believes that Michael Bay creates art.
The films a Michael Bay makes are nothing like the work of a novelist. A film is a commercial venture. The length of the film is chosen according to how long someone will sit through it, not how long is needed to tell the story in depth like the novel. There are so many compromises I’m not even sure if it can be called his film. It’s not uncommon for producers to take a novel, film it then change the ending. Some writers don’t even recognise their story in the film.
Sorry, this is long. I’ll stop and continue later.
No, because that wasn't an argument. The part after the comma simply explains the part before the comma. Question-begging is an argumentative fallacy. You can't commit an argumentative fallacy sans an argument.
The term elitist seems to be defined by those who don’t like them. I don’t really know who they are. I have some idea of who you think they are. So who are the people who are non elitist, is it people like yourself? If so then all you are doing is trying to claim the ground the elitists hold and say, ‘No, that’s not art, this is.’ You can do that because of the proliferation of art and artists, the growth of consumer power and the vast entertainment industry, which ironically enough you can see filtering through elite art as ‘the spectacle’. It’s like a war between the aristocracy and the peasants. So if you believe the elite should not define good art then why should you able to do it? Unless it’s because you simply don’t like them?
Actually, I was referring to the post-comma statement. Which IS question begging.
No, that's not the way categorisation works, we continue to divide things by their differences. Believing that the majority must be right about race is the same as believing the majority are right about art because they are both cases of believing the majority are right. If you think they differ in some way that impacts my argument it is up to you to explain what that difference is, not up to me to list all the potential differences in advance and explain how each one does not affect my argument.
Quoting NKBJ
Right, and there's absolutely no complexity to why the majority of people think Shakespeare is better than Michael Bay? That's just simple and without any other factors involved than this elusive objective measure which no one seems capable of defining. Terrapin, in one of his posts above, has already given a list of the complex exterior reasons why a majority might reach a conclusion about Shakespeare other than some single mysterious quality, so I won't re-list them here.
Quoting NKBJ
The conclusion that Shakespeare is not necessarily 'better' than Michael Bay.
Quoting NKBJ
Really? That's what you call 'explaining'? A series of hostile and condescending assertions? You do realise this is a philosophy forum?
Quoting NKBJ
Really?
Quoting NKBJ
Quoting NKBJ
Do I have to explain irony to you?
Question begging occurs when premises assume the truth of a conclusion. A single phrase after a comma in a sentence can't do all that.
At any rate, nothing in my comment was presented as an argument, so fallacies can't apply. Fallacies are validity problems. Validity pertains to the truth values and relations between premises and conclusions that supposedly follow from each other. But I wasn't stating premises and a conclusion. I was simply explaining.
So you have no idea how the two are related. Okay, good.
Quoting Isaac
There may be, but then, as I've repeatedly explained, there's millions and millions of pages in which people explain all of the ways in which Shakespeare is deep and complex and artistically great. I'm afraid it is simply outside of my powers to list all of those things and give them their due explanation in a post on an internet forum.
But if you're actually interested, and not just blustering because you've already formed an unmovable opinion, maybe you should read some of the theses, dissertations, and books found here:
https://www.worldcat.org/search?q=shakespeare&qt=results_page
Or any of the articles and book chapters here:
https://www.jstor.org/action/doBasicSearch?Query=shakespeare&filter=
You see, all these papers and articles and books are page after page and word after word of evidence. These are people who have meticulously documented Shakespeare's greatness. If even half of it is true, he's much better than Bay. By the way, I'm still waiting on anyone offering such evidence in Bay's support?
Quoting Isaac
Yes. And you're trying to turn it into an "everyone's opinion is true" forum, which is just bunk.
You call it condescending. I call it pointing out an unbelievable display of hubris on the part of people who think their own opinion matters more than the educated, experienced opinions of thousands who have dedicated their entire lives to these subjects.
Quoting Isaac
Do you understand the word "crude"? Because I was certainly not that.
In any case, I am STILL waiting for anyone to explain the ways in which Bay's movies are anywhere near as deep as Hamlet? Or are you just gonna hang your hat on the "entertaining to me" peg?
Flipping the statements for coherency's sake:
No A is B/C.
Therefore A is not B.
You turned it into an argument by using the word "since."
Again, it was an explanation. I wasn't saying that I was presenting premises and a conclusion where the conclusion logically follows from the premises. In fact, I explicitly said that I wasn't doing that.
Maybe you read it as an argument. Okay. Nothing I can do about that. But I wasn't presenting it as an argument, as premises and a conclusion.
Same dif.
It's still circular and needs a more adequate explanation.
How you read something and how I was thinking about something are the same thing?
Arguments can be circular. It wasn't an argument.
Geez, it's like talking to a wall.
Ditto
You mean that you're saying that I may have been forwarding an argument even though I didn't think I was forwarding an argument?
Or are you saying that fallacies apply to things that aren't arguments?
I mean that what you said was an argument whether you want to accept it or not.
Doesn't that simply amount to insisting that your interpretation is correct, and contra what the author intended, because . . . well, I guess because it's your interpretation?
It's simply the structure of your sentence which is pretty obvious.
If an author says "the cat ran up the tree" and I say, "oh, there's a cat, and a tree" and then the author insists "no, no, by 'cat' I meant 'monkey' and by 'tree' I meant 'piano'" then my interpretation was more valid than his intended meaning.
Structure is identical to meaning in your view?
Structure is one of the many vehicles of meaning within the English language.
Consider:
The boy dropped the ball.
The ball dropped the boy.
A minor rearrangement of word order changes the entire meaning.
Not necessarily.
We don't at all have the same view about what meaning is or how it works. So appealing to me agreeing with you isn't going to work.
And hence why I'm asking about your view of meaning. So if meaning isn't identical to structure on your view, then you can't just appeal to structure in your argument that I was stating an argument despite not at all thinking about it that way.
What else would you say it's dependent on?
Meaning is conveyed through many elements of the English language.
But hey, you go ahead and scramble word all you like. See how far you get with that. :)
Maybe you could be a bit more specific, especially given that you're attempting an argument that I stated an argument despite not at all thinking about it that way?
I already was specific enough. I'm sorry you don't seem to be able to accept it.
lol okay
:kiss:
On your view, by the way, you wouldn't be able to make sense of me saying "That's not what I meant." That's a pretty common thing for people to say, which makes it problematic to not be able to make sense of it.
Yes, and there's millions and millions of pages explaining how the bible or the quoran are true and worth following writtenby expert theologians (undoubtedly more than there is commentary on Shakespeare). Does that make what they write any more true? No wait...theology is different to art so that makes whatever you want to say about art automatically right and any analogy I draw automatically wrong.
Quoting NKBJ
A million opinions doesn't miraculously turn opinion into fact. This is exactly the problem with authoritarianism, from Millgram to Trump. At no point in time does the subjective content of someone's thought become objective fact. Not if a billion people believe it. We cannot gather a billion people and cause the sun to rotate around the moon by believing in it hard enough. You know Peter Pan was a story, right?
Quoting NKBJ
Ah, well that settles it, you weren't crude because you don't think you were. I was crude because you think I was. I think we're spotting a pattern here.
Quoting NKBJ
It's really simple. If people think/obtain what they believe are 'deep' thoughts about a Michael Bay film, but obtain fewer from Hamlet, then for them Michael Bay movies are more deep than Hamlet. I'm not one of those people, so I can't help you with the details.
What would be true is that those folks feel that Shakespeare is great for the reasons they give.
It's not true that he IS great outside of that context, outside of persons feeling how they feel about him.
We can't give evidence that Bay is better than Shakespeare--or worse than Shakespeare--outside of someone liking one or the other more, because there are no facts about one being better than the other aside from that.
This entire post makes no sense.
They're not writing about their "feelings."
Quoting Terrapin Station
One can like whatever one wants. No disputing that.
HOWEVER, there are things like philosophical breadth and depth that Bay just doesn't measure up to.
By your logic, there is no way to measure the difference in quality between a personal essay by an average middle schooler and Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. It's all just how you "feel" about it. Nevermind that if you actually look at the texts, instead of just blustering here because you like the idea that all opinions and "feelings" are equal, it's just obvious which one contains more thought, more ideas, more insight.
And frankly, I can't take anyone seriously who wants to maintain that the middle school paper and the Kant text are equal. In such a case, you're either just being stubborn cause you care more about "winning" an argument in an internet forum with a stranger than about the truth, or you just don't know enough to contribute to this conversation.
Another false analogy. Theologians are trying to draw from religious texts to make metaphysical claims about the world.
But the fact that millions of people and theologians have found meaning in the Quran and the Bible does give evidence that these are more meaningful than "Transformers" ever could be.
Quoting Isaac
These aren't just subjective opinions.
Quoting Isaac
You're conflating two entirely different concepts: understanding that a text contains a certain level of depth and thought and insight, versus thinking that the story itself is true. Not sure how you made that jump, but it's definitely moving in a strawperson direction.
Quoting Isaac
There is more possible depth for them to find in Hamlet than Transformers. And it doesn't matter that someone is too immature to spend some time with Hamlet. The fact is that the depth is there for anyone who is willing to explore it. Bays movies simply cannot provide that.
Analogy: let's say there are two caves. Cave A is a hundred times longer and deeper than cave B. Just because a person explores the entire cave B and merely glances at cave A doesn't mean cave B is magically deeper and longer. To that person it may seem that way, but that doesn't make it true.
Oh yes they are insofar as they're making any evaluative statements a la things being good, bad, better, worse, beautiful, sublime, crass, etc.--anything like that.
Quoting NKBJ
The philosophical content of artworks comes from the consumer, unless we're talking about text/dialogue that's literally a philosophical argument. But the "philosophical content" of a work isn't at all limited to that.
At any rate, "A work with more philosophical breadth/depth is better than a work with less" would simply be a preference that an individual has.
Quoting NKBJ
There's no objective way to measure it, because there is no objective quality in that sense of the term.
Quoting NKBJ
Which is subjectively measuring it. That's how we measure such things, subjectively. So it's not true that there's no way to measure it in my view. It's just that it's a subjective measurement
.Quoting NKBJ
Opinions are only "equal" from a perspective that's completely irrelevant to opinions. So you're forwarding a stupid straw man.
Quoting NKBJ
"Works that 'contain' more thought, ideas, etc. are better" is just a preference that an individual can have. (Leaving aside the other issues with that.)
Quoting NKBJ
I probably wouldn't be able to, either. But you know what I take even less seriously? Someone who wants to maintain that the inequality isn't about preferences that people have.
We're not getting anywhere here. We're just talking in circles. Let me know when you have something new to add. In the meantime, I'll just agree to disagree.
You should have corrected your straw mannish misconceptions at least, but I guess that's too much work.
That's straw person. ;)
Yay--can't wait until the next time you claim that I think that there's no way to judge/measure works, morals, etc. or the next time you claim that I think all works/moral stances/etc. are equal. That will be fun to correct again.
You claimed that. Not me.
But that's just your MO.
Terrapin: "X"
Other person: "Not X"
Terrapin: "I never said X! How dare you say I said X? You're so dumb for thinking I said X. I said X which is totally different from X."
:rofl:
No I didn't. I explicitly explained above that I'm not at all saying that things aren't measurable or that they're all equal.
What do I have to say for you to be able to understand that? Aren't you at least interested in understanding the viewpoints that you're supposedly arguing against?
Oh dear. I see you're thoroughly confused now.
But I'm afraid I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain to you all the times and ways in which you did say what you are now denying you said.
Sorry, but arguing with someone like you is just a waste of time.
Well, or at least your mistaken beliefs about what my views even are, apparently. Maybe in the future, not necessarily with me, try to not be so quick to judge, so quick to stick someone on a particular template, and take the time to listen and think about what they're saying?
I see this is a "do as I say and not as I do" moment for ya.
Thought it would be, seems to be a recurring theme. You do know what an analogy is? It's not meant to be the same in every way, it's just for highlighting relevant similarities.
Quoting NKBJ
No, it gives evidence that millions of people and theologians have found meaning in the Quran and the Bible (and not in "Transformers"), for some reason. Not for whatever reason you want. It tells us that it has happened, it does not tell us why. If you think you know why ("because there's more depth in the bible"), then forward an argument to that effect. Of all the possible reasons why millions of people and theologians have found meaning in the Quran and the Bible (time, social pressures, religious zealotry, conformity, dogmatism...), what leads you to the conclusion that the 'depth' of those books is the primary reason?
Quoting NKBJ
Fine. What makes them objective? It can't be widespread agreement alone (we've established that widespread agreement on its own is not enough to make opinion objective). You obviously think that certain classes of opinion have some special property which means that they become objective when agreed upon by enough people. I'm just asking what this property is and how it's effect is manifested.
Quoting NKBJ
No, I was being facetious. Peter Pan... "If you really believe you can fly...you can fly...you just have to believe"
Quoting NKBJ
This is the point I'm asking you to support. Re-asserting it is not an argument. What are your reasons for believing this? If its just more people have found depth in Hamlet (or more people of a certain class, to be specific), then I just refer you to the question above - of all the hundreds of complex reasons why people may have talked about the depth they have found in Hamlet (age, social pressures, academic conformity, educational influences, bias, ignorance...) why do you think your reason (that there is objectively more depth to be found) is the main one?
Quoting NKBJ
False analogy (my turn). We can measure cave depth using measurements that all those interested in the matter agree on. The person who merely glances at cave A can simply be shown the measurements proving that cave A is the deeper one. With Hamlet, if a person is shown the text, shown the interpretations and analysis, and still disagrees there is depth, what other measure can you use?
In your cave analogy, there is the estimated length from a glance (subjective) and there is the verifiable length by tape measure (objective).
With Hamlet there is the opinion from reading it (subjective) and there is the millions of pages of other people's opinion from reading it (still subjective, since mass agreement alone does not make opinion objective).
It's like you've never done a serious literary analysis in your life. Maybe you haven't?
A colleague of mine in the history department used to complain that they'd set a question like "Explain how the Whig reforms affected religious tolerance", or something like that, and one or two of the papers would come back as if the question had been "Write everything you know about the Whig reforms".
I find writing here like that. Mention some position, say relativism, and you might as well not write anything else, all you get in return is "Everything argument I know that counters relativism" regardless of what you actually write.
Still, it passes the time...
No, I haven't. Never seriously studied English literature.
Any interest in actually addressing the argument, or is there anything else about my academic career you'd like to know first?
It's just pretty obvious that you're talking about things you don't understand. If you ever had studied English, or given any time to reading analyses by people who have, you wouldn't be saying it's "just their opinion."
I have already, repeatedly, pointed to sources which could enlighten you on the subject. That would clear up the argument. But are you actually interested in seeing the proof or do you just want to stubbornly maintain your own unwarranted position?
If you ever had studied {the Bible}, or given any time to reading analyses by people who have, you wouldn't be saying it's "just their opinion."
I have already, repeatedly, pointed to sources which could enlighten you on the subject. That would clear up the argument. But are you actually interested in seeing the proof or do you just want to stubbornly maintain your own unwarranted position?
Changed the topic. Does that now make Christianity objectively true?
We're not talking about whether everything Shakespeare said was true.
Yes, I see why you've misunderstood me there. I deliberately said Christianity (the religious enterprise) not the bible (the book I exchanged for 'English' in your post).
What I mean is - does the exact same argument you gave about English make you think that the things people say about the Bible are true? No. It may well make you think there's something there to be investigated (and even then you'd have caveats), but you're not asking that I 'have a look' at what English scholars have to say, you're demanding that I accept what they say as being objectively true simply by virtue of their saying it.
The false dilemma issue keeps cropping up. First of all, everything scholars say about Shakespeare can't be true because they disagree sometimes. Secondly, just because everything that say isn't true, doesn't mean the consensus that Shakespeare was a great writer and some other writers weren't is false. It's not 'just' an opinion that is no better than any other random opinion nor is it objectively true the way, say, physical measurements are. There are degrees of objectivity. You don't jump straight from subjective (just an opinion of no greater worth than any other as if you were discussing ice-cream flavours) to unquestionable objective truth (as in demonstrable scientific fact). There's loads of room in between those two and that's where artistic judgements lie. And you don't have to accept any particular artistic judgement, but if you can't make an argument for your particular judgement, there's no reason for anyone to listen to you. Those who have argued that Shakespeare is a great writer have provided millions of words of evidence why. It's not impossible they're wrong but they're winning the argument.
What Baden said:
Quoting Baden
:cheer:
What would objectivity even refer to if there are "degrees" of it?
So what's your reasoning for believing that? How would such a system work for you? Do things become more objective the more people believe them (that seems fraught with social and political problems to me), or do things become more objective the more justification someone can give (if so, how do we decide what justification counts without succumbing to the problems of the first option)? I'm just not seeing how this scalar objectivity would work.
Quoting Baden
As above, how do we determine that what they have provided is evidence? I could (in theory) over the next few weeks write millions of words about Michael Bay's films, would the quality of his films actually change as I write the words?
And it's simply an argumentum ad populum.
I think the example I gave explains it. There are certain preference claims that can't plausibly be argued against: It would be senseless for me to try to convince you that strawberry flavour ice-cream is better than chocolate flavour ice-cream if you prefer chocolate ice cream. And there are certain factual claims that can't plausibly be argued against: It would be senseless for me to try to convince you that the temperature today is 50 degrees Celsius if you have carried out reliable and corroborated measurements that show it's 15. Questions of artistic merit fall somewhere in between. Whether or not we can agree, it is not senseless to have the debate. We can give reasons based on what art is and what it's supposed to do with reference to the genre it's a part of.
Quoting Isaac
No, but you may be able to uncover aspects of Michael Bay's films that show they had more quality all along than was recognized. And it's possible that people reading your words may change their level of appreciation on understanding your arguments. Classes on art appreciation, for example, are not a con. There is something to be appreciated. Teaching someone to try to prefer strawberry flavour to chocolate flavour, on the other hand, is likely to be a waste of time.
I get this bit and I agree with you that discussing the merits of art is not a worthless activity. The point that was originally made is that some people feel less welcome to that discussion if they bring with them certain views. It is simply unheard of for serious English literature to discuss pulp western novels and Shakespeare in the same faculty, so the issue here is not really about the legitimacy of the discussion, it is about the legitimacy of the conclusion.
The problem arises the moment you start to make claims regarding authority. It is serious risk (in my opinion) to act as if claims of authority do not require a high standard of objective reasoning, history is littered with examples of the damage such claims can cause. If you are going to claim that the English scholars have any authority over a non-scholar (even if it is just their opinion is more true, rather than absolute truth) I believe it is incumbent upon you to justify that authority, for the reasons I've given above.
So far all I've heard by way of such justification is; there's lots of them, they've put in a lot of work, they broadly agree on core issues, there's no objective facts which contradict them.
These are all reasonable justifications, but they still apply to far too many nefarious groups for me to accept them. Most well-supported religious and political movements, for example, could claim authority by the same standards.
Maybe there's some talk at cross purposes then. As far as I'm concerned, anyone can make and should be allowed to make an argument re the artistic merit of any work. It's the argument that ultimately matters not whether or not they're a scholar (it's just that it's not unreasonable to infer that scholars are likely to be more knowledgeable about their field than the layman). And this happens organically over time. Shakespeare wasn't always considered a great artist. And it's not impossible Michael Bay will become more elevated with time too. I just haven't seen anyone make an argument that would support that theory. And someone simply saying that they prefer his movies (or simply saying they prefer Shakespeare, for that matter) is not an argument.
The fact that they are English scholars who have spent much more time and effort looking at these things than the layperson means that they are authorities on the subject. They've read more art, thought about it more, and read more analyses thereof, and are therefore in a better position to judge the merit of any given artpiece than you are.
You keep on positing that they could be wrong. Yes. That's possible. But it's far more likely that the people who've only read a couple of Shakespeare plays, didn't care for it much and thus never gave it much more thought have no idea what they're talking about when they want to dismiss his work.
?
If memory serves, the 'elites' of the time viewed his plays roughly only on the level that we view popular drama today.
"In his own time, William Shakespeare (1564–1616) was rated as merely one among many talented playwrights and poets, but since the late 17th century he has been considered the supreme playwright and poet of the English language."
Yes, I think you may be right. It's this sort of thing I'm arguing against...
Quoting NKBJ
Quoting NKBJ
Quoting NKBJ
Quoting Brett
And the latest
Quoting NKBJ
... Just replace 'English scholars' and 'art/artpiece' with a few other choice groups and opinions from history. Comfortable?
I would presume though that your interlocutors (including me) would be able to justify their opinions in more detail if it came to a conversation on that level. It might take time to do it, but I'm pretty sure I could give detailed reasons why Michael Bay movies are artistically inferior to Shakespeare's plays. I'm much less convinced the converse can be done.
Quoting Baden
This seems to me to be uncontroversial and is similar to what @NKBJ is saying. Scholars are certainly not unquestionable, but we can infer they are at least likely to be knowledgeable about their field. Do you agree?
Yes, I don't doubt you could, but, what I've read so far has been absolutely zero personal justification and a considerably bombastic appeal to authority. It is that which concerns me.
On a note more relevant to your point though, it's more at the periphery that the 'power' of the elite about which the OP originally opined starts to show. Whilst I've no doubt your prediction would stand with a Michael Bay film vs Hamlet, I'd argue that measured purely by justifications given, arguments about, say, The Lord of the Rings vs Pride and Prejudice would not be so clear cut, and yet I don't imagine The Lord of the Rings making it on to the English Literature curriculum any time soon.
No, I'm afraid this is where we differ. It hinges on the 'knowledge' you're supposing them to have. I agree that they would know more about the play's history, the meaning of some of the terms and a fuller memory of the work. But if you start getting into interpretation, no amount of multiplication makes it more likely to be true (not without running into the authority problems I raised above). The fact that scholars have learnt a lot about what other scholars think/thought, does not at any time render this 'knowledge' of the type that would justify their authority.
I'd agree with that, certainly.
Quoting Isaac
They would also have a grasp though on elements of the work like plot and characterization that most wouldn't. For example, I like Thomas Pynchon's writing but I don't 'get' 'Gravity's Rainbow'. It seems all over the place plot-wise and I haven't been able to finish it. I suspect though if I read more intelligent criticism on it, I might understand it more and be able to enjoy it more. So, I expect it is a great work of art despite my inability to get into it. And the fact that many intelligent commentators and readers appreciate it is at least part of the reason I feel it's worth pursuing more than stuff that's been universally panned.
You're mistaken. Lord of the Rings is on the curriculum in many school districts in many countries. Houghton Mifflin publish a comprehensive pack for secondary school teachers. http://www.houghtonmifflinbooks.com/features/lordoftheringstrilogy/lessons/
First, no one is saying that subjective things are incorrigibly immutable, that there's no point to ever discussing subjective judgments in any arena, especially via factual, cultural, etc. info surrounding the things we're judging (but that aren't themselves aesthetic, moral, gustatory, etc. judgments). Subjective judgments can be influenced, whether via one's own or via outside efforts. And factual, cultural, etc. info about the items in question can always play into how subjective judgments are shaped. This most definitely includes gustatory judgments, and there are in fact various food appreciation courses at universities and colleges, mostly under the umbrella of culinary schools.
One way that we influence subjective judgments is by ferreting out the tastes we already have and figuring out how novel-to-the-individual experiences relate to those tastes. As one has new experiences, that also opens up new avenues of taste, and acclimation to various things shapes tastes, too. Another way to influence subjective judgments is by providing insight into works a la socio-historical contexts, information about what the artist was attempting to do relative to various conventions, and so on.
None of this makes any aesthetic or other judgments anything other than subjective. And it doesn't give credence to anyone's evaluative judgments being correct versus incorrect. It's rather a matter of understanding just what subjective judgments are and how they work.
Thinking that anyone is saying that it's simply an immutable matter of someone liking or disliking something, where they don't interact with anyone else, where information can't have an influence on judgments, etc. is an absurdly caricatured straw man.
That's good to hear. I had to read P and P for my high school exams and wasn't a fan. On the plus side, I had Hamlet and Death of a Salesman too.
GR is not really a plot book. The overall plot is only slowly revealed through the stories of many different characters, which link up to get a full picture of what's happening and the connections between them. The best method is to stop worrying about where anything might be going and just follow what presents.
Probably. Thanks :up:
Regarding Shakespeare's reputation among his contemporaries:
Although he wasn't seen as the big figure he eventually became, he was considered a very fine poet among a whole slew of great poets who all happened to be writing around that time.
He did make himself popular with the masses with jokes, stage theatrics, etc, but people of educated classes came to see his plays for their simultaneous substance.
http://theshakespeareblog.com/2013/02/shakespeares-early-reputation/
Sure, I only wanted to make the point that the debate is open, as in judgements of merit can develop over time.
I know. :)
My point is just that the jump in Shakespeare's case wasn't the one needed for a Michael Bay to suddenly be viewed as at the same level.
Absolutely... :scream:
if you begin by doing the former, I am comfortable that I will be able to do the latter. I would just do it, but I have no idea how anything would be judged artistically inferior to anything else based on the definition of Art.
If white paint on a white canvas can sell for $15 million, formal criteria seem absent.
Quoting NKBJ
See if this analogy helps (I don't expect it to convince, but hopefully at least understand where we are coming from):
Tom is an Ice Cream aficionado. Tom knows more about ice cream than anyone alive. He eats ice cream twice per day. He has read everything ever written about ice cream. He knows every major company, every flavor. He knows how it is made. He knows how to serve it. And far more I can not even think of because I don't know ice cream that well.
Therefor when Tom says that "Rocky Road is the best flavor of ice cream" he is correct right? Even for someone who is allergic to nuts? What if I like fruit flavors more than chocolate?
It is not a matter of COULD be wrong. There is no wrong.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that. I do not think all opinions on how to treat cancer are equal. I don't think all opinions on climate change are equal. I don't think all opinions on how to pull an airplane out of a tailspin are equal. However, I DO consider all opinions on what is better sky or water to be equal. What factors can possibly be considered that make one opinion more right in that last case? Now apply that to art. Art only seems different because people with money and resources over the years have prioritized certain types of art, seemingly making these opinions more scholarly. Well a scholarly opinion on "my favorite color" is no more "right" than when an 8 year old picks their favorite color.
I am not Isaac, but just to help, if I had never read Shakespeare after high school I would have a far less severe opinion. It has been the last 3-4 years of helping students complete literary analysis that led me to look down on Shakespeare (and most of the required readings). By the way, after completing a few high school literary analyses, it will feel easy to find depth and complexity in any story (whether the author actually intended it to be read that way is a different story).
I view Homer as the Michael Bay of ancient Greece (the pantheon of gods was used in stories the same way we use comic book characters in modern movies). But we still value his works?
Yes, yes. What IS learned then?
Quoting NKBJ
So what we can learn from these authors is that many people have read their works and written about the experience? WHAT was actually learned? The difference between good and evil? Human nature? How to fake (not) your death so you can elope with your 13 year old girlfriend that you have known for 3 days?
Quoting NKBJ
Pssh, an amateur BS artist. Where is the mention of the color yellow representing Japan's influence on global technology? The first robot is named Bee and we hear his name constantly repeated. Is this not an obvious warning from outer space about the human impact on global pollinators? Honey bees are vanishing, and Michael Bay is bringing this issue to international attention. And Optimus Prime is an obvious symbol of America. Quick to violence, a bit self-righteous, and the Red White and Blue coloring is just dead-on...before you say, "wait Optimus is just red and blue", consider the passengers...all white people. Michael Bay is deep man.
Obviously, this is all bullshit. But that is how I feel about the "millions and millions" of pages of scholarly effort into literary analysis. Have you ever read a literary criticism? They are by college professors and for college professors. Even a huge fan of the work would find most of those criticism to be trivial nonsense.
Quoting NKBJ
That is a bold claim for art. The vast majority of humans don't get that out of ANY art (even when it is staring them in the face).
Here is a nice big obvious lesson (of value) from the transformers movies:
Good and evil are not inherent to any type of being. Notice it is not people vs robots. There are good and bad people and good and bad robots. There are good and bad Americans, and good and bad people from other countries. Sometimes good people do bad things, and some people are just jerks. Sounds like Shakespeare :roll:
Quoting NKBJ
I have said it to Baden, lay out one of those deep lessons from Hamlet, and I will find a similar lesson in "lesser" art.
Quoting NKBJ
Or I have spent the time, get the meaning, and thought "so what"? Challenge me! Show me some deep meaning. Can you name one deep lesson from Romeo and Juliet?
Quoting NKBJ
Huh? How is "I don't like it" haughty? I take it one step further and say "prove to me that it is better than any other art." I do write in a very matter-of-fact tone and I have been told it comes across as condescending - if so I am sorry, that is never my intention. But I don't think anything I said implies any type of superiority - my entire argument is that it is a given that Shakespeare (etc) is superior and I am challenging that.
Quoting NKBJ
It is clear that we are not looking at this the same way. I will wait for you to say what is wrong with my Ice Cream Aficionado analogy (back in one of these posts from today - I can find it and bring it up front if needed) and maybe that will help clear things up.
I certainly agree that if students are not engaged (interested being the main component) then learning will suffer. And it does seem that high school English classes turn more people off of reading than they do create life-long readers.
I think this is right. There’s no point approaching it from this position. But we could actually compare what Shakespeare does compared to Bay. For instance Michael Bay is not, officially anyway, the writer of ‘Island’. Nor is he the originator of the island, or the cinematographer or the editor. So from that point of view he’s nothing like Shakespeare or any other writer.
If Shakespeare directed his plays, I don’t know if he did, then he shares something with Bay directing film. Shakespeare may very well be impressed watching Bay at work.
Shakespeare is an originator, I don’t know if Bay could be called that. So are we going to compare them as artists and their work on this level, or purely on the content? And whatever you may think of Bay his films are a continuation of a tradition in storytelling. So you might even go back to Homer to find Bay’s origins. There’s nothing wrong with that, but has Bay treated that tradition in an over simplified way, in the end dumbing down the tradition? Has he contributed anything in a meaningful way?
People will no doubt feel embarrassed in some situations and be quick to agree with “experts” about what is or isn’t the case. Even in a non-learned group many people will simply agree, against their better judgement, just to maintain a sense of social harmony.
This sounds exactly like Transformer movies, but it doesn’t sound like ‘The Tempest’. If you think this sums up those movies then you’re probably right, but it’s a very basic portrait of the world and human nature.
Edit: Transformers is a toy based movie.
It’s convenient to pass off ‘Romeo and Juliet’ this way, it helps your argument. What could be taken from the play, if you bothered is: ideas about male honour, public order, the individual against power institutions, religion, public order, love, violence and death, and love and violence.
It's a complicated issue. I loved literature at that age, and some of what was taught was good. But given the depth of the good stuff, the Learning Outcome Factory can be wrong for it.
Was Shakespeare the story-teller of his day? Yes. Transformers has social significance, but the major difference today is that film has become an admixture of commericalism and artistic expression - look to how elders view the works of The Prodigy compared to Mozart? If we fast forward a few centuries which one will create more of an analytic buzz?
Quoting Baden
Yes, that seems reasonable too.
Quoting Baden
Right, but on what grounds? You're still not making explicit the link between the type of knowledge these critics have (plot, characterisation, word use historical links etc...) with a measure of quality. How does all of this knowledge about facts become knowledge about quality. Facts are not qualitative judgments on their own, so you need to explain the missing piece. If intelligent critics 'know' an immense amount of facts about a book, why are you more likely to trust their opinion about its quality? I'll ask you the same question I asked @NKBJ, as he's yet to answer. Of all the possible reasons why a group of critics might reach a conclusion about the quality of a book (fashion, group dynamics, academic pressure, ignorance, stubbornness, narrow-mindedness, personal bias...) what is it that convinces you that their improved knowledge of the book is the primary influence?
True, we could. And I’m sure the writers play with symbolism and ideas, but I can’t imagine that the bulk of the audience, who go for the action, are going to get that. Apart from that the film us made to make the money right now. It was never intended to have a future or a lasting message.
You left out some of the other reasons critics may have for reaching a conclusion about a book, ideas like: quality of writing, plot, characters, grammar, pattern and rhythm, tone and style, symbolism, setting, themes, imagery and so on.
Well, that's probably a good thing in terms of increasing diversity, but I think you still know what I mean with regards to the 'elite' who are the subject of the OP. In some respects, its inclusion on the curriculum rather proves the point. There was obviously some suggestion to include it, a complete lack of compelling evidence to the contrary, so on what grounds the previous snobbish dismissal?
From: http://blog.talkingphilosophy.com/?tag=michael-bay
Not wanting to go off-road, but I think there is something to say regarding a comparision between a “game” and a “narrative”. A surface appeal is short-lived if it doesn’t engage us emotionally.
I think this is the crux of the problem. No one has yet provided any description of 'artistic merit' (as opposed to preference) which is not simply some other group's preferences (for things like style, realism, themes etc). You could define 'art' simply as something which has a certain approach (anything which does not is simply not 'art') but even then, the relative success of a piece would remain a subjective judgement.
I'm a bit lost on your opinion here. When pressed you seem to come down on being able to coherently justify one's preference as being a measure of artistic criticism, but then in phrases like the above, your word use becomes axiomatic again.
Yes, because they are the very point being analysed, so to include them would be begging the question. We can hardly enquire about the justification for an art critic's opinion on quality from a position of assuming they have knowledge about quality, can we? That would not make any sense. If we're going to take their knowledge of the the "quality of writing, plot, characters, grammar, pattern and rhythm, tone and style, symbolism, setting, themes, imagery and so on" as a given, we might as well not bother with the rest of the discussion.
Would you consider reviews of books by other authors as at least having some basis for making judgements on ‘merit’?
The problem is that 'merit' has not been defined. It remains conveniently ephemeral so that it may be re-defined every time fashion changes. Keep the term vague enough and it can be ensured that an unmade bed remains art with 'merit' but a multi-million selling book can still be panned.
I understand that, but I feel there’s not really an attempt here to try and find that merit through discussion. To try and pin it down the best we can. For instance would anyone agree, at least, that writers may have some idea of a writers merits?
Like this phrase. As if there’s some effort to hide the fact that there’s no ‘merit’ in art and that it’s a con.
I'm an art-maker not an elite member of a critical group, I've spent much of my life writing prose, dialogue, music, poetry, songs, all for a living. I don't understand the either/or-ness of this debate. I've written episodes of tv soap operas watched by millions, and I've written obscure poems read by thirteen people. The arts (as I'd prefer to call the body of work) are a broad church. It's quite a common thing historically for popular art to be denigrated by one generation of arty-farts, then revered by the next. Take Rodgers and Hammerstein's musicals, Simenon novels, Shakespeare indeed.
When you've worked hard to create art of some kind you feel the work and the knowledge in it. Art is something humans have done since language began: the earliest musical pipes are 50,000 years old, and so on. We make art to help make sense of the world we find ourselves in. Sometimes our passing entertainment is of a high quality and people call it art, sometimes it isn't. I think Michael Bey for example is a highly-skilled entrepreneur, comparable to great showmen, but he isn't by my lights an artist. I know lots of people who work in film, and they have artistic standards they work towards. There is a body of practical opinion in any art-form which values some work more than others, and these valuations derive from experience and reflection. If you don't value such opinion, then to my mind you're missing out on part of the pleasure and understanding you can derive from any given art.
Lastly this is all very 'consumerist' to me. Art is something humans make not just what we gawp at. If you try to make the simplest video lasting more than ten seconds you start to feel the art in it: both skill, and shaping of understanding. Art is work, even to enjoy it as a consumer. To enjoy Shakespeare you have to do some background work: I think that's rewarding, because even now I wept the other month at a brilliant performance of King Lear in Manchester, and my tears and thoughts afterwards felt richer to me for the effort I've put in to understand the language and the shape of that play. Of course I've had to wade through some pretentious crap too to get there, but I've also read brilliant educators: take Anne Righter's (Barton's) 'Shakespeare and the idea of the play', a brilliant book I first read 50 years ago that I still remember with pleasure.
With this experience of my own, by the way, I think there is a perfectly good case for claiming Lord of the Rings is second-rate: verbose, derivative, with prose that isn't carefully styled, and with sometimes childish plotting and characterisation and not in a good way. That's my considered view. I don't think it's 'snobbish' or a 'dismissal' nor do I think it 'compelling evidence'. It's just something to weigh against other views. We only have our opinions, but they can be considered and well-informed, and I will respect them more if they are.
Any meaning, pleasure, interest, engagement, philosophical enlightenment, emotional response or personal growth which those carefully selected words produce in a reader are entirely subjective. Unless we are to succumb to the 'tyranny of the masses', the fact that certain combinations of the above objective features tend to produce certain subjective reactions cannot be held as evidence of the rightness or wrongness of their doing so.
I have no doubt at all that experts in the their field know far more about these connections than I do. I don't doubt they are capable of selecting certain works which will produce certain reactions and be right 90% of the time. But there's still a giant gap between this skill, and their opinion that certain subjective reactions being produced in certain ways are 'better' than others.
Yes, I would say exactly that about the vast majority of philosophy. As I've said about art, that doesn't in any way devalue talking about it, nor reduce the importance of having coherent justifications for one's opinion, to having a meaningful discussion.
As much as I wish this wasn’t true I think you’re right. I’d like to find some objective merit. But I’m reminded of what someone said about the Shoah, and I’m paraphrasing, that maybe being able to comprehend it would be a bad thing. But I still feel the need to fend off Zhoubotong.
Maybe some art forms feel more human than others.
I don't think one can remove oneself from an elite group simply by declaring one's exclusion.
Quoting mcdoodle
Indeed, as I said above the definition of meritous art is kept deliberately ephemeral so as to allow any generation to declare its latest fashionable interest as objectively 'better' than less fashionable options.
Quoting mcdoodle
I like this idea. I'm not an artist myself, but I like the idea of the artist imbuing their work with some knowledge of theirs.
Quoting mcdoodle
But this is the matter in question. Restating it as fact doesn't really get us anywhere (unless we're just running an opinion poll). What I'd really like to know is why you think this is the case. What makes you confident that this body of opinion derives from "experience and reflection" and not from, say, fashion and pressure to conform? Why is it you think that those who've gained nothing from a Shakespeare play have done so because of a lack of work, or understanding and not, for example, because we live in a wonderfully diverse world where not everyone sees the same things in every work of art?
Quoting mcdoodle
I don't doubt that. Did you do the same background work before dismissing the Lord of the Rings, or did you just read it blind and decide it was "second-rate" on the spot. How much actual work did you put in to appreciating it. Did you read any other fantasy authors, any analysis of the themes in context? I mean these questions to be rhetorical of course, you personally may well have done so, but the point is that most won't. To say that good works of art require effort to appreciate is anachronistic. One has to select the works one is going to put the effort into prior to making said effort.
Quoting mcdoodle
Absolutely. I agree with you there (about the nature of your view, not about The Lord of the Rings), but that's not what's being opposed here. What was laid out in the OP, and what has been reinforced since, is the idea that someone opposing your view is objectively (or even more objectively) wrong.
Excessively cynical though it may sound, I think rebellious counter-cultures are just as contrived as the mainstream culture they ostensibly replace.
Quoting Brett
To be fair, I don't think he's attacking the elites instead of finding objective merit in Michael Bay's works, I think he's just attacking the elites. There's no reason (nor need) for him to find objective merit in Michael Bay's works in order to make an argument that the pretense that the elites can find such merits is a false one.
Man, your hard work. I guess I mean that originality (another subjective issue), the audacity is what makes art exciting. But maybe that’s not what art is anymore.
Someone comparing the two would likely do so from an auteur theory perspective when it comes to Bay. My view on auteur theory is somewhere between thinking it has some merit and seeing it simply as a convenient fiction for talking about films, since we don't know exactly who was responsible for exactly what content of a film without having ourselves been intimately involved in every step of the filmmaking process.
Auteur theory also works for some other collaborative processes, by the way, such as music, where people tend to treat either solo artists or bands (or subsets of bandmembers) as the auteurs.
Who are these elites anyway? Academics, critics, money, art galleries?
Well, because there aren't any. "Objective merit" is an oxymoron or category error.
I hate to get into one of those endless discussions, but this hasn’t been proven either way, it’s an exploration.
Could a mathematical formula be regarded as art?
But you wouldn’t regard Bay as auteur, would you? Bergman, yes.
Obviously with the huge caveat that such a question can only be answered very much in context, I think here the 'elites' simply refers to those who declare their opinion to be of more worth than others with regards to art. That may well be academics (if they are refusing to consider papers about certain art-forms, for example). It may be critics (if they are panning works they haven't even read purely because of the genre, for example). It could be art galleries (if they only show painting of a certain class because they declare that class to be 'better'). For me, it's anyone who acts as if their opinion does not require justification because it is justified simply by membership (or association) with a certain group whose authority is not itself justified outside of that group.
Yes, unfortunately that’s true. Their existence somehow nullifies the possibility of there being objective merit.
I don't know what "this" is referring to above.
I think it's absurd to approach auteur theory selectively, as I see it as a tool for a lack of knowledge regarding how content was achieved. So if it has any utility, it does for Bay just as much as Bergman.
As an aside, I'm a fan of Bay's films but I hate Bergman.
This: ‘objective merit’.
Oh. There's not the slightest question that it's a category error. Merit is inherently subjective. It can't be objective.
Oh god, here we go. That’s the theory and that’s the exploration. Does a mathematical formula have merit?
Of course, insofar as someone values it or values the upshots of it.
Then I guess, no insult intended, art is not something you respond to.
No idea how you're thinking that's implied.
I've spent a large portion of my life focused on art, including that it's how I've always made a living.
Does Copernicus’s theory have merit?
By who?
For every such question, copy-paste "Of course, insofar as someone values it or values the upshots of it."
So what is an objective fact?
By people commenting on the film, such as critics.
Any extramental state of affairs, such as the chemical composition of the atmosphere, for example.
I see what you mean. I thought you meant there was no value in that process.
It's not at all that there's no value, it's just that it's individual people who are doing the valuing.
Is the earth circling the sun not that?
Of course. But what does that have to do with "objective merit"?
I was trying to establish an objective fact that we agreed on,
Sure. I'm sure there are tons of them. The Earth revolving around the sun, the Earth's atmosphere being 78% nitrogen, etc.
Why does Copernicus’s theory not have merit?
Didn't I just say "of course (it does)" when you asked me if it has merit? So why would you be asking me why it doesn't have merit? I just said of course it has merit. What it doesn't have is objective merit.
Because you said merit was subjective.
Yes, which obviously doesn't imply that there is no such thing.
Correct. Which does not at all imply that there is no merit. Merit can't be subjective if there is no merit, lol
You can't have an x with property F if there is no x. (So for example merit with the property of subjectiveness)
Copernicus’s theory is an objective fact. You said it has merit. You also said merit is subjective, not objective.
Yes. (And yes re the theory in the sense that it exists as text, say.)
Everything is subjective.
Clearly not on my view. I just listed objective things above.
And among things that are objectively the case is that merit only occurs subjectively.
I’m confused by that.
Maybe we should have done definitions already. Basically, "subjective" = mental phenomena, "objective" = anything " outside" of mental phenomena.
That’s what meant by everything is subjective. I was agreeing.
If you were to think that everything is subjective why would you be talking about objective merit, for example?
Because I had reconsidered my views on this subject.
Ah, okay. I don't at all agree that everything is subjective, though. Not everything in the world is mental phenomena.
It is if we’re talking about it, though.
Aspects of talking about something are objective; other aspects are subjective.
Sounds we make, text we write, gestures we make are objective. Meaning, understanding are subjective.
Yes. A mark on a piece of paper. Abstract artists might have been trying to achieve this.
I understand the problem: you think philosophy is just a matter of opinion.
Then riddle me this: if every opinion is equally valid and true for that person why do you bother arguing with me? My opinion is, after all, just as valid as yours (according to your view) and I (by your definition) can neither be right nor wrong. Or, I'm always right, and so are you, because we're all right all the time as long as we think we're right. So why try to convince me of anything?
I guess you really have no idea what you're talking about.
You'll just have to read it for yourself. It's an impossible task for me to list all of it here. Or, at least, it would require so much time and effort that I'm just not inclined to invest on your behalf when you're too lazy to do the work yourself.
Yes, but which is better for drinking? Or for flying?
I'm getting sick of repeating myself, but here I go:
Michael Bay makes good art for entertainment purposes.
Shakespeare makes great art for purposes of displaying and analyzing philosophical concepts as they pertain to human nature.
And just because you can wean those things from Shakespeare doesn't mean they aren't there, because other people have. If great art is defined by whether people can find such depth in someone's work, it doesn't matter if it's their opinion or not, it's that they do find it at all.
Except there's a lot more to it, and a whole litany of other things in Shakespeare.
It's haughty to go from "my personal opinion is that I don't like Shakepeare" to "there is no value or no greater value in Shakespeare than my personal favorite ice cream."
What you like and what contains value are two different things.
Taking your ice cream analogy: yes, people can all have varying degrees of personal affection for any ice cream in the world, but it's also true that salad has more nutritional value no matter what your preference is.
Quoting T Clark
First off, Sorry I never responded. I started the thread then did not have enough time to keep up. I had read your post and meant to respond, but did not realize I had forgot until you jokingly mentioned me in another thread (thanks for the reminder :grin: )
Quoting T Clark
I was on-board until this point. I do appreciate a knowledgeable person guiding me through any art form, but it seems essential that I have some basic interest level. I feel that I am better off if I research and select the dj (or other art advisor). For example: If I cared to follow a movie critic, my first step would be to look at how they rated the last 100 movies they reviewed. If their highest rated film was Les Miserables and the lowest rated was Iron Man, then I know that I can ignore that critic (not that they are wrong, but their opinion does nothing for me). Similarly, for a disc jockey I would KNOW the type of music they would play based on the radio station. I am not sure I would enjoy any dj talking about Jazz, but I understand a little of where you are coming from (I think): I have never been interested in Astronomy, but those shows on the science and or discovery channels are just too good, so they create an interest. I have tried the Ken Burns Jazz documentaries and I can only get through them if I am also doing something else while watching. I would also point out that a knowledgeable dj is not enough. They also need to be engaging, they need a good sense of humor, some type of charisma, and other factors that grab and keep our attention.
Quoting T Clark
I would imagine there were many local restaurant critics in the area, but you found one to be particularly satisfying. Do you think everyone would agree that he was the best critic? What if someone appreciates the blogger who spends 20 minutes explaining why their Big Mac today was the best ever? Do they have lesser or inferior tastes? Or can we just say different?
Quoting T Clark
Well I can appreciate that...the best teachers are almost always very interested in their subject matter. However, is it a given that anyone that prefers McDonalds does not have an educated taste?
Quoting T Clark
If that was the impetus, they should be more open when I say, "no that didn't move me, actually this one over here did." Also, when you say "common set of experiences and values" how are those same experiences and values not represented in modern art? Even the lowest of the low, say Transformers, surely captures some of these common experiences and values. I have challenged everyone to give an example of an important lesson from one of "the classics", and I could easily find a current "low brow" piece of art that reflects a similar message. But I am not nearly interesting enough for that to be worth their time :grin:
Quoting T Clark
I think one word is different from the rest (maybe 2 if I include intellectually). If art is significant, it is historically, politically, morally, or spiritually significant. Give me an example of art that is artistically significant? Now defend that based on the definition of art - it will be impossible. We can say the Mona Lisa is artistically significant because 1) a lot of people have admired it over the years (same as Transformers - so far, yes we need a few more centuries to go by) or 2) because the established art community has decided it is more significant (more power to them, but they have zero authority to decide this based on the definition of art). Any other way a piece of art is artistically significant?
Now the crux of my argument in relation to your points Quoting T Clark:
Are they helping the average person find art that moves them? I would say no. They are just searching for like minded individuals to join the elites. Same way a Star Wars fan wants to entice more people to his (I would add or her, but not likely, hehe) side so they can all bash the Lord of the Rings together. How many people become life-long readers of Shakespeare (or anything) after high school English class?
The idea is that aesthetic (e)valuations are a matter of opinion; it's not that all other things are a matter of opinion.
"Aesthetic (e)valuations are a matter of opinion" is not itself an aesthetic (e)valuation. It's a fact. If you disagree you are wrong.
You're not wrong if you disagree that Shakespeare is a better writer than Stephen King.
You should have figured out as a toddler, even, that just because one thing is some way, that doesn't mean that everything you can consider is the same way. Just because you could put your hand on the dog and not get burned, that didn't mean that you could put your hand on the stove when mom is cooking and not get burned. You should have figured this out early on. Just because aesthetic (e)valuations can not be right or wrong, that doesn't mean that nothing can be right or wrong. Not everything is a dog or a stove. Not everything is an aesthetic (e)valuation.
You're repeating yourself again. Like I said before, you and I are at an impasse here, so I don't see a point in continuing the conversation with you. Sorry, but I do hope you have more fruitful discussions with someone else.
No problem. I just think it's worth responding for the benefit of other people who might read the thread in the future.
I think Zhou can respond for himself.
Sure, he probably could, barring something unusual. Other people can respond, too. That's the whole gist of public message boards. If you want something to strictly be between you and another person, private message them instead of posting on a public message board where anyone can respond to anything they like.
Generally yes, but not when we've already established that you and I have nothing to add to each other. Anyone else might actually have something interesting to say.
Again, it's not for your benefit. I don't expect you to pay any attention to it or to do anything other than this sort of bickering.
Oh, but it's so obvious how much you love to bicker with me :kiss:
I will respond. Hopefully later today.
I'm comfortable using my own judgment to decide what writing, food, music, art, etc. I like and I'm interested in. It's clear you are too. So what's the difference between you and me in this regard? I've been out of school for almost 50 years. Maybe that's the difference. I don't feel put upon by other people's opinions. Careful or I'll quote from "Self-Reliance" again. All and all, most people don't care about my opinions on these types of subjects except people with whom I share interests.
Anyway, down to business.
Quoting ZhouBoTong
I am interested in the way people think about the things they care about as much as I am in the things themselves. I used to fly a lot, and I was always starting conversations with physicists, insurance salesmen, math teachers, business men, construction workers, engineers, students, anybody. It always struck me how much we all have in common when we deal with the body of knowledge of our chosen fields. I guess it's the epistemologist in me - I am fascinated by how people know what they know.
Also, I want to be shown things that I am not already familiar with, don't already like. I want to give people the chance to sell their enthusiasm to me. To share their taste with me. Even if it doesn't work, I enjoy the process and appreciate their willingness. And when the shoe's on the other foot, I love it when people give me a chance to show the things I know and care about.
Quoting ZhouBoTong
I don't want a critic that I agree with, I want one who can pull me deeper into something I care about or into something new. Maybe the best would be one who could give me an appreciation for something I didn't like before.
Quoting ZhouBoTong
Of course. People who know and love something and really want to share it with you are often very engaging. Enthusiasm can be contagious. Not always though. That's the chance you take.
Quoting ZhouBoTong
Do you really believe that there are no real differences in quality between comparable things? That some movies, food, TV programs, paintings, photographs, novels are not better than others? That it's all just a matter of preference? If you do, then we probably don't have much more to say to each other on the subject. I really love science fiction, but a lot of it is badly written with poor characterization and little emotional involvement. I can recognize the difference between what I like and what is of high quality. Once a month I get a craving for a quarter pounder with cheese and medium fries, but I never think that it's of higher quality than what I can get at home or at a nice restaurant.
As for the Big Mac Blogger - Good criticism is not about the reviewer and what she likes. It's about something broader - about educating people in your taste. About teaching something. If the BMB is doing that, I don't see what more I could ask for.
Quoting ZhouBoTong
Who is this "they" that's been giving you trouble about your taste. Yeah, I know - the elites. Do you really think any of the elites really care about you or what you like? When I was in school, the curriculum specified the things I had to read and understand in order to get the credential I wanted. Like I said, that's been a long time.
As for the common set of experiences, of course newer stuff can be wonderful and universal. Probably 10,000 books are published a year in English. A lot of them will be wonderful. Lots more will be good. But Shakespeare has been around since the late 1500s/early 1600s. It's stood the test of time and moved a lot of people. To me, that means it's worth paying attention to. It's not unreasonable for you to be expected to at least experience his writing and that of a lot of others. Some of them are at the heart of the English language and how we express ourselves.
Do I like Shakespeare? I don't enjoy reading or watching his plays, but I love the way he uses language. Sometimes I can't believe his poetry. It knocks my socks off. It amazes me how many of our figures of speech come from his writing. So, suck it up, do your homework, and then never read it again.
Quoting ZhouBoTong
It comes back to what I said earlier, if you don't think some things are of higher quality than others; If you think that all aesthetic judgments are just matters of opinion, then we don't have much more to talk about.
Quoting ZhouBoTong
Do you really think the so-called elites care about you joining them?
Well put.
Thank you.
Ok. I believe I could find nearly every one of those themes in the Transformers series (I am not saying Michael Bay intended to include those themes, but once a person learns to identify themes, symbolism, tone, mood, etc., it is easy to find it anywhere).
Male Honor - obviously part of Transformers
Individual vs Power - I don't remember the original Transformers movie but that theme was certainly a part of the Mark Walberg episodes (many American action movies have some bit of Big Government negativity).
Religion - Again, made in America. Probably not hard to find Christian elements.
Public Order - Whose order is right? The autobots? The decepticons? The US government? Not a ton on this one, but Romeo & Juliet just has the prince yelling at everyone to stop fighting or else.
Love - Michael Bay can't make a movie without some stupid love interest. I would have to know exactly what you think Shakespeare teaches about love to find a good example.
Violence and Death - obvious
Love and violence - not sure what exactly this means. What is taught in relation to this? I doubt Transformers has much of this, but I can certainly find some garbage "after school special" that would have plenty to say on that.
I would imagine all of this just makes you roll your eyes, and you are probably sick of me by now. But I would be happy if you would say why each of these examples is less than what Shakespeare did (why is Shakespeare's description of Male Honor more valued or informative than Bay's?). I would really appreciate detailed examples of Shakespeare's successes, as that makes it easier to find a direct comparison.
Quoting Brett
Quoting ZhouBoTong
You’re being a bit tricky there. I didn’t say you wouldn’t find those elements in The Transformers. It was in reply to the scathing comment on your idea about the contents of Romeo and Juliet.
But you’re helping me with one thing. I prefer the elites to you and I’d rather the elites pushing their ideas down my kids throats than your ideas on art.
I'm a bit sheepish doing this, but I wanted you to see why I'm so passionate about this. How important it is to me. And not just me. Lots of other people feel the same way about sharing their experiences with others.
A couple of years ago, I read "Titus Groan" and was knocked off my horse. After all these years I am amazed when I find a book that moves me as much as it did. I gave it to a lot of people that Christmas. Because if is such a daunting book, I wanted to tell them why I gave it to them, so I wrote a review on Amazon and gave them a link. If you want to read it, here it is.
[hide="Reveal"][i]Six stars. Eleven stars. 432 stars. Tedious and bleak and beautiful. Funny and moving. Wonderfully written and very, very, very slow. Then suddenly, disorientingly sensual. Gormenghast the castle – miles long; dank, moldy, full of hundreds or thousands of unused rooms packed with useless and peculiar things. A tower where the death owls live. A giant dead tree with painted roots growing out the side of the castle. Lives ruled by inflexible, all-encompassing, oppressive, and unrelenting tradition. Gormenghast the land – always raining, too hot or too cold. Gormenghast the mountain – the peak always hidden by clouds.
The people - Lord Sepulchrave, 76th Earl of Groan, Countess Gertrude, the wonderful, pitiful twins Ladies Cora and Clarice Groan, Mr. Flay, Dr. and Irma Prunesquallor, Swelter, Nannie Slagg, Sourdust, Barquentine, Keda, Rottcodd, Pentecost, The Poet. The Grey Scrubbers. The Mud Dwellers who live outside the castle and spend all their time making beautiful carvings, most of which will be burned. The best of which will be placed in a museum that no one visits. And stuborn, 15-year-old, clumsy, and maybe doomed Lady Fuchia, whom I love with all my heart. And nasty, scheming, capable, admirable, and maybe evil Steerpike. And 1 1/2 year old Titus – 77th Earl of Groan. Everyone; almost everyone; odd, eccentric, and unhappy.
The plot doesn’t matter – for what it's worth, there is Titus' birth, scheming, betrayal, murder, suicide, a deadly knife fight, bodies eaten by owls, endless ceremonies, drunken revelry, and a toddler standing alone on a raft in the middle of a lake in the rain. The writing, the place, and the people do matter. The words grabbed me by the neck and forced me through the slowest, hardest sections. It felt like the hood of my jacket had gotten caught in a subway door and I was being dragged down the platform. I love this book.[/i][/hide]
This says exactly what I want to tell people about the book. What I want them to know. Now, they can read it or not. I don't really care, although I love it when someone tells me they enjoyed something I recommended.
Wait what? My whole point is that all art contains the elements found in Shakespeare. When I say "Shakespeare sucks" I mean "I don't like it". Not "it is worse than Transformers". That is the whole point of the thread. And of course you prefer the elites, they agree with you?
I would ask your kids what type of stories they like. Then pick books with valuable lessons that also contain the types of stories your kids like.
Yes, and I couldn't be more certain of it.
Quoting T Clark
The only way that something like that can make sense is that you're making a distinction between what you like and what other people like. It would make zero sense to say, "This is/isn't of high quality, but that has nothing to do with whether anyone likes it."
I don't have a problem with any of that. And you are a stylish writer, almost poetic.
But I am not sure how much it addresses the questions I posed in the passage you quoted?
I need to soften my language but aren't you just searching for like minded individuals that share your joy of a certain work?
Oh, and you questioned who "they" was that kept telling my tastes were bad. "They" (that I have a problem with) is our education system. "They" is also everyone in this thread (but I have no problem with them, they are keeping me engaged in this thread :grin: ) that will not even attempt to defend Shakespeare; they just say it is is a given that it is better and I am an idiot for thinking otherwise. Or the assumption that I just don't know what I am talking because I haven't read Shakespeare (this thread suggests to me that I have read more Shakespeare, more recently, than they have).
Finally, I typed a long response to one of your previous posts, then felt unsure and deleted it. I will go back and re-read to see if I have anything of value to add (unlikely, hehe).
I think I also have about 3-4 pages of posts to catch up on.
Then we likely don't have anything useful to say to each other in relation to aesthetics.
Quoting Terrapin Station
I said "I can tell the difference between what I like and what is of high quality." For example, I have loved Goetzes caramels since I was a kid. Have you ever had them:
They are the most god-awful candy possible, except maybe jujubees, twizlers, dots, lik-em-aid, those disgusting wax lips, those sickening wax bottles with sugar water in them, etc. etc. It's like eating sweet plastic.
I didn't say "This is/isn't of high quality, but that has nothing to do with whether anyone likes it." or anything like it.
Well, no. I'm trying to give people who aren't familiar with the work a chance to experience it. I'm trying to share my knowledge and taste with them. I am offering something to them. I'm looking for like-minded individuals. In reality, the connection doesn't get made a lot of the time, but when it does, it's extremely gratifying for both people involved.
Quoting ZhouBoTong
As I said in one of my earlier posts, maybe one of the differences between you and me is how long I've been out of school. Anyway, once you're out of school, "they" won't be able to bother you anymore. Did you think school was supposed to be wonderful and fun? No, it's work.
Quoting T Clark
Thanks. I am 37. I teach.
This is an example of the "elitism" I was referring to (I forgot people hate being called "elite" and it may have somewhat de-railed the thread). Notice that I must be a child if I have the opinion that Shakespeare does nothing for me while Transformers can entertain me for a couple hours.
And yes, I get that for most of you, 37 is still a child. Different type of "elitism", haha.
Quoting T Clark
They are like minded BEFORE they read the book. You are recommending it hoping that some will like it, then you have new bosom bodies. You seem to have admitted the second part.
Quoting T Clark
This example highlights the problem. What makes candy "good" is that a person likes it. Are we judging candy by its health value?
Quoting T Clark
If we are talking food in general, then I can say (sort of) "I like candy, but fresh broccoli is of higher quality". However, if we are talking about candy, the most important "quality" of candy is that it tastes good and brings pleasure to the eater. In which case, how could there be an objective measure of quality?
Now, I am also a fan of The Big Lebowski. Lower brow art, but still very high quality in my opinion.
It’s obviously difficult to state what is good and what is poor art. Issues of subjectivity are impossible to argue with. And we seem to have, somehow honed in on Shakespeare, which is fine.
You feel that films like The Transformers cover similar aspects to Shakespear’s plays and that they can be just as valuable for students to study as Shakespeare. That maybe true, though I would also add in a very simplistic fashion. But that’s okay, it’s an action film, that’s the genre it works in. But to regard teaching Shakespeare at school as the elite forcing it down students’ throats is probably inaccurate.
First of all ‘The Tempest’, for example, is a play, it’s also poetry and it also has themes, etc. Being a play means that students have a script to work with, all they need is some open space and they can actually produce and take part in the play. They can’t do this with a film. There’s no room for interpretation in ‘The Transformers’, all they can do is watch it passively and then write an analysis of it.
Shakespeare’s plays offer a lot more to the students in terms of study than the Transformers can. I could list those differences but I’ll wait to see if it’s necessary. Of course it seems tiresome and boring to them because they have to make an effort to connect, but as a teacher you would recognise the whole area of ‘The Zone if Proximal Development’ here and the importance of setting work that stretches their abilities. There just seems to be a lot more in terms of teaching studying Shakespeare than ‘The Transformers’, hence it’s regular appearance in the curriculum.
If you're 37, why are you still letting "their" opinions bother you?
Quoting ZhouBoTong
Obviously, I don't agree. I don't think there's any way for us to get past this disagreement.
"Bother" might be a bit strong. I am just debating the merits the same way I might question Idealism or Donald Trump. I think I write very literally, but somehow it seems to come across as angry - sorry.
Quoting T Clark
Any chance (by the way, I do understand this has likely gone as far as it can...and yet I persist :grimace:) you care to lay out the objective measures of what makes candy good? I am not even exactly sure what we are disagreeing about.
Quoting Brett
There is very little art taught in schools anymore. The only art that is still taught is Poetry and Literature. And it is taught A LOT. Why? What gives these art forms more value than painting, sculpture, music, movies, or television? I get that writing can often communicate more than painting or sculpture, but not movies or television. Why not replace half of the literature component with film and television? We can explore all of the same themes and learn similar lessons while keeping students more engaged. But there is another type of elitism in school that suggests reading is a more important skill than listening to words (and I would agree in 4th grade, not so much in high school).
Quoting Brett
You are largely correct here (sorry, I mean I mostly agree - this may be an example of me writing with a crappy tone - in this case it reads like I am an authority of some sort and I am not trying to represent that). And yes, even I will admit that there is PROBABLY more to analyze in a Shakespeare play than a transformers movie. But there is still plenty to analyze in a Transformers movie. And when you talk Zone of Proximal Development, do you think Shakespeare wrote his books for teenagers? I would guess adults. This is how we end up with Animal Farm being taught to 8th graders that have never even heard of the Russian Revolution.
The second point is that I consider student boredom and general dis-interest to be one of the major problems in education (Shakespeare and the arts is just one of my minor beefs). I think forcing a 14 year old to read Shakespeare is just asking for pain (for both teacher and student).
Damn. That whole scene is just gold. And you forgot, "Nobody f***s with the Jesus!"
I don’t know where you come from but that is not the case where I live.
Quoting ZhouBoTong
Which is why studying Shakespeare as a play works so well.
Very well versed in Dudeism, I see! Kudos!
Personally, I didn’t find anything off-putting in your tone in any of your posts I’ve read. You seem like a very reasonable person. Not sure why you keep apologizing. Stop it! LOL
If people don’t understand you, then fuck ‘em.
Art is still taught at my children’s schools. Sketching, painting, pottery, sculpture, etc. If Zhou is teaching at a school that has eliminated art for budgetary reasons, then he probably isn’t teaching a lot of privileged kids. If that’s the case, then the kids he is teaching probably have greater problems than deciding which Ivy League school to apply to, and they would be better served with a curriculum that engages their sensibilities than further stressing them out with something as remote to their daily lives as Shakespeare. Get kids to love learning first in an environment where they feel safe instead of intimidating them with all that “Get thee to a nunnery” and “slings and arrows” and “contumely” nonsense. If they begin to love learning by teaching them the sociology of Seinfeld, then maybe they won’t be so intimidated by the more esoteric teachings. Some might want to take Shakespeare as an elective then. It serves no purpose to force them to endure it if they can be better served by topics more germane to their lives.
Just for those elitists trying to paint anyone who doesn't think Shakespeare is objectively brilliant as uneducated, or inexperienced in the 'great bard's' works, here (if I've done the link right) is an MA graduate in Shakespearen Studies, explaining why he thinks the plays are deeply flawed.
I don’t think the argument is that he’s objectively brilliant, just that his plays are still worth being used as a subject of study in school.
What about "deeply flawed" plays would be still worth studying in school?
Deeply flawed in what way?
Did you read the article?
No.
Sure, so as I said, "The only way that something like that can make sense is that you're making a distinction between what you like and what other people like."
with the caramel example, there must be something you like about them (obviously, since you say you like them), and either you weight that aspect more heavily than the aspects you don't like, or the aspects you're presenting as undesirable are really more of a report of other persons' preferences.
It's actually really easy to get film scripts. If you want the students to be able to create something they can do that with a script just as they'd do it with a Shakespeare play.
When I was in elementary school, our music teacher had us put on Broadway shows a couple times per year. I was always involved with the music side of that. So that's another option.
"Objective" isn't the same thing as a consensus, and proposing that it is is just an argumentum ad populum.
https://deadline.com/2019/03/ridley-scott-alien-the-play-reaction-new-jersey-high-school-gladiator-1202584389/
Yes, you’re right. Though the script for a movie is made for the camera and edits. But they could do scenes.
There’s another aspect to Shakespeare’s plays which is the poetry. There’s a rythmn to this writing which is about the spoken word and the voice as an instrument. Even if students studied other plays they would still miss out on this aspect.
Scripts standardly have no camera notations at all. Only shooting scripts have any camera directions, but those are harder to acquire. Scripts you can easily acquire are written very similarly to plays.
I wouldn't argue that all dialogue is poetic in the same way that Shakespeare is--it's obviously not all in strict meter, for example. But it's wrong to say that dialogue doesn't typically focus on rhythm, careful word choice, voices as instruments, etc.
I wasn’t really thinking of camera directions, just that the script is written with the camera in mind. However I take your point.
Yeah, writers will often try to imply camera directions, but you have to be really careful about that. It's considered amateurish or unprofessional to do that too blatantly, because directors and cinematographers see it as you trying to do their jobs for them, trying to take over jobs and make decisions that aren't yours to make as a scriptwriter, not to mention that it can make it harder to sell a spec script in that case, because you're painting a much more restrictive picture that might not be feasible --camera decisions often have a pragmatic element to them, depending on equipment available, the film's budget, the shooting window (the time available), etc. You can't know any of that stuff especially on a spec script. For example, if you make something like a really elaborate, extended tracking shot an integral part of a script, you're decreasing the chances that you'll sell the script.
If you want to follow others for some reason, and you prefer following the consensus, that's fine. The point is to simply call it for what it is. It would be your preference to follow the consensus merely because it's the consensus. There's nothing objective(ly correct) about it.
No. There is no 'good art' or 'bad art', nor is there any such thing as 'better' art. If the artist presents someting as art, it is art. Your part, and mine, is that we get to say "I like it" or "I don't like it". It's nothing more than personal taste. And every expression of personal taste is correct and unchallengeable, although other such expressions may contradict it. That's what personal taste is.
So no, there is not even "a little justification for this".
I tend to agree with this, but I am always open to hear counter arguments. I would like to hear what @T Clark has to say on this.
I'm not a big believer in objectivity for any aspect of our emotional, intellectual, spiritual, and social lives. Science, morals, aesthetics. Everything always comes down to a matter of human values. Good or bad, right or wrong, true or false. But saying something is a matter of values is not the same as saying it is all a matter of preference. Values are a product of social, cultural, and personal factors. Biological factors.
Quoting ZhouBoTong
I am a verbal person. I place high value on words - reading and writing. So, my opinions are not unbiased. On the other hand, learning to communicate in words effectively is indispensable for everyone who wants to live in society. I think learning to read, write, and speak is different from the other arts.
I want to make sure we're talking about the same things. @Pattern-chaser says there is no good art and no bad art. P-C brought up Robert Pirsig recently in a different thread. Pirsig said that art is "high quality endeavor." Seems like P-C would disagree with that. I, on the other hand, don't really care if something is art or not. I care if it is high quality. I also care whether or not I like it, but, as I've said, I believe those are different things.
As I said a couple of posts up:
Quoting T Clark
Judgment of quality is an application of social values and, as I wrote, those are determined based on social, cultural, and personal factors. As with all social judgments, consensus plays a big part. There's lots of room for individual preference, but if you get too far out, you are no longer talking to anyone other than yourself.
If art is anything an artist presents as art then anything can be art, and by extension, anyone can be an artist. This is true, in my opinion, but all it really means is that presenting something as art is essentially offering an invitation to view something aesthetically. We may or may not have the ability or choice to do so. In any case, claiming that something presented as art is not art is a refusal to view it aesthetically and does not mean that it's not art.
There are various criteria for evaluating the quality of art.
I find this to be a strong argument. Rembrandt produced high quality art. That at least is the consensus of the art world. It’s rooted in Western social, cultural, and historical factors that give rise to our common values. I might like my art, but if I’m the only one, then it is not high quality. It also probably does not reflect our common social, cultural, and historical values. I would also add that most high quality art is difficult to produce; taking a lot of creativity, skill, and/or original thought.
However, a lot of people really enjoy craft fairs and fill their homes with such artifacts. These artifacts may also reflect these values, and they might also require skill, creativity and/or original thought. You won’t find any of these artifacts in art museums, though.
I hadn't thought of it that way before. I think that's a good way of avoiding the whole "what is art" argument. Now we can have a "what is aesthetic judgement" argument.
I agree with the things you've said. As for things that aren't in art museums, I don't really care about whether it's art, I care about whether it's good.
I've been thinking about this more and I really like your way of looking at things. I've always been bothered by the "I say it's art so it's art" argument, but this gets around that. Saying "this is art" is no longer an arrogant claim of significance. It becomes a humble request to be judged.
I think it's actually a beautiful thing, to ask others to view something in the world aesthetically, maybe especially if that thing is not what we'd normally consider beautiful or pleasing in some way.
It also really changes the texture of this whole discussion. It's hard to make the case that judgments of aesthetic quality are elitist if the artist knows to expect that judgment and perhaps welcomes it.
No, it isn't. "All interpretation of art is subjective" is not an interpretation of art. What artwork is that supposed to be if it's an interpretation of art? Who is the artist?
How exactly would social or cultural values obtain?
Quoting T Clark
Consensus is simply a fact that a lot of people feel the same way about something, that they have the same preferences. It's nothing more than that.
All art by all artists. You're interpreting art to be endlessly interpretable by the individual viewer/reader/whatever.
In any event, saying that interpretations are subjective doesn't denote that interpretations are "endless" at all.
Say that we have a world where there's one artwork, and one person who views it on occasion O. The person offers an interpretation, I, and then they're promptly killed, with no one else who ever views the one artwork. So there was only one interpretation, and there can never be another interpretation in that world. The interpretation was still subjective. "Subjective" doesn't at all imply "endless."
Yes, you have to. It's part of the process of being able to say anything about an artwork or art is to interpret it. You literally can't say anything about art without interpreting it.
Quoting Terrapin Station
Aha! Now that's just gonna lead you to a place you don't like. If there is nothing objective about interpretation of art, then how could you possibly make any claims about the objective limits of subjective interpretations?
If I want to say that Hamlet is about green martians and pink unicorns, then that is MY interpretation. If you tell me I can't realistically have that interpretation, then you're saying that there ARE objective parameters to how any artwork can be interpreted. If so, then those objective parameters apply to the relative depth of possible interpretation of Bay versus Shakespeare.
It's not saying something about art per se. It's saying something about interpretations, what they are ontologically. I already explained this. It's in no way itself an interpretation of any art.
Quoting NKBJ
First, "You can't subjectively make a claim about an objective state of affairs" is false.
Secondly, you're just repeating the same idea here. It has the same problem. A claim about the ontological nature of semantic interpretations is not itself a semantic interpretation. It's not a semantic claim at all.
Quoting NKBJ
??? Why would you think I'm saying anything like "You can't ('realistically') have that interpretation"? (And what the heck would it be to realistically versus non-realistically have an interpretation?)
Quoting NKBJ
What's an objective fact is that interpretations, not just re art, are subjective. All that's saying is that it's an objective fact that interpretations occur mentally, that they're mental phenomena, and they don't occur in the world outside of mental phenomena. (And all that's saying is that it's not only mental phenomena that interpretations only occur as mental phenomena. It's a way the world is extramentally, too.)
Quoting NKBJ
I'm not saying anything at all like this . . . whatever "relative depth" of "possible interpretation" would be, by the way.
In order to do so, you must simultaneously be making claims about the art itself. There's no way around that.
Quoting Terrapin Station
Either way, you're admitting to there being objective limits to the interpretation of art.
Quoting Terrapin Station
Because you said that there are limits to art interpretation. I made up an example, but the precise example doesn't even matter. An objective limit exists, and thus defeats your claim that it's all just subjective.
Quoting Terrapin Station
Again, just an example of the ways in which there are objective truths about art and the way art can be interpreted. The example doesn't matter as much as the fact that these truths and parameters exist beyond any subjective opinion.
Like it or not, Terrapin: you can't have it both ways. You cannot both claim that there is anything objective about the interpretation of art and that it is solely subjective. You can try to twist yourself into some sort of logical or mental pretzel all you want over this, but it's just gonna lead back to that simple contradiction. :)
Let's start by seeing if you can understand what I'm claiming.
I'm saying that interpretations are mental phenomena, and only exist as mental phenomena.
I'm also saying that the fact that interpretations are only mental phenomena is not itself only a fact about mental phenomena.
Do you understand that so far?
None of that matters the moment you make claims like "there are limits to interpretation."
It matters because it's all that I'm claiming.
I didn't say anything like "There are limits to interpretation." That was your contribution.
I'd agree with it since you brought it up, but only in the sense of, for example, "An interpretation can't be not an interpretation." I'd agree that that's a limit to interpretations if you want to focus on that for some reason.
It would be nonsensical to say they could. Who would claim that?
I find your attempt to backpedal amusing.
I'm afraid you're still bound to the simple fact that claiming there are limits to interpretation means there are objective parameters to interpretation.
What did you read as me saying something about limits of interpretation? Obviously you thought I was saying something about that, but I don't get why.
Yeah, I agree. I don't know why NKBJ got stuck on the idea of "limits of interpretation," though, so I'm just trying to play along.
You literally said it wasn't limitless.
I also find it amusing that someone who claims that all interpretation is subjective and neither true or false is so concerned about my understand what you "really" meant by some statement or another.
I just did a search for me using the term "limitless" anywhere on the board in the last month, and there's only one post, in a different thread, where I'm quoting a phrase someone else used. So I don't know what you're talking about.
Oh right, it was "endless".
"really" is a term of emphasis. I can give you my definition of what understanding is.
That’s a good point. However, I think Terrapin only uses the term “objective” to mean “extramental”.
The only reason I brought up "endless" was because YOU thought I was saying something about that.
I wasn't. I wasn't saying anything about whether interpretations are endless or not. I have no idea why you would have thought I was saying something about that.
And what it is for me to say "He understands me" is for me, from my perspective, to think that his comments make sense relative to what I'm saying (from my perspective).
But there are objective referents that have to be agreed upon.
So now you want to claim that they are endless/limitless?
???
How do you go from "I wasn't saying anything about x" to " You want to claim y about x"?
Well? Which is it then?
If you're asking me which one I'd say, I'd say that interpretations are endless just in case they keep arriving, otherwise they're not. Same as with anything else.
Nice
If interpretation is endless as well as purely subjective, then do you think the art is actually just made up in the mind by each reader/viewer? Totally independently of the actual artwork?
The short answer is "No," and I'll stick to the short answer to not confuse things.
Why would you think that's suggested?
Because otherwise there are limits to interpretation.
How would that work? "If the art isn't just made up in the mind by each reader/viewer, then interpretations can not be forwarded endlessly because . . . "
I honestly haven't any idea how you might suggest filling that sentence out.
Because it's bound by the actual words on the actual page, Silly :kiss:
Obviously an interpretation--of literature, say (so that we're talking about words)--isn't identical to the words on the page being interpreted. "Jack and Jill went up the hill" isn't an interpretation of "Jack and Jill went up the hill" (and even if it were, it wouldn't be the sole interpretation).
So how is it bound by the words on the page?
If it's not bound by the words on the page, then all interpretation is just made up by the reader independent of the words on the page.
Either the interpretation of, say a novel, is based on the words or not. If it is, then it's bound by the words, if it isn't then it's all made up.
The interpretation is certainly made up by the reader. What they're interpreting isn't made up by the reader.
If the interpretation is made up by the reader, then the reader should be able to read Jack and Jill and derive the entire story of Hamlet?
Sure. There's no content that's not possible as an interpretation.
Why not then just stare at a loaf of bread and imagine all the plots of all the stories you want perfectly tailored to your own tastes and desires? What's the point of having any art at all?
Haha! I can’t wait to hear his response! This is getting good!
Whereupon you've apparently forgotten that we're talking about interpretations of something that we're not making up.
The interpretations come from us, they come from individuals. We "make those up" so to speak. What they're interpretations of is not something of our own devising. They're something someone else created (well, usually--you can also interpret your own artwork, of course).
I'm not saying that the interpretations aren't interpretations. They're still in response to some particular artwork. They're someone telling us what they see the artwork's meaning(s), significance(s), symbolism(s) etc. to be.
And the same individual is going to respond to different artworks in different ways, as well as different individuals responding to the same artwork in different ways, as well as the same individual responding to the same artwork in different ways on different occasions. But an individual isn't likely to have just any and every arbitrary phenomenal mental content in response to just one arbitrary item, no matter what it is. That in no way implies that there's any content that can't occur as an interpretation to some individual, however.
Quoting Terrapin Station
Well, then you DO think that interpretations are bound to the actual words on the page.
In which case interpretation is bound to some objectivity.
Interpretations are about something other than the interpretation, something objective (usually, at least), sure.
That doesn't mean that interpretations are objective, or that there's any content restriction on them, of course.
I don't know why people get so confused re aboutness.
A book about the moon isn't the moon.
A film about vampires isn't a vampire.
Etc.
If x is about y, that doesn't make x have the property of yness.
A book about the moon is still bound to the attributes of the actual moon. You can't write a book about the moon and actually be writing about WW2.
You can't have an interpretation of Hamlet that is actually just a guide to the perfect PB&J. You're bound by the words and the plot. Your interpretation therefore has objective limits.
You can't per whom? It's up to individuals to decide. There's nothing that would prohibit anyone from any interpretation should they have it.
You want it both ways, Terrapin. But it doesn't work that way. You can't both say that an interpretation is about something and then say it doesn't have to be about that thing.
Where did I say anything like "It doesn't have to be about that thing"?
What I said was that what it is to be about x is for someone to think of it that way. Aboutness is a way of thinking about things.
It kind of sucks that the extent of the discussions I have around here are, "Try to get someone to understand what I'm even claiming so that they don't just keep forwarding straw men." It would be nice to have a discussion with someone intelligent enough to understand what I'm saying but who can forward a cogent objection to it without it constantly just being straw men, as if I'm addressing a bunch of Gumbies or something.
Here:
Quoting Terrapin Station
It would be nice if you could stop contradicting yourself. But then you couldn't make your argument, so I guess I understand why you feel compelled to do so.
Anyway, on to the latest straw man:
Quoting NKBJ
In other words, who is to say that "about WW2 isn't about the moon" to someone? You might not agree that they'd be about the same thing, but someone else might have a different view.
All I'm doing here is trying to get you to understand what I'm even claiming. That would be easier if you had any interest in trying to understand it rather than just wanting to argue against it.
I'd rather not talk to you if you're going to say things like that to me.
And I'd rather talk to someone who can understand what I'm claiming, yet here we are.
I understand that you're wrong. I also understand that your defense mechanism when you can't win the argument is to get nasty. I want no part in that. We can have a discussion again someday when you've learned to be nicer.
Until then, have a nice life.
Hard to do when you don't even understand what I'm claiming. Every response of yours has been the presentation of a different straw man.
This post is responding to old posts. I am like 4 pages behind. Do NOT feel obligated to respond. I will be adding more as I catch up with the thread. I just wanted to be sure I answered your posts.
Quoting Brett
Maybe you are thinking of elementary (primary) school? In High School ALL arts except poetry and literature are electives or extra-curriculars, right? This can be proved by looking at state standards (I am in California) and graduation requirements. In an upper-middle class area, most schools will offer music or drama or something, but it is always optional (at public schools anyway). Poetry and literature are NOT optional.
Quoting Brett
Indeed, but it is also why a Transformers movie would work. And in case "Transformers" is causing problems, what about "Braveheart"? Maybe "Ironman"? (notice if I am trying to "teach" symbolism, "Ironman" would make this very easy - Shakespeare is for people who have already mastered symbolism and the other literary (rhetorical) devices and enjoy dissecting language).
Quoting Noah Te Stroete
Sorry (hehe), can't help it. If something seems obviously true to me, but I can't get others to buy it, then I can't help but assume I am doing something wrong. But your point is well taken, in a thread like this, I might apologize 20 times, and that would just get annoying.
Quoting Noah Te Stroete
Exactly. I am not trying to tell fans of Shakespeare that their "art" has no value. I am sure there are a few bright students in each school that would probably both enjoy and grow from a deep journey into one of Shakespeare's stories. But it seems obvious that most (not sure if I mean 51% or 91%, but I am confident it is somewhere in that range) young students will not enjoy it or benefit much.
Quoting Noah Te Stroete
I think we are just talking High School vs elementary school. While I did do some student teaching at low income schools, I am now in a mostly upper-middle class area, which makes for an easier job. But even these upper-middle class schools only have arts as an elective or extra-curricular (except poetry and literature).
Ole Ole Ole! Brilliant stuff. I need to type more of my rants into google. Who knew such an article existed.
And anyone who completes a Master's Degree to prove to them self that something is wrong with that field of study, is kind of a bad-ass.
Not a single person in this thread has attempted to lay out these "objective measures" of art. If you know them, I would be happy to take a look and possibly adjust my position.
Quoting curiousnewbie
People in this thread may not know (not directed specifically at you curiousnewbie) but Transformers has dominated box offices for the last decade. 2 of the movies grossed over a billion dollars each in worldwide ticket sales (only 37 movies have grossed over a billion - and take a look, nearly ALL of them are much more Transformers-like than Shakespeare-like). So looking at popularity would suggest my side of the argument is correct.
Quoting curiousnewbie
Well I just supported my side using the measure of popularity. I do not view "popularity" as being a correct objective measure of art (my argument is basically there is no such thing), but if you do, that supports Transformers et al. If you can come up with more ways to "measure" art, then I suspect I will have more ways to show that Transformers succeeds with those as well (sorry, wonky sentence, I think it makes sense though).
Well @Terrapin Station answered that it is easy to get scripts, but even without them, what is the problem? There is plenty of room for interpretation in any movie. Of course, some more than others (something like the end of "Inception" is PURE interpretation, the director intentionally leaves the end open so the watcher can guess the meaning of the end...which is interpretation).
You used the phrase "watch it passively". That implies you understand that READING can be done "actively" or "passively". What is the difference between active reading and passive reading? Now apply that to movies or television. We can "actively" watch a movie. For example, simply pause it, and ask, what did the speaker mean with that sentence? Why did the director decide to use so much red? Can you apply what is happening to anything in your own life? I have never seen much value in that last one, but I am weird :smile:
If you give me an assignment for a Shakespeare reading, I believe I can come up with a Transformers lesson that teaches all the same concepts minus the analysis of 16th century jargon (If I can't do it with Transformers, I am sure I can using the Marvel universe or Fast & Furious or Die Hard or Lethal Weapon).
Thanks. Another good example. Would these students have learned more if they did "Othello"? Would they be more, or less, interested drama, film, and television? (rhetorical questions aimed at everyone on that side of the argument)
That does not seem to be an interpretation of art. At most, it is an interpretation of the definition of art.
Awesome stuff. My thoughts exactly. Unfortunately, I have struggled to sell that view (I am happy to have found a few like minded people here). I am open to advice if you have any ideas on how to convince people :grin:
This seems intelligent and well thought out, but does it really apply to candy? I agree that SOMETIMES a "matter of value" is not the same as "matter of preference", but I feel things like candy and art (by definition) have their value ascribed by those who consume it. Each consumer decides. What values are you considering that would make candy "good" or "bad"?
Quoting T Clark
Agreed. The ability to communicate quickly and clearly is a necessary base. But if I was planning to teach someone to read, write, and speak, when does Shakespeare come in? Shakespeare is for those who have already mastered these skills AND enjoy his writing/stories.
Similarly, if I was teaching someone to read/write/speak I would NEVER tell them to come this website (or likely any philosophy site). Few of us here even agree on basic definitions of words (and yet I assume we all communicate fine in our daily lives). What hope would someone with rudimentary language skills have?
I don't like the idea of consensus ever deciding what is right (it might give hints at best), but your line above highlights the "elitism" I was referring to. What is the "art world"? Is that "all art and everyone that enjoys it"? Or is it "a limited set of art works and those who study them"? If more people watched "Transformers" than viewed the Mona Lisa in 2014, does that make Transformers better? - despite this last bit proving my point, I still say consensus cannot possibly define good art.
In order to define art, you must interpret it.
Also, any interpretation is bound to the text/words. Otherwise you'd have no need for any art at all and (as in my example before with Terrapin) you could just stare at a loaf of bread and imagine all stories ever just by virtue of your imagination. You'd need neither Bay nor Shakespeare.
He means "an interpretation of art" in the sense of "here's what this painting is about in my view."
He's not saying that you don't have to think about art on a meta-level to define it.
The interpretation is bound to the text in the sense that it's not an interpretation of x (whatever particular "text") unless the person is thinking about x when stating the interpretation, but that produces no content restrictions on the interpretation. It just depends on how the person is thinking about x, and they could think about x in any way.
That is what I meant. Sorry to both of you if I jumped in the middle of something I didn't understand.
However, I am not sure of the disagreement:
Quoting NKBJ
How does my quote contradict that? And your statement seems to prove you WERE talking about "an interpretation of the definition of art" not an interpretation of any piece of art. I am probably overly concerned with grammar and semantics, I think I understand the spirit of what you are getting at.
Well first, praxis, I was fairly amazed with your initial post. It seemed well thought out and very carefully worded. I liked it immediately. Then I thought, "wait which side of the argument would that post even fall under"? I read it a couple more times, and really thought it could go either way. Some of the words supported the post by @Pattern-chaser (who captured my thoughts in a more concise post), but some seemed to hint at something more. I am not asking you to take sides. I am just impressed that a post can contribute (quite a bit) to the conversation without actually making much of an argument...I will try to learn from that.
@T Clark and I were fairly opposed in certain aspects of this discussion, but I notice he also approved of your post:
Quoting T Clark
I have some minor disagreement here, but I must recognize that this is as close as we will get to agreement (and should celebrate that praxis at least brought us closer than where we started).
I don't know if he's being "cute" or if he really doesn't understand, but it's just NKBJ (perhaps pretending as if he's) not understanding scope and thus creating straw men.
No, you're not jumping in. Terrapin is. He's all out of sorts cause I won't agree with him and also cause I won't be insulted. :roll:
Back to the actual topic:
I think any definition of art must also be an interpretation of art. It has to be saying something that all art has in common. In order to know what that is, you have to have to interpretive basis. In such a case, you've found -at least one- objective part of the interpretation of art.
Back to a more substantive aspect of art interpretation, why do you think we even need art if it's purely subjective?
I would say we don't need art, we like art. To be fair, I am sure there has been the occasional person who accomplished great things after being inspired by art, and, more commonly, people feel a "kindred spirit" through art that helps them to know that they are not the only one suffering. But these are bonuses to life, not necessities. Notice that learning to meditate (or many other activities) could also accomplish these things. Meditation is considered boring by most (including me) so it is not worth the effort, but this is just one example that suggests that art is not a necessity (but I still really want it).
Although one could make the "is life worth living without art" argument, most humans until recently have done just fine without it. However, now that many of us do not have to struggle to live, art has taken on a heightened importance as it serves to fend off boredom. But I would still struggle to call that a necessity, but, again, I still want it. The more I think about it, the more art seems like a crutch (for me personally). Without video games, movies, etc, only sports or intellectual endeavors can relieve boredom. While most of my life (so far) I would choose sports, the older I get the more I enjoy learning. Math is not very fun compared to most video games. However, it does present challenging puzzles that can engage my mind for a few hours. However, I almost never choose to do math because video games are much more rewarding and engaging (by design) - If video games are not "art" then tv, movies, books, etc would still be more entertaining than serious learning.
You’re here to entertain yourself too? Learning is VERY rewarding and serious learning is SERIOUSLY rewarding. It takes effort and hardwork though and most of the time you think you’ve found the end boss when you’ve only just started playing the game.
Haha yep, I can dress it up with "I am here to learn" or "to hone my own thoughts" but if I wasn't a little entertained, it probably wouldn't get much of my time :smile:
Quoting I like sushi
I think I agree with this FAR more than most people I have met in life (but maybe a bit less than most of the people on this forum, haha). And that was a bit of my point, absent the brilliant entertainment that has been created in recent decades for the sole purpose of entertaining, serious learning (I keep using that word to separate learning physics, etc from learning how to play call of duty) can be quite rewarding and engaging. However, modern entertainment is built from scratch with human psychology in mind.
Like I said, I have felt engaged and entertained by a lot of learning in my life. It also seems clear, that the older I get, the more "interest" overrides "fun". But as I approach 40, I still have never felt the same joy or engagement from learning as I have had with specifically designed entertainment activities (sports, video games, movies, etc). I have never been so engaged in learning that I stayed up until 5 am. Much (definitely NOT all) of the "reward" of learning is attached to the idea that I have made myself a better person in some way. Where as video games is pure joy in the moment.
Generally speaking “play” is essential for discovering your inner passions. “Play” for me basically means “explore”. And there are many games to play :)
Okay, I see what you think I meant. I didn't mean "need" in the sense of generally do humans need art at all (though I think they do and thay it's part of our dna, but that's off-topic). I meant, why would humans need art in order to think of a story or be inspired? If it's all subjective, they should be able to draw the same inspiration from the instructions on a shampoo bottle as they do Hamlet.
What makes something art versus not art can be a way that a person thinks about the items or events at hand.
Invisible art
Or in other words, you think that subjectivity implies something completely arbitrary--yet somehow still "directable"--in every instance, and you think that because?
That's hilarious. :rofl:
Somehow I don't think it'll be catching on in the long run.
I mean, John Cage's 4:33 is (in)famous, but I somehow doubt many people have "listened" to it more than once.
I've listened to it many times via this album:
Ok. Well I think I am unqualified to answer. I struggle to emotionally relate to things. I have NEVER been inspired by art. I am not sure I have ever been inspired period (I have never create a work of art I care about). There are things I enjoy, and things I am interested in. If I enjoy something, or have an interest, I will pursue the endeavor.
So this might explain our ENTIRE disagreement. Notice I am not looking to art for inspiration. What I would say is more stories in a brain give the brain more information to draw on for creative purposes. So even absent inspiration, this would be a reason for viewing art in order to better create new art (I guess that could even be a type of inspiration?). But there are plenty of other reasons to enjoy art.
And all I would add in relation to the shampoo is that it is possible that SOMEONE is inspired by the shampoo bottle (those floral designs really brought the instructions to life - or some BS). Obviously, Hamlet is FAR more likely to inspire than shampoo. But compared to Transformers, Hamlet is BARELY more likely (depending on the student, it will often be LESS likely).
Quoting NKBJ
That shampoo bottle is suddenly more inspirational than a whole gallery full of "art" :joke:
Exactly. Every time someone tries to delimit art some artist will go outside of those boundaries and they will have to be redefined.
People can, and do, imagine something like the plot of Hamlet from triggers that are far more removed than even the text on the back of a shampoo bottle.
That's too bad! It's a uniquely amazing experience.
Quoting ZhouBoTong
I agree. I think inspiration can also mean being inspired to be a good person, or pursue a certain virtue, or just understand humanity better, etc.
Quoting ZhouBoTong
Well.... What I will admit is that (in this day and age) Hamlet is a more acquired (educated?) taste. More people right now watch Bay's movies than read Shakespeare. I have a suspicion, however, that in fifty years, people will still be reading Hamlet and will be like "Michael who?" I also still think that there's more to be learned philosophically in Hamlet than Transformers.
But yeah, Transformers is more accessible to your average Joe.
Hm... There I have to disagree with you. There's more philosophy in one Hamlet monologue/soliloquy than on any shampoo bottle (unless it's printed with Shakespeare quotes I guess?) And I don't think most, even educated people, are able to come up with that stuff on their own.
Unless a work contains dialogue or natural language text that's literally something like a philosophical argument, the philosophy that's "in" any work is the philosophy that the viewer does in response to it, and viewers can do philosophy in response to any content, in any relation to any other content--inside or outside of the work in the latter case. The caliber of that philosophy will hinge on the philosophical abilities of the viewer in question.
At that, usually when artworks contain dialogue or natural language text that's literally something like a philosophical argument, it's typically of pretty low quality--often very confused, fallacious, etc. That's because artists/fiction authors do not typically have the formal philosophical background necessary to produce decent philosophical work. (Heck, even the folks who do have the necessary formal background have a really difficult time avoiding saying something stupid.)
Art doesn't work well by being that literal anyway. The whole gist of something being an artwork rather than some other kind of thing seems to functionally hinge on seeing the work as something not literal (in a couple different senses).
Somewhat relevant to our discussion, Justin Weinberg asked people to contribute links to philosophical visual art. The pieces and the comments on them are pretty interesting.
http://dailynous.com/2019/04/05/philosophical-artworks/
Oh, and this article was nice too! Just for your reading and maybe listening pleasure: http://blog.apaonline.org/2019/04/03/sacred-and-profane-love-podcast-philosophy-outside-academia/
Again your religious faith in the art critics blinds you.
...was the response of one art critic to the random daubings of a chimpanzee which the journalist Åke Axelsson pretended were done by an upcoming modern artist.
Compared with the random daubings of a chimpanzee, I would have thought a shampoo bottle would be positively brimming with meaning.
Now, let's not start getting snarky with another.
Quoting Isaac
Yes, it's entirely possible for critics to be wrong sometimes.
Quoting Isaac
Don't be so quick to underestimate our cousins!
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/mysterious-chimpanzee-behavior-may-be-evidence-of-sacred-rituals/
But I had a load more like that lined up. The imagery in some of them was quite masterful.
Quoting NKBJ
Not just one, dozens. And even when they had the obvious fraudulence pointed out, they started covering it up with nonsense about his artistic talent, and no I think his paintings sell for millions. They did the same with a painting by a four-year-old recently too I think.
It's the same with the wine critics who they proved couldn't even tell red wine from white wine with food colouring in it.
If you can't even see that they're dressing these things up in the Emperor's New Clothes, I don't think any further evidence is going to break through your confirmation bias.
In a world of chimpanzee painters, four-year-old artists, and charlatan wine-tasters, are you still so sure no one's interpreted any deep philosophy from the back of a shampoo bottle? If even a single person has, then the argument is now on what grounds they are wrong, which is very different from your binomial position that deep philosophy simply cannot be drawn from certain texts.
Now you're just contradicting yourself!
One or more of these claims can't go together:
1) Art critics who interpret chimp art to be meaningful are frauds and are just pretending to read depth into what they see (like in the Emperor story).
2) Art criticism is like wine tasting where all educated/refined taste can objectively be proven to be imagined/made up/a lie.
3) Art is purely subjective and it's possible for someone to even derive deep philosophy from a shampoo bottle.
It doesn't add up. If art is subjective and everyone can interpret what they want onto anything, then art critics are fully able to interpret whatever they like on any art (chimp, human, or cloud formations even). You can't consistently accuse them of being frauds. You can only claim that they aren't the sole judges of artistic value.
The fraudulence is not in the reading of depth, but in the illusion that some things produce depth whilst others don't. I mentioned these stories to show that the random marks of an ape with a brush can be meaningful to professional critics. In my view, there is no such thing as 'pretending' to see depth, they see what they look for. Likewise with the wine tasters. I'm not claiming that they cannot taste, I'm showing that their claims that certain expensive wines taste objectively 'better' than others is flawed.
Quoting NKBJ
Yes, that is my view, and I think their clear capability to read depth in random markings is evidence of this.
Does, in your view, the phrase "the epistemological implications of Kantian metaphysics" mean the same thing as "rinse and repeat"?
They mean that which they are used for. But generally no, they do not mean the same thing, but they do both mean one thing. As such the 'depth' of both is only provably one. Any further meanings on top of the literal are the invention of the reader and so entirely subjective. The only objective observable property of words is that they mean at least one thing. The total number of things a word or phrase means is not objectively measurable.
Really? So if I say "chair" and you interpret "elephant" that's just your subjective, totally admissible opinion?
No, words would seem to have at least one objective meaning (or limited cluster of meaning). But all words have this. The soliloquy from Hamlet and the shampoo bottle. Both mean exactly what the words say, that much is relatively objective. But that gives them both the same depth (one meaning), any additional meaning(s) are subjective.
And thus are "true" interpretations? They are "true" about the book or bottle or whatever?
Not sure what you mean by this.
Can I say that that "cat" also means "piano"?
In context yes. If you and I gave pet names to our musical instruments and your piano was called "cat", then cat also mean piano.
Sooo.... that would mean I cannot read Hamlet's soliloquy (or the standard directions on shampoo bottles, for that matter), and claim that these are about green hippos and twenty-foot tall centipedes visiting earth from a planet called Garoomba?
No, you could claim that as you can 'read into' the words any additional meaning you like. This is evidenced by the fact that critics can read meaning into anything (random daubings, black spaces...). That the words have at least one objective meaning is a consequence of the fact that they are moves in a game (with rules) and if you don't play by those rules then you are simply not playing the game.
Additional meanings are not part of the game
Ah... so there IS an objective framework of possible interpretations. :snicker:
Meaning is the associative mental act as such. It's not identical to what's being associated. So, for example, a text string isn't the meaning of another text string. The text strings (or sounds or whatever) are not the meanings. Meaning is the inherently mental act of associative "aboutness."
No, all interpretations are possible, at least one interpretation is objective.
Hmm... okay, we'll call them "possible" (from my perspective in a very loose sense). But are they "plausible"? Does it make sense to have such interpretations?
Another question: can't we say that there are thoughts and ideas that may be triggered for a particular individual rather randomly by an art piece, but which actually have nothing to do with said piece? And in which case, we must ask ourselves, is that really an interpretation of the art piece? Isn't it more aptly described as a random firing of the brain?
For example, I might read Hamlet and by some word or phrase or image be reminded of afternoons in my grandmother's kitchen. HOWEVER, that memory is not an interpretation of the art piece.
Interesting, but I have to head out and so will pick this back up tomorrow, if that's OK.
Looking forward to it! Have fun with whatever you're doing :smile:
No. If they're triggered by the piece, then they have something to do with the piece. That's the case because we're stipulating that they're triggered by the piece.
You could say that they're triggered by the piece but where the person in question isn't thinking about what was tiggered as being about the piece, and then it's not going to be about the piece in their view. (Which should all be pretty obvious, no?)
Plausibility and 'making sense' are both subjective judgements too. What one person finds implausible and making no sense, another may be able to see the sense in.
Quoting NKBJ
Yes, I think we must accept that possibility and indeed ask ourselves that question. But it is not a question which is amenable to empirical investigation, and therefore still not an objective judgement. We'd merely have to speculate.
Quoting NKBJ
I'm not so sure you can go this far. How do we know what level of collective experience the artist had in mind? Maybe he selected that word deliberately because of its propensity to be associated with such things.
We can certainly say that some interpretations are more or less likely to be that which the author intended. Historical limits for example (Shakespeare cannot possibly have been referring to aeroplane travel). But for this to be relevant we'd have to argue that interpretation of art is about accurately discovering the intent of the artist. This we could specify (I'm not precious about definitions), but it wouldn't yield any progress on the matter of whether any art is objectively better.
Quoting NKBJ
I should just about live that long, so we will see :grin: I am actually more worried that in 50 years I will be defending the artistic merits of Transformers against some dumb youth who thinks his favorite YouTube personality eating a spoonful of cinnamon is the pinnacle of artistic achievement :roll: I would start to argue that Transformers is better, but would quickly have to conceded that I cannot support the argument. If they say it is art, it is.
Quoting NKBJ
This is a point I have been trying to attack the whole thread. But nobody cares to describe a philosophical lesson from Shakespeare. I would say it is likely that philosophical points in Shakespeare are deeper or more nuanced than those of Transformers. However, when you use the word "learned", simple lessons are often the best for learning (and will stick with you the longest). I STILL have not learned ANYTHING from Plato's Allegory of the Cave. (It is possible that I already understood the main point when I first read it - but IF I didn't already know it, I still don't).
Quoting NKBJ
And yet Shakespeare came up with it, absent inspiration from Shakespeare :grin: Sorry, bit jerk-ish, and doesn't help the discussion, but I can't resist.
Quoting Terrapin Station
VERY important point.
Quoting NKBJ
Thanks for those. When I read the title, all I could think of was "anything by MC Escher" and sure enough, one of those was on the list. But generally speaking I view art far too literally to actually get much philosophy out of it. Something like Zadig by Voltaire is so directly focused on philosophy that the points are fairly clear, but it is not much of a novel. However, paintings or sculptures are going to be far more difficult to use to communicate a philosophical message - unless the message is about perspective or some other philosophical concept that is also a direct component of the art itself.
Quoting NKBJ
Ooof, that one is a bit more for the connoisseur. IF I enjoy the works of art they are discussing, THEN I will enjoy analyzing the philosophy in those works. There was one line that helped to prove a point I have been trying to make about "art" though:
"Moreover, the layers of meaning in the painting—intended and unintended"
Once we admit that art interpretation can (should?) go beyond the artist's intentions, we have given away any authority to say what ANY piece of art symbolizes (means, teaches, etc). THAT is why I am so confident that any lessons from Shakespeare can be matched by those in Transformers. I have spent WAY too much time helping students to assess meaning in some random story. This has given me the ability to find meaning and symbolism in almost anything. Once one determines a potential meaning for any piece of art, all they need is minimal justification (can't be completely made up) and they are "right".
And as if he knew the point I was going to make, Isaac provides support:
Quoting Isaac
hahahahaha, that was good.
Dang, I thought I was going to get caught up today, but I think I have about a half-page of posts to go. I know this thread has been going for quite a while, just respond if you feel inspired, hehe.
One important (and usually, for the most part largely accepted) view of good/high art is that is communicates something important effectively, that resonates with people for a very long time. Shakespeare, Michelangelo, Beethoven... all these people made "high art". Their work has a timelessness to it, that resonates with people across all time, that survives and stays as strong as it was when first created. Most "popular" or "low" art fades away after a few decades or less. It was not created with the talent or vision, and therefore does not possess, the ability to remain relevant and survive after it ceases being new and exciting, because it was made more to be new and exciting than it was to achieve artistic status.
So the distinction we as a kind of semi-united "western" culture have made between "high" and "low" exists for a reason. Although it is subjective to an extent, it's not baseless- it relates to the idea of the "western canon", a collection of artworks from our cultures that exists as a kind of lasting legacy of what we are at our best.
Quoting javra
What we pointed out in the art thread, was that an educated art critic is the one most likely to ascribe some great artistic significance to an elephant's rambling scribbles (as long as you tell them it was by some brilliant young up and coming artist).
Next I would point to Jackson Pollack and other examples, why can't an elephant make something as aesthetically pleasing?
Some white paint on a white canvas sold for $15 million. Somebody liked it.
I can say "I love x more than y". That says nothing about "x being better than y".
Quoting Janus
Then we have shown that it is just nonsense made up by art "elites".
Quoting Janus
So it just feels right? Why is it obvious? And surely I have thought about this more than most (not you of course, but most)? I may be a terrible thinker, but again care to point me at the obvious?
Quoting Janus
Hmmm, I didn't see where the definition of art prioritized some emotions over others (compassion vs entertainment {what if I am entertained by compassion} - neither are exactly emotions but both are composed of them - I think). What is the "human condition"? Is our desire to be entertained part of it?
Quoting Janus
Can you give ONE example of an aesthetic truth that is taught in "art" you consider valuable? And then know that I am going to find that same truth in the most "low brow" piece of art I can come up with.
Quoting Janus
Haha, nicely done (getting back on the thread topic by saying "this is off topic").
I have to run for the day, but just know that I will take time in the future to respectfully disagree :grin:
More of a sad-ass.
Well, firstly the point was to show that something can be more than something else even if we cannot measure it. But there is also the point that if something is loved more than something else, then for those who love it the more beloved thing is better. Of course you will now probably retort that for example more people love some silly pop song than they do Bach's music.
But the question is, do they really love it, or are they merely sentimentally attached to, or infatuated, with it? So, the further point here is that taste for more original, inventive, subtle and profound things may be developed by education, and consciousness can be transformed in the process, such that we become able to see things we previously were not able to see.
Quoting ZhouBoTong
How does that follow? Why would you expect aesthetic judgement to be deductively certain or empirically demonstrable? As I said before that is an obvious category error, so how can you justifiably use it to argue against the idea that aesthetic judgement is not merely a matter of opinion, simpliciter? What you really seem to be arguing is "I can't see it, so it must be wrong".
Quoting ZhouBoTong
It is obvious because aesthetic judgements cannot be rendered in deductive or inter-subjectively definitive terms in the way analytic truths or empirical propositions respectively can. I can't give you a knockdown argument to support my contentions, as I already acknowledged; all I can do is to say what I know from experience, presuming that there is enough commonality to aesthetic experience and that it is something that may be cultivated that you may be open enough to come to see that I am talking about something which is a real possibility for your, or anyone's experience. That may sound elitist, but I don't think coming to understand the arts more deeply is any different than coming to understand mathematics or science more deeply, except the skill-sets in the latter two are more readily determinable.
Quoting ZhouBoTong
For me the human condition obviously consists in both what is debased and what is elevating, in what is trivial and what is profound, in what is original and interesting and what is banal. Of course the apparently trivial kinds of lives of many people can be treated in literature, for example with profundity and compassion or they may be treated with fatuous admiration, as if life is and should be nothing more than titillation, amusement, or alternatively drudgery and boredom alleviated only by novelty and endless acquisition and consumption.
I don't think you will disagree with me that very many people's lives are characterized by thoughtlessness and acceptation of the swill that is served up by popular culture. I think it is ethically better to think for yourself while acknowledging that there are, not merely different understandings, but different levels of understanding at work in every human pursuit. Call me an elitist: I probably deserve it!
Quoting ZhouBoTong
What you are asking for is like asking for the explanation of a joke or a poem. You either get it or you don't, and the joke or poem will probably lose all its value if it needs to be explained. Some things cannot be directly said, but must be shown by allusion, and allusion is one thing that most crappy works of art do not embody.
Good luck with your aesthetic education!
To reword my initial argument, to which your quote alludes:
Premise: We humans value sapience; we, for example, want ourselves to be sapient, rather than non-sapient. As another example that is applicable to the philosophy forum: we almost by definition value those historical philosophers we deem to have been of greater wisdom, and do not value those whom we deem to have been utterly devoid of wisdom (given that philosophy is a love of wisdom).
Is there anyone who disagrees with this premise? If so, please explain on what grounds the disagreement stands.
If this premise stands—and if wisdom is not concluded to be an irrational or fallacious concept in respect to what is real—then I offer that this conclusion then rationally follows: We, thereby, likewise value those artworks which to us expresses great sapience over those artworks that to us are either devoid of sapience or express minimal amounts of it. This regardless of whether it’s Shakespeare, the Transformers, or the Simpsons. To find aesthetic value in a blank canvas as a finished work of art, or in a musical piece that is devoid of sound, one will need to experience it as endowed with worthwhile wisdom; otherwise, one will not find aesthetic value to such pieces of art.
If the offered premise stands, how would the given conclusion be erroneous?
-----
By the way:
This is not to deny the truism that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. But, as previously illustrated by comparison between a chimp and a human (both of which have been known to paint), that beholder of greater sapience will likewise be privy to greater awareness of aesthetics as direct experience. No dog or cat will witness beauty in any artwork, much less endeavor to create it. Many humans will.
Yes, of course, complexities abound in what is and what is not aesthetic—as contrasted to mere attraction toward (most will agree that a heap of cash does not embody the aesthetic; while proportionality of form and color often time does). Not to even mention that no one in the history of mankind has as of yet discovered a satisfactory philosophical description of the experience—an experience which we nevertheless all seem to recognize as real. Yet, unless one wants to drastically redefine it, it is a facet of experience at large that strictly pertains to minds capable of abstraction and, hence, of wisdom. Aesthetics does not pertain to the experiences of insects, cats, or dogs, and only marginally to some chimps and elephants.
To emphasize: I am not saying that wisdom equates to aesthetics; the former is a property of psychological being whereas the latter is an experience applicable to the former. And no, magnitude of wisdom cannot be linearly plotted on some chart. Many forms of wisdom can and do occur—and to each their own aesthetic calling.
Nevertheless, just as a human’s arithmetic is better than a chimp’s, so too is a human’s awareness of aesthetics better than that of a chimp’s. To doubt the second is on par to doubting the first.
Yea, I’ve already written a bunch. But to not be lopsided about my reply given your post:
The issues addressed in this quote represent, at least to me, an all too commonly occurring instantiation of the emperor’s new clothes. People who don't have the courage to stay true to their own aesthetic tastes - but instead label beautify/aesthetic that which they think will earn them greatest social status. Thereby making a farce of what is aesthetic.
To me, good art is emotively powerful, felt from the guts if not also intellectually, at least relative to the audience for which it is intended. It has power to transfix and to transform; to change one’s worldview and understanding via the expression of truths (personal to universal) that are best conveyed via means other than ordinary language. But one can only subscribe to this perspective once one also subscribes to there being such a thing as good art v. bad/stupid/ineffective art.
How much of today’s art has the power to bring vast proportions of young adults into states of awe? That, to me at least, is roughly equivalent to the amount of modern art that is good. A good artist (painter, poet, sculptor, musician, etc.) has enough wisdom to know how to transmute her/his personal truths into expressions that captivate a large number of people. A relative rarity, to be sure. But, imo, this is a large factor in what makes artists good.
Furthering my spiel, most of today’s good art is found below the belt, so to speak: in advertising. Bummer that it has no inherent worth to its artists—that it doesn’t express any truths which the artist per se values; nor, for that matter, any personal truths pertaining to those who pay his/her wages for the artistic creations. The art is instead a means of getting costumers to purchase things that they/we don’t need and wouldn’t otherwise want, this via emotively powerful expressions—ones that are for the most part devoid of any inherent aesthetic value, but are instead fully instrumental in the accumulation of somebody’s stashes of cash. I’m not claiming it’s the only type of modern art out there that has an impact on society … but do find that it, today, is the most prolific among these.
Anyway, my two dimes on the matter.
Sorry, I was just re-reading the other thread and realized that I did not respond to this portion (but thanks for the little reminder :grin: )
Based on the definition of art I would think that the ability to reach MORE people MIGHT make transformers better?
Doesn't your logic here suggest that Calculus is better than basic arithmetic? But that doesn't seem right, does it?
I think these questions provide my argument? If not, let me know and I will try to address your premises/conclusions in a more formal structure.
I have to read a lot more of your post, and still have to respond Janus as well.
no worries
Quoting ZhouBoTong
Within what contextual purpose is one better than the other, is the implicit question. If aesthetics has the purpose of drawing us toward greater sapience (arguable, but I believe this) this given analogy doesn't stand.
Quoting ZhouBoTong
One might forget that Shakespeare was quite popular in his days, and that his language was not at the time outdated.
Still, your reply doesn’t address the premise and conclusion I presented—upon which the rest of my opinions are grounded.
Nevertheless, to answer this question: If my premise and conclusion are valid, it would then further follow that greater magnitudes of aesthetics which pertain to greater sapience will not be able to be conveyed to others whose degree of sapience is below a certain threshold. In Shakespearian slang, its caviar for the masses. (Certain types of caviar I myself can't stand)
Offer a cat or dog a wondrous bouquet of flowers and the animal won’t know what to do with it (the Romanian saying translates into “giving flowers to a pig” ... whose “tastes” will at best only manifest in finding these flowers good to eat).
Is there no such thing as a distinction between refinement and baseness of sentient nature, of character? And—if as with most people—one would say there is, are their respective tastes of equal worth relative to our aspirations to be endowed with greater sapience?
Yes, my opinion is that the optimum artistic expression can convey a refined aesthetic to a vast quantity of the populace. But—to use some different examples—this does not place the comic book stories of the X-Men on the same aesthetic level as those expressed, for example, by Kafka. I like both, btw. Neither are perfect. But Kafka’s does tend to embody more universal truths pertaining to the human condition.
“Elitism” I hear being cried out by certain members of the audience. As though no human is in any way better than any other in any capacity, including those of talent and taste. Thinking of myself, I’ve always improved in asking others why it is that they find aesthetic those things I so far have no taste or understanding for—given that I didn’t utterly dislike their personality. Couldn’t find the aesthetic value to minimalism until I asked someone who does. It’s still not my favorite, but I get it now. It’s when we start bashing each other over the head with “what I like is good and what you like is inferior crap” that, imo, elitism emerges.
Well, this is doubtlessly a very complex topic … Due to time constraints, I’m planning on shying away from it and giving others the final word. Be this elitist of me or not. :wink:
This is true, but there's no implication to it. It simply tells us a fact about what most people would say.
Quoting Olly
How are you separating out the social aspects of this--for example, the fact that many people are swayed by consensuses, that they conform to norms, etc., while ignoring a lot of stuff that doesn't have popular support simply for that reason, versus how people would react to works if we could expose them to works in complete isolation of others' opinions, knowledge of popular support or a lack of it, etc.?
And you will notice that I have a tendency to respond to EVERY word you say. I have been reprimanded, but it feels disrespectful for me to not respond to everything. Feel free to respond to or ignore as much of this as you please.
Quoting Olly
Probably true. And yet "most people" also have NOT read Shakespeare since high school and cannot give a decent summary of any of his stories other than Romeo and Juliet.
Quoting Olly
That "consensus" is exactly the point of this thread. Since everyone thinks Shakespeare is better it should be a piece of cake to show why.
Why are we defining "art" and "artist" in a way that suggests the creator of any work of fiction is NOT an "artist"? The dictionary definition makes no such suggestion.
Again, what people say does not matter as much as what they do. If EVERY art critic says Michael Bay is NOT art, then when the average person is asked which art is better, what will they answer? EXPONENTIALLY more people are willing to pay for a ticket to a new transformers movie than buy one of Shakespeare's books. The VAST majority of Shakespeare's sales are as required reading for school, right?
Quoting Olly
Shakespeare's commentary on the "human condition" has been mentioned. Care to give examples? I still have a few replies to read, but so far, every time I ask for examples of Shakespeare's brilliant exploration of the human condition, I tend to get crickets. My point is that any "commentary on the human condition" found in Shakespeare, can be found elsewhere. Shakespeare's analysis has resonated with a lot of people, but JUST AS MANY have found nothing much there. Neither side is wrong.
Quoting Olly
You are missing the level of his genius. Those movies are full of deep symbolic meaning. I am sort of bullshitting here; once a person is experienced at finding the meaning/symbolism/etc in stories or poems, they can CREATE them even if they are not there. Does it matter what the artist intended? How often does ANYONE interpret a painting exactly as the artist intended? There are many artists that when asked what their art means, have answered that it is up to the viewer.
Also, your quick dismissal of explosions and hot models suggests you might not have much interest in people either (most people like those things?) . Why do people spend billions going to these movies? Surely there are tons of free YouTube videos full of explosions and hot models?
Quoting Olly
Ok, so if I say Die Hard instead of transformers, then it is Ok? I guess we can wait 100 years and then see which movies people still watch?
Quoting Olly
Hmmm, and yet I still do not know anyone who regularly enjoys the art of any of those old guys. I am assuming that everyone here who argues in favor of "high art" does partake of "high art" more frequently than "low art" - but I don't actually know you all.
Why is "low art" consistently more popular if what you said above was true?
Quoting Olly
Any movie in the top 10 of the box office sales surely had at least some talent and vision behind it, right? Even if we give a lot of the credit to producers and marketers, surely it is not that easy to create a movie that grosses a billion dollars?
Quoting Olly
I would just say it is a legacy of what a few "important" people deemed to be "important" (how would you even begin to prove this statement wrong?). "High art" is only "high" by authority. Has anyone EVER even attempted to show how one piece of art resonates with more people? What would that experiment look like? Does making someone cry count as more or less than making someone laugh?
Hmmmm? So there is nothing admirable about a student that finds dark matter/dark energy explanations to be inadequate, so they delve into the subject? Are you opposed to the action of learning about what you disagree with or maybe you were just poo-pooing college degrees in general? I am more OK with the latter.
I don't suppose you read the article being referenced?
But you only showed that "I" value it more. It makes no objective (I mean tending toward objectivity - not PURELY subjective) statement unless we can measure it outside our own head
Quoting Janus
I agree. But don't see how that contradicts anything I am saying.
Quoting Janus
More people do love some silly pop song than Bach, but I wouldn't say that to prove my point, only to suggest yours might be flawed. Again, the consensus doesn't make anyone right on matters of personal taste. What is better, some fancy restaurant with a Michelin star or McDonald's? The answer depends on who you ask.
Quoting Janus
Hahaha. Awesome stuff. I think we are unlikely to find agreement here. I actually distrust EVERYONE who says they love Shakespeare. As soon as I press them for details, they have not read it since high school and can't actually remember any details. Hilariously, you distrust the common man's art taste while I distrust the elitist's. So agree to disagree on that point (unless you can think of some bridging aspect that I am missing).
Quoting Janus
First, everyone is required to learn a good amount of "high art" in high school (I think it is "secondary school" in Europe). But you must be referring to FAR MORE education than that because it clearly was not enough to convince the common man. I have had to teach a lot of Shakespeare along with other literature and poetry. If I have not had enough "education" I am not sure you are being realistic. Maybe you think "high art" is made by the top .1% of intellectuals for the top .1% of intellectuals? If so I will leave you to it, and just ask that you all stop forcing it on us common folk in school.
Quoting Janus
I actually wouldn't. You are the one that said "high art" is better than "low art". That statement seems to require some amount of empirical demonstrability or deductive reasoning?
Quoting Janus
So I keep being told. And yet nobody want to compare Shakespeare knowledge. Maybe I can see it, I saw it, and it is meh.
I guess you didn't read the article by the guy with a master's in Shakespearian studies? Why was he wrong?
Quoting Janus
Again with the, "if you just understood it better". How do you know I don't know it? Would a person with autism or Asperger's relate to Shakespeare the same as the rest of us? We are all very different. It is ridiculous to think we will all like and emotionally respond to the same things in the same ways.
Quoting Janus
I am happy to find examples of "profundity and compassion" in "low art" if you want to provide examples from "high art"?
Quoting Janus
Yes, just as many thoughtlessly accept Shakespeare's stories as brilliant without engaging in any sort of a critical analysis.
Quoting Janus
Well I think this suggests you have a FAR (infinitely) higher opinion of art than I do. I can see levels of understanding in math or science or history as MATTERING. There are levels of art knowledge, but they only matter to professional critics and art professors (notice the artists themselves don't need to know that stuff - and often {usually?} don't - well they certainly didn't in the past). I do not need to know how to paint to enjoy a painting. And someone who knows how to paint does not necessarily appreciate any specific painting any more than I do. Also, knowing how to fully analyze literature does not mean that one will automatically like Shakespeare.
Quoting Janus
Just know that I do not mean the word as negatively as it is typically used (which you seem to get :smile:). I just mean the definition of elitism - the attitude or behavior of a person or group who regard themselves as belonging to an elite (in some way better than other humans).
Quoting Janus
The inspiration for this thread were the garbage art assignments that students are given in English class (which is required for 4 years - no other subject requires 4 years- in America/California). You do realize that students do have to explain what poems and literature means, right? And they are graded based on "correct" answers. You may want to reign in your fellow elites who do think there is a right answer.
Quoting Janus
And yep, high school students DO have to recognize and explain (in writing, so directly said) allusions. Allusions are artistic summaries (sort of). We can say everything directly, can't we? It might take 20 pages to thoroughly explain a single image, but it can be done? What aspects of existence cannot be captured in words? You may have interested me in an entirely new topic :grin:
Ok. I did not pick up on this idea at all the first time (the drawing toward part). As this seems a complicated sentiment, I want to be sure I am understanding.
If aesthetics is: a set of principles concerned with the nature and appreciation of beauty, especially in art.
And sapience is: the quality of being wise, or wisdom
(these were first 2 definitions I found that seemed applicable, I am open to alternatives)
I am not sure I even understand how that could be the case. Let me take the most simple and obvious "appreciation of beauty". How does a guy admiring a pretty girl lead to wisdom? Feel free to play with the words a little, but I don't see the connection? How does watching a sunset lead to wisdom? You may have meant something else entirely?
And I am going to have to apologize again, Javra, for not getting to your entire post (or 3, I don't think I entirely addressed your original, and you have already given a couple replys to my mini reply). The response for Janus took way too long and I am out of time. I will get to the whole thing soon so I can give you a nice long annoying response like I give everyone else :smile:
When I’ve admired the beauty of the human form via aesthetics I’ve then appreciated the symmetries of figures, the elegance and grace of structures and dynamics, and the like. Young or old, male or female, it wasn’t about who I’d like to kiss but about the presence of the aesthetic as it applies to the human body. My experience is that aesthetics draw me closer toward truths or understanding of the world that are to me so far unknown—in relation to biology, human or otherwise, these for me can include an attraction toward the golden ratio and of fractals, such that I want to understand them better. Sometimes—just sometimes—in asking myself “why I find X aesthetic” the sensual pleasure of the experience transforms into an intellectual eureka moment. Sexual attractions, on the other hand, are in one way or another always about the sexual drive—and not, of themselves, about aesthetics. Michelangelo's David is aesthetic to me as a human form, but not sexually attractive. Still, there’s no law that says the two—aesthetics and sexual attraction—cannot co-occur; and they often do when it comes to heartfelt romance.
But you are correct: it’s a complicated sentiment and mine is only an opinion regarding why aesthetics matter. BTW, Keats wrote it that, “Beauty is truth, truth beauty.” If this in any way resonates, my guess is that there might be some deeper truth to it that attracts you, waiting to be uncovered. If not, then likely not. (It could be a bit too Platonic for many.)
Quoting ZhouBoTong
Well, you may have noticed that I’ve so far done my best to answer a number of your questions. At this point, I’d simply like for you to answer my initial two: those of 1) how is my given premise false if you happen to think it is and 2) how would the conclusion not rationally follow if the premise is true?
... Also, I'm still wanting to shy away from the conversation.
It is not a matter of being right or wrong in the kind of sense we could be right or wrong about logic or any empirical matter. I maintain that there is simply more to be seen in some things than in others, and this is a function of what awareness, thought, association, emotion, liveliness, insight, and so on has been put in by the creator.
Anyway, thanks for your efforts . I can see that we will probably not agree about this, and that's fine with me.
How can you find something inadequate or disagree with it prior to studying it? Of course it you disagreed with the whole idea of some discipline, say for a couple of examples, cosmology or theology, then of course it is not that you should not study that subject; you would not study it.
Quoting ZhouBoTong
Yes, I read it and I thought it was, most charitably, superficial, and, least charitably, vacuous.
Sorry, I did intend to get to it eventually, just needed more than 20 minutes.
Quoting javra
I take this to say, "We appreciate wisdom. It is better to be wise than not. We tend to respect the opinions of those we consider to be wise, more than those we don't."
First, hopefully that is accurate? If not let me know. And I hope it is not too annoying, but I do like to confirm that I am understanding correctly so I will simplify and summarize (which can sometimes cause a loss of important information).
If my interpretation is correct then I agree, but would add that there will not be universal agreement on what is "wise" (around 33% of Americans apparently think that Donald Trump is very wise - which makes me question the definition of wise - notice IF he is wise, it could ONLY be in business {still very debatable} and yet many consider him wise enough to be their leader).
Quoting javra
OK, so FOR ME, I would need to adjust the premise for this to follow. If I use my simplified version (I am sure you will let me know what is wrong) then I would change it this way:
Original: "We appreciate wisdom. It is better to be wise than not. We tend to respect the opinions of those we consider to be wise, more than those we don't."
Updated: "We appreciate wisdom MORE THAN ALL OTHER CONCEPTS. It is ALWAYS better to be wise than not (I can almost accept that one). We ALWAYS respect the opinions of the wise over the un-wise. And finally: We all agree on what is "wise."
For me the first line is the big problem. Sure we appreciate wisdom, but surely convenience is something that is more appreciated? We appreciate wisdom, but how much will we inconvenience ourselves to achieve it? I am referring to most people, most of the time. I think there are a few impressive people who are willing to struggle to achieve wisdom, but most wisdom is achieved through interest. Because someone happens to really like a subject they get really into it.
Quoting javra
This is the part that confused me a bit. Does the art express sapience, or does it inspire a person to achieve sapience? I can buy the inspire bit (to an extent), but surely non-art could express sapience more directly? It might be boring, but that was my point about interest.
Quoting javra
And yet any human that says Transformers is better than Hamlet is wrong. This suggests aesthetics is more a field of study (like quantum physics) than some ability that humans naturally have? And that is sort of my point. We have created a massive formal academic field of art, that contributes very little to actual art.
Well, you have said more that probably deserves a response, but I have already written quite a bit, and you mentioned that you have had about enough of this topic :smile:
Definitely let me know of any important points you made that I did not address.
huh? So everyone that gets a Master's Degree just blindly jumped into the subject? We learn a little bit, then form opinions that inform us as to what else we want to learn.
Quoting Janus
nu, uh. it was good :razz:
There are MANY subjects where I can admit that. Art happens to be one where I do not think that idea applies. HOWEVER, EVEN IF IT DID, academic literature is a subject of which I have more experience than 99% of humanity. Maybe still not enough? But again, that suggests a different type of "art".
Quoting Janus
Don't forget the awareness, thought, association...so on that is put in by the VIEWER (this statement could be used to prove either side of the argument). Art is not art until it is created, but by definition, it is also not art until it is viewed. I guess we are just disagreeing on what is required in order to count as a "viewer".
Quoting NKBJ
I wrote a whole bunch but then decided I am just wasting your time. This quote is exactly what I am referring to. You and the rest who disagree with me made many statements like this, but never felt the need to back them up. I challenged them constantly, but no one wants to go tit-for-tat on Shakespeare vs Transformers. Are there any specific examples that would show how Shakespeare expressed these concepts in such a way that any examples from Transformers would pale in comparison? You all are so certain, this should be easy - You don't have to use Shakespeare (i prefer it because I know it better than most "high art"). Any examples of "high art" expressing these concepts in a superior fashion will give me something to work with.
And to be fair, the quote above IS an argument, so I may have over-stated at first. But it is not a specific argument, and does not have any support (It is a thesis sentence - lets try to prove it :grin: )
Great stuff Old (you said a lot that I liked, but this quote really captures it). I was just re-reading this thread and I don't think I ever responded to you. I do not think we were 100% in agreement, but I liked the vast majority of what you said. I think other posters gave you some good responses (both supporting and countering), so I am not trying to re-open the discussion, I just wanted to say thanks for contributing and apologize for not replying (I have never had a thread be busy and it threw me off - I also know that as the OP I don't have to respond to everything, I just feel bad if I don't :grimace: )
In relation to that second response; of course I acknowledge that the viewer does bring their own thoughts, responses and association as well as their limitations to the viewing if the work, just as the creator puts their thoughts, responses, associations and limitations into the work.
There is no "direct representation" of those thoughts, etc. in the creation of the work, but they will be embodied as traces. It's actually quite mysterious when you think about it, and that's why the arts are often associated with the numinous.
Similarly there is no "direct transmission" of what the artwork embodies of those traces to the viewer, because he or she views works through a subjective lens. The point is, though, that what is actually embodied by the work is something real, that will be more or less apprehended by the viewer depnding on various factors, including of course education and subtlety of understanding, etc..
I can't prove any of this or provide empirical evidence for it, but it is something I know from experience, so all I can do is tell it the way I see it, and if you don't relate to that, then the conversation will just go around in circles if you keep demanding objective evidence or proof.
When I referred to direct transmission I actually meant NOT art. If we really want to learn something, NOT art is almost always the best way. If we are bored while learning, then adding in some art might help. And of course (to me) the main purpose of art is to entertain (notice that is the part that really puts a huge gap between us). Art may hone ideas we already have, but it will never (very rarely to be safe) get us to agree with something we previously thought wrong. When people read "Uncle Tom's Cabin before the Civil War {in the U.S.}, how many pro-slavery people changed their mind? Notice people that already do not own slaves, are the ones who "learn" some important truth in the book - granted some are inspired to take action, but they already mostly agreed, so what did they "learn"?.
I am not even sure I am on topic anymore :grin:
And I think you are right in that we have gone about as far as we can go on most of this. Thanks for the scrum.
And how on earth did you arrive at this stupendous conclusion??? Since it’s too grievous a spin to not correct—lest we inadvertently encourage elitism:
No experience of beauty can possibly be wrong. This is in parallel to how no truths are false. Yes, there are some truths—e.g. circles are round but triangles are not—that the average Joe Shmoe doesn’t find quite as worthwhile or impressive to be told about or to contemplate in comparison to others. But none of them are wrong—even the trite ones; all truths are right in so being true—just like all experienced aesthetics are right in so being of the aesthetic (yes, including a chimp’s or elephant’s; how could it be otherwise?).
So, when a person states that the Transformers are to them aesthetically better than Hamlet, they are perfectly right in their expression of what is factually aesthetic to them—as well as what isn’t. But just as one’s degree of general understanding tends to determine which truths are deemed trite and which are deemed more profound, so too with aesthetics. Better and worse; not right and wrong.
Quoting ZhouBoTong
Thanks for expressing that. :wink:
Quoting javra
So in reviewing your words, I am not exactly sure of your position in relation to mine. If you are NOT entirely bored with this topic, maybe you will want to answer the following question?
Why do we teach a lot of Shakespeare and zero Transformers?
If you are thinking about profound vs trite, it is a safe bet that most high school students find NOTHING profound in ANYTHING they are forced to read for school. I am not saying they would find Transformers profound, just that is an unfair measure as it RARELY occurs.
Quoting javra
Whether we are talking art or philosophy, how often do you come across something profound? I get that I have emotional inadequacies, but the answer for me is NOT OFTEN. If only 1% (being generous) of art or philosophy is "profound", then are we just wasting time the rest of the time? I am suggesting there are other benefits (possibly even other areas of more "prime" importance) of art other than some profound experience.
No, I find the topic immensely interesting; but it’s a very complicated subject. And I’m honestly trying to economize my personal time. It might be a while till my next reply.
Quoting ZhouBoTong
Doubtless this is so due in large part to Shakespeare’s works having greatly influenced our cultural heritage in the west—whereas Transformers has had little of such impact on western society. But this reason is not of itself an issue of directly experienced aesthetics—rather, it’s more one of western culture’s history of aesthetics.
Quoting ZhouBoTong
My bet is that this is in large part due to bad pedagogy. Same with math being typically taught without its purpose and, hence, its relevance, being taught (I didn’t understand what the heck calculus was for until I entered the university, and so didn’t enjoy it in high school); or history being taught as facts when in fact it can be the most intense of human dramas. And awareness of relevancy often takes deeper understanding than can be gleamed from an immediate acquaintance—and the gaining of this understanding is often benefited by good teachers. To me, a good example: our high school teacher brought out images of Brancusi’s Bird in Space. We were less than impressed with this supposedly seminal work—basically seeing it as horse dung (at least I did). He put the sculpture aside and asked us to express as many adjectives as we could that described a bird in space. We started listing: graceful, austere, elegant, serene, etc. When the chalkboard was full with adjectives, he then asked us which if any of these adjectives didn’t describe the sculpture. They all did. At this point we all had a deeper understanding of the sculpture’s abstract significance and, with it, a newfound appreciation for it. Some, including myself, in the process came to discover what makes it aesthetic.
Quoting ZhouBoTong
OK; I’ll try to better illustrate my view: Transformers are about morals, courage, some light sci-fi, and, more recently, a lot of eye-candy. Compare its cultural impact to movies such as Bladerunner or, more recently, the Matrix. The later, for example, has most of what the Transformer movies have, but its sci-fi concepts have more depth, and it touches upon—what in philosophical slang are—epistemological and ontological topics, some of which are nearly as old as philosophy itself. Because of this, to the average adult person who can comprehend and enjoy both, Matrix movies will tend to hold greater value than Transformer movies. Yes, aesthetics is in the eye of the beholder, but there are a lot of beholders out there, and our degree of general understanding tends to correspond to the statistical bell-curve. What affects the median the most is that which will have the greatest impact on society at large—and, hence, what will be commonly deemed better.
Quoting ZhouBoTong
In my given statement more profound was merely the opposite of more trite—and not intended to be taken as an absolute. So, whatever is deemed to not be trite will have more profundity to it by comparison—even when it is not deserving of the title “profound”.
Quoting ZhouBoTong
In considering this and your previous post to me, I find that we might end up going around in circles if we don’t come to a more explicit understanding of what aesthetics are—and what they are not.
To me:
First off, do we agree that aesthetics are first and foremost an emotive experience (rather than an intellectual desire of consciousness)? Secondly, the emotive experience can’t simply be any attraction toward—e.g., we can be emotively attracted toward food or drink even when not hungry or thirsty (like when having a full stomach), but this attraction doesn’t pertain to our aesthetic tastes (we’re not driven to eat that which is aesthetic to us—and if, by chance, a certain food is for some reason deemed aesthetic by us, eating it will always to us feel as though we are destroying something whose continued presence has value). Thirdly, and however ambiguously, we form a connection, an emotive bond somewhat akin to that of sympathy, to that which we find aesthetic—such that our sense of what is aesthetic becomes an extension of our very selves; of who we at core are as a person. In at least this one way, aesthetics are not to us a fun distraction, or a diversion—which are by their nature ephemeral, dispensable, and superfluous to what makes us us. By contrast, the most aesthetic artifact one has ever known—regardless of what it might be—is cherished on a par to how much one cherishes one’s own person; and, on average, one desires for its preservation about as much as one desires one’s own preservation (despite preferring that it is destroyed instead of oneself--were such a hypothetical to be presented). This is not to say that the two are the same: aesthetics being an emotive calling (toward what is to me a very interesting open question), whereas one’s own conscious self is that which is being called (arguably, by one’s unconsciously originated emotive drives). Hence, for example, when this just mentioned aesthetic artifact of great worth is demeaned by the opinions of others, we feel the value of our own person being demeaned (especially when we respect the other)—and when it is valued by others, we more often than not feel exalted.
(I don’t take these three aspects to define the aesthetic; but, to me at least, everything that can be deemed aesthetic will fit these three descriptions—including biological aesthetics, especially where the want to possess that which is beautiful is not involved.)
A lot said (don't have enough time to make this post more concise), but:
-- If you disagree with these three partial facets of the aesthetic, can you then explain what the aesthetic signifies to you such that it doesn’t fit these descriptions?
-- If, however, there is no significant disagreement, then why dispel the conclusion that some aesthetic experiences are better than others—not on some mathematically precise linear scale, but relative to the general understanding of the beholder(s) concerned?
(To again emphasize: no one’s experienced aesthetics is ever wrong. However, from the vantage of the bell curve’s mean, some aesthetics will hold greater value than others relative to the populace addressed.)
BTW:
Quoting ZhouBoTong
If I understand you correctly, and as you may have picked up from my previous posts, I’m in general agreement here. The emperor’s new clothes in the world of art is, imo, produced by too many people being untrue to their own heartfelt aesthetics. Still, were one to be true to one’s aesthetic tastes (rather than succumbing to authoritarian decrees or wanting to so become authoritarian), I strongly believe one would remain open to understanding why others find aesthetic value in givens one does not—as well as remaining tolerant for other people’s genuine aesthetic tastes even when they contradict one’s own.
But this doesn’t nullify there being better and worse aesthetics—this for any individual as well as for any general populace. Otherwise, I’m thinking, this critique of the art world incrementally turning into a farce couldn’t apply—for its aesthetics regarding what constitutes “actual art” would then be of equal value to any other, leaving nothing of it to critique.
Great to hear. And no worries on timing. I tend to go a few days between replies anyway. We can pick up a month later if we have to :smile: And this reply is getting so long, you may need a few weeks to get through it :grimace:
This post only gets up to the point where you start hashing out aesthetics. I am running out of time, and having read that portion, it will not be a quick response (even if not long, I am going to have to think). If you are absent for a little while then I should have that response posted below this one...but it may take a few days before I get time.
Quoting javra
If I am interpreting this correctly, I think we might be much more in line than I realized. Sorry if I am combative on this subject, I have had too many bad arguments. I think I have been reading your arguments and making sense of them in relation to MY PERCEPTIONS of your position. If I read them without assumptions, I will understand you better, my bad.
I think this sounds like you might be OK with replacing 50% (+/-) of Shakespeare that is taught in school (below college level) with modern (or just different) stories? How about replacing 30% of literature stories with film stories? I am not exactly sure of the goal of literature education (is there one? really?), but I think these changes would still meet any goal other than, "know the classics". I am also not totally sold on the significance of Shakespeare's influence of western society, but would happily review any strong evidence (he influenced society because we read his stories? How did Shakespeare influence us in ways that The Avengers do not? Or maybe you are suggesting the influence is similar to something like The Avengers, but it has been around for centuries and for most of those centuries very little art was created {relative to the last 30 years} so Shakespeare's works were read by a significant percent of literature readers?)
Quoting javra
I mostly agree in relation to math, but I am not sure in relation to literature. It may be a problem with my personality. I will use your example and hopefully make some progress (we may just conclude that I have some social inadequacies that cause my disagreements):
Quoting javra
My adjectives to describe the image (I just googled it) would have been at first literal, golden, curved, narrow, metallic, etc. Then they would have been in relation to the title (that I would have found barely appropriate - it makes sense when I hear it, but I never would have guessed that is what the art was about), so I would say things like, terrestrial, earth-bound, fish-like (sorry, my vocabulary is struggling to come up with decent adjectives, but hopefully those give you the idea). Then, once other students started to introduce emotional adjectives, I would also use them; if someone described the art as happy, I might describe it as sad. And as soon as the first person explained why they describe it as "happy" it will be easy for me to explain the "sad" side (remembering a "happy" time can make you happy, or it can make you sad as you no longer get to experience those happy times). I get this is playing devil's advocate a bit, but I never felt I got a reasonable explanation.
Now, we have all the adjectives on the board. And we notice that many are actually antonyms for each other.
Quoting javra
My deeper understanding in that moment was that once "art" becomes "abstract" it can mean literally anything - sometimes it is up to the artist, sometimes it is up to the viewer. I can see how you were led to the conclusion you came to, but can you see that with just a tiny change in perspective, my view is also a reasonable conclusion? (I actually do not expect you to view my conclusion as reasonable, but hopefully that phrasing will help show me where I am wrong (or missing something).
In re-reading your paragraph, I am not sure what I said is actually against what you said. However, what I said is very unlikely to lead to "a newfound appreciation" of art - I think that is the big difference?
Quoting javra
I don't really understand this part; I think my understanding of "aesthetic" is far more simple. I think you address our failure to understand that word in the same way later on, so I will wait before spending too much time on that.
Quoting javra
Ok, I don't see much in there I would disagree with. But there is one thing that I would say is missing. Transformers was not created with deep philosophical ideas in mind, but are you saying that there is no way someone could "create" them as they watch? Brancusi's Bird in Space is not even a bird, and yet...
Sometimes the artist creates meaning, but other times the artist is providing inspiration for us to create the meaning. If the rabid dog in To Kill a Mockingbird somehow symbolizes racism, can't Decepticons also symbolize racism, sexism, or the negative side of our emotions?
And just so we are clear, I would be PERFECTLY happy (ecstatic even) with Blade Runner or The Matrix replacing works by Shakespeare, Steinbeck, or Vonnegut (to be fair to Vonnegut, I think 30% of students might be ok with Slaughterhourse Five).
Quoting javra
Just to see where we are both coming from, what percent of adults do you think can comprehend and enjoy both (epistemological and ontological topics)? I would think only about 15% of adults (I am in America, might be part of the problem, hehe) can define these 2 words. That being said I would say that probably 50% do spend time thinking about topics that would be considered epistemological or ontological. So being generous we can include them. But it seems reasonable that half of adults have spent little to no time analyzing the difference between truth and opinion (the popularity of 24 hour "news" channels suggest those people are not concerned with justified belief vs opinion). I get the sense that you have a more optimistic view of people in this regard?
It might be that literature, as in literary art, is slowly becoming a vanishing art form (?)—something in parallel to how layered oil paintings are (of which relative moderns such as Salvador Dali championed and which were the rule during the Renascence). Comparing literature to movies has in my experience been a comparison between apples and oranges. They’re two wildly different mediums for storytelling. And, when considering the best of both, the aesthetics captured by neither medium can be satisfactorily translated into the other. Still, literature education is arguably the best way of teaching literacy to students via applied practice; imo, far better than by merely teaching theoretical rules or spelling and grammar, which are dry, tedious, and very boring by comparison.
As to what 50% or so of Shakespeare should be replaced with. I won’t fib; I’ve my own list of likes that I would have enjoyed reading in high school. Asimov, Bradbury, Dumas, the novel Dune, I’ve already mentioned Kafka, I’ll even say stuff such as Fielding’s Tom Jones. Granted each education is different to some extent, but, still, I nevertheless appreciate having been given to read a wide breadth of literature during high school: historically starting with Beowulf and Ten Summoner’s Tales—neither of which were easy readings but yet very interesting for their historicity—all the way to Virginia Wolf’s To the Lighthouse, Orwell’s 1984, London’s Martin Eden, and the like. And yes, some Shakespeare in between. :grin: I sense, if not know, that it was due to good English teachers that most of the literature and poetry we were taught became meaningful to us students. All the same, I guess my own perspective is that I’d rather more fellow citizens be exposed to these historically important works so as to have a common body of knowledge in society pertaining to a common history—this rather than focusing in on more varied modern novels (even those I just mentioned liking).
Quoting ZhouBoTong
Yes, along these lines.
Quoting ZhouBoTong
Who doesn't? :razz: I've come to notice that pretentiousness is certainly not one of them. It's humbling in a good way. :up: Staying true to one's own aesthetics is something that should be done more often.
Quoting ZhouBoTong
Hm. Maybe I didn’t express myself well enough. My art teacher would have wanted to know how these adjectives can describe a bird that is in space, “space” here being more akin to outer space; maybe most aptly expressed: a bird that is in flight within layers of atmosphere. I’m still suspecting that the case can be made that if the adjective can apply to a bird in space, thus understood, the adjective will then likewise apply to the statue.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
Quoting ZhouBoTong
TMK, this is a very popular motif in modern art critique. I would concur that artworks are a bit of both. But I disagree with the view I’ve too often heard, specifying that what the artist intended is fully superfluous to the artwork, and that the only thing which matters is what the viewer interprets when looking at it. In a way, to me, this is analogous to ordinary language. What we intend to say matters—even when our expression is less than sufficient to so convey, or when others interpret things which we never intended. To me, so thinking that what the artist intended is unimportant does an injustice to most, if not all, artist out there—for no artwork can be manifested devoid of intention to so manifest; and because what one intends is, to me, an important variable in what makes an artistic expression valuable. Another variable is the quality of the expression to that which was intended. (So: If the idea is not impressive, esthetics might still be there due to the quality of idea’s expression. Or, if the idea’s expression is poor but the idea itself is stupendous, one could again find the artwork aesthetic. If, however, there is a poor idea coupled with a poor expression, more likely than not the artwork will then be found to have a poor aesthetic quality as artwork. And the judgment of what is poor and what is not is, to me, again relative to one's general understanding.) I’ve here given a rough draft of my own views concerning this matter—fully knowing that this subject can in itself lead to a very long debate, were it to be pursued.
In short, I believe I get what you’re saying. Still, I’ll for now be stubborn and continue upholding that the statue "Bird in Space" does a good job of conveying its subject matter via abstract form. (It’s not among my favorite, btw: its aesthetics are too cognitive for me; the aesthetics I most like are felt viscerally. But I’ll toe the line for now, so to speak.)
Quoting ZhouBoTong
I brought this example up because, to me at least, it serves to exemplify how one’s increased general understanding in relation to an artwork can at times transform that which is deemed relatively unaesthetic into something whose aesthetics are appreciated.
Quoting ZhouBoTong
Of course. I’ve already mentioned a little about my take on the intention/interpretation dynamic to artworks. Staying true to that, I so far find that both the rabid dog and the Decepticons were roughly intended to symbolize the "negative side of our emotions" (Decepticons alluding to deceptions).
Quoting ZhouBoTong
I maybe wasn’t sufficiently clear. I meant “comprehend and enjoy both movies: the Transformers and The Matrix” (e.g., some young preadolescents that enjoy Transformers might not understand why the Matrix is found more aesthetic by many adults). But you bring up a good point:
Don’t know that I can be labeled an optimist, but I do find that people generally hold emotive understandings of subjects which, when philosophically addressed, are not yet very well understood consciously. These include both epistemological and ontological topics. For example, we all (emotively) know what justice, good, aesthetics, etc. are, but when we start trying to consciously pinpoint them, we then often times enter into debates.
This goes back to my take being that good aesthetics ring true—that they emotively speak to us of things which we are emotively knowledgeable of, but of which we often cannot make sense of at a conscious level. Hence, for example, adults that don’t comprehend and enjoy epistemological and ontological subjects of philosophy will nevertheless tend to be more fascinated by the Matrix than by the Transformers—and this because the former has greater depth in its epistemology and ontology.
To further debate this, though, there is again a benefit to a common understanding of what aesthetics are and are not. Without such a basic understanding, we could easily end up talking past each other. You were saying that your understanding of aesthetics are likely simpler than mine. Still curious to know how they wouldn't fit the three descriptions I previously offered.
Second, you will notice that after a couple responses I get a bit too into describing why I like/ don't like specific works. I think those bits are more about us understanding where we each are coming from, they may not add much to the argument, so feel free to breeze past them.
Quoting javra
For me more like Red Delicious vs Granny Smith apples (red vs green). Both movies and books are methods of story telling (notice art like painting or most poetry is not really story telling) - but we can agree they are not the same.
Quoting javra
I think I mostly agree with this, but this gives no reason for teaching literature over movies (I am not even saying that is what you intended - just bringing it back to my point, why not teach a few movies in addition to all the literature?)
Quoting javra
I agree that spelling/grammar/ etc can be boring. Remember, part of my point is that I think 4 years of REQUIRED english class is wrong. Math, Science, history, and EVERY other subject do not require 4 years (I am in USA). Most of what is studied in English is art, why is this required? Notice the "literacy" you speak of could also be taught through history lessons. I just don't see any obvious goals of literature education (that can't be taught elsewhere).
Quoting javra
I was all excited and was about to say how I liked all of those except Fahrenheit 451 (it was OK, but I wouldn't read it again for fun). Then I realized that Fahrenheit 451 is the only one that I have read. All the others I just saw movies (for Dune I saw the movie and the mini-series). I expect that I would like the books, but I have no urgent desire to read them. But this may be informative to our discussion - I did not dislike, Fahrenheit 451 because I read it and like Dune because I watched it. One could just give me a 5 minute summary of each, and from that I would KNOW (like 98%+ confident) that I would like Dune more (whether in movie or book format).
Based on our conversation, I am not sure I get this sense from you? Is there a genre of books or movies that you prefer? Drama, Action, Comedy, adventure, heroes, etc? What I mean is that if a story is an action adventure with a bit of comedy and a hero that has no major moral shortcomings - there is almost zero question that I will be entertained. Now there is a huge gap between the best and worst story of this type, but FOR ME PERSONALLY, that type of story is almost guaranteed to at least be decent. I like the occasional story in different genres, but it is very hit or miss. I have no idea if I will like it, before I watch/read it. I am not sure anything in this paragraph is entirely relevant to our discussion - just a side note so we can both understand where the other is coming from.
Quoting javra
I appreciate this sentiment, and WISH it was remotely true for me, but it just wasn't - I don't think I had terrible English teachers, I just found nothing of value (for me personally) in those stories. I often tell people that I know there was only 1 book I ever liked (that I was forced to read in school), because there was only one book that I would actually read ahead on (the rest I finished the chapter the night before - or minutes before - the quiz). That 1 book was Childhood's End - some Arthur Clarke sci-fi thing.
Beowulf is a nice example of how to make me NOT like an action adventure story. Give the "hero" crap morals (or not necessarily crap, just normal human grey area garbage). The whole story, do I want Beowulf to die? To kill Grendel? To kill his own offspring? Do be faithful to his queen? Do I want the witch to win? I have a need to support a character if I am going to be interested. If I would not support the person in real life, I don't care about their fiction story (notice modern stories like Breaking Bad and Sons of Anarchy lose me for this very reason).
Quoting javra
This seems interesting, but toward what end? So we have topics for conversation or something more?
Shouldn't we all understand our own actual history first? Notice I am back to the 4 YEARS of required English vs 2 years of required history.
Quoting javra
Hahaha. Yeah, I am almost militantly plain and uncultured :smile:
I still have plenty more to respond to but I do get long-winded - feel free to point out anything I am writing that is useless information. Once I start writing it just pours out, but then I go back and read it and question if I am staying on topic.
In the spirit of giving a better impression of where I’m coming from:
In movies the imagery is given to you. In literature, the imagery is constructed by you via imagination. Of itself, this presents two very different experiences of cognition.
Then there is the content that is amenable to movie format v. literature format. For example, in Fahrenheit 451—which I read for fun in high school—one of the parts that affected me the most was the spiel that an old-timer gave the protagonist about the reason people cry at the funeral of loved ones. In far more elegant expression, the perspective held that we cry selfishly, for our own ego’s loss, and not for the loved ones that died—regardless of how they died: either they ceased experiencing all experiences and, thus, all suffering or, else, we believe that they passed on to a better place than that in which we’re in (and this because, via our love for them, we deem them to have been good people). But because this portion of the novel is extraneous to the main plot, because movies focus on action rather than contemplation, and because movies are roughly limited to under two hours of storytelling whereas novels are not, no movie of Fahrenheit 451 can likely do this aspect of the novel justice—nor other like aspects of the novel.
Having both read Dune and seen the movie (I enjoyed both), this same disparity applies to the novel Dune to far greater extents. In the novel, erudite observations of politics abound, as do insights into human psychology. One soundbite-friendly observation that comes to mind, paraphrased, is that the typical adult human would rather die than find himself holding beliefs antithetical to those beliefs he’s assimilated into himself as an adult. The movie greatly skims the theoretical aspects of the book in favor of action that is visually depicted—thereby depriving the story of its more pleasant experiences, this while reading the novel.
If we equate plot to story, the story remains roughly the same in a novel and a movie. But just as plot-depicting cliff notes cannot convey the aesthetic experiences of living through the story—regardless of whether it’s a movie or a novel—so too will a good movie not do a good novel justice, for the movie at best abridges far too much of the novel’s contents: those of perspectives, of background, of psychology, of worldviews, etc. And again, by comparison, a good movie will not flex the mental muscles of imagination (so to speak) anywhere near as much as will a good novel.
Now, though unfortunately too often derided among rational types, imagination is of pivotal importance in everything from finding satisfactory solutions to problems (of all types and breadths) to the progress of the empirical sciences (from arriving at new paradigms which explain all outliers of data, like the Theory of Relativity and the Theory of Evolution, to the formulation of worthwhile hypotheses and adequate tests for these). And, quite arguably, among the best ways of improving this cognitive faculty among all individuals is via the reading of literature. Not everyone will find some particular form of creative activity engaging, but all will find storytelling interesting (and the written forms of these is when imagination is greatly required).
On the other hand, a good movie’s characteristics—often including those of detailed, good imagery and quick action given in a succinct two hours’ time—cannot be captured by a novel, regardless of how good the novel is. Hence, movies that are visually stunning can serve as a good example of experiences that cannot be experienced in writing (thereby the cliché that a picture tells a thousand words). Then again, some stories are not interesting enough to warrant being read in novel format—while yet making a pleasant movie experience.
So, this is why the experience of reading a good novel and the experience of seeing a good movie is to me a comparison between apples and oranges. They can both be good, but to me they’re entirely different species.
I hope this also serves to better express why I feel that the four years of required English in high school is best served by a maximal exposure to literature—rather than via exposure to movies. (As to the history that may be involved, it is not about our history per se—which is about historical facts, something that fiction is not married to. Literature form different time periods can immerse one within the “what it is like” to have lived during that era and culture—but, again, it is not about history proper.)
Anyway, I wanted to share my views so as to better justify my being pro the status quo of high school English teaching English via exposure to literature (in fact, with my whishing that more literature would be taught during this four year span).
Quoting ZhouBoTong
I’ll likely wait for you to present your views on what is and is not aesthetics, this in general.
One could engage one's imagination much more when watching a film than when reading a book, too. It just depends on the individual and the occasion.
Do you disagree with this:
Quoting javra
In movies, some imagery is given to you. That's not all you can visualize, however. You can--and often are expected to--visualize things that happen offscreen.
By the same token, we could say that with books, all the words/thoughts/descriptions are given to you, whereas with films, you need to fill that stuff in for yourself via your imagination.
We appear to hold experiences that greatly differ ... especially when assuming you read my first post given today regarding the differences between film and book formats of stories. So be it.
I'm just pointing out that it's not the same for everyone or in each scenario. It's not the case that one thing or the other catalyzes more imagination for everyone.
RE: "for everyone":
I’ll in turn point out that your reliance on exceptions to the general given that “books require more use of imagination than do movies” so as to evidence this same generality false, or else devoid of value, is in many ways analogous to the following: someone’s claiming that doors shouldn’t be the height they are because some adult people are far shorter and some far taller than the common door height of our buildings. Exceptions to a common generality do not evidence the commonality of this generality false.
Do exceptions occur? Of course. Does this then signify that the average person thinks, abstracts, and imagines as much when seeing a movie as when reading a novel? No, it does not. Otherwise, a 600 page novel should be no more challenging than a 2 hour movie of the same story. Resulting in more people willingly reading and finding the experience enjoyable. But I acknowledge it’s easier, for example, for parents to put their kids in front of TV sets instead of taking the time to read stories to them. I take it that to you these two activities are of equal value to a person’s mental development?
Claiming that something is the case for most people for something like this would require empirical studies that no one has done.
Quoting javra
I don't think there's any good basis for trying to state a generalization about that.
I think I am going to go back to your previous post and get to the rest of that, which will hopefully lead to me presenting my views on aesthetics (I have never really thought of "my view on aesthetics" directly). You definitely said some interesting stuff in your most recent post, but I will not be able to get to both today.
Quoting javra
I really misinterpreted the assignment. I was not aware the teacher told you anything. I was thinking how I would describe the piece if someone had just shown it to me, with no introduction whatsoever, other than the title.
Quoting javra
It seems bit weird for me to describe "a bird in space", then be shown a piece of art and asked "does that fit your adjectives?" But wouldn't many of the literal adjectives not apply? Alive, frozen, fleshy, feathered, etc? I think my biggest problem with "appreciating" art is that my brain is very literal. It can understand abstract concepts (I am not sure if I am "worse" at this than others, but that is possible), but will never use an abstraction when something direct and more concise will work.
Quoting javra
I agree with this, but just want everyone to admit that these abstract artworks could EASILY represent something else. If the author says "it means X" then it means X. However, if a teacher asks me to read something, does not tell me what the author intended, then marks it wrong when I give an alternative answer; THEY ARE WRONG, the only thing that can be graded is my justification of my answer. If the creator of "bird in space" names it "bird in space" and says it represents a bird in space, then that can only be true. However, if that same artist, had labeled that same sculpture "the tear of god" (I mean tear as in cry not tearing a piece of paper) and said it represented a tear of god; it seems equally justified, right? And so, I think it is fine and even natural to disagree with the artist, if you were never told the artist's view to begin with (nowadays we have google, so less of an excuse for ignorance, but not all art is on google).
Quoting javra
I agree. But I take it further. Not only does what we intend to say matter, but we are responsible (to some extent anyway) for conveying this information in a way that leads to a consistent interpretation. And for me, a lot of art fails in this regard.
Quoting javra
Would it be possible for someone to both understand Shakespeare, and think his stories were not very good? I can agree that more knowledge can lead to greater appreciation, but I cannot agree that more knowledge will always lead to greater appreciation. Take anything in life you really don't like. If you learned about it for the next decade would you suddenly like it (for me some things could be yes, others would certainly be no)?
Quoting javra
Well I guess the "at times" in this statement partially answers my objection above. I think it is safe to say we are definitely in partial agreement on this one :grin:
Quoting javra
While there are aspects of literature that need to be taught, this shows that some aspects could be taught using movies, which could actually increase interest in literature. If you use movies to teach boring crap, like memorizing the literary devices or recognizing symbolism, then the students actually have the tools to read something like Shakespeare. If you just start with Shakespeare, then they hate it before they understand it.
And I am out of time again, I didn't even finish the one post (I think I am close to done).
I am not sure I am answering your aesthetics questions satisfactorily (I certainly have not answered it directly, but think my position can be seen). Feel free to point out where you would like me to state something more directly.
I’ll start with a joke: An artist presents his much anticipated work at a gallery. It’s a large blank canvas. A commoner askes the artist what it’s supposed to be. The artists proudly expresses that it’s a never before so perfectly depicted scene of a cow amid fields of grass. The simpleton asks, “Where’s the grass?” The artist explains that the cow ate it all. “OK, but where’s the cow?” the commoner then asks, still being thoroughly bewildered. The elite artist replies, “The cow walked away in search of other pastures, of course!”
This is my shortcut way of again expressing that I agree with the view that too much of modern art is … well, not good art. My main contention in this thread, though, is that there is such a thing as better and worse aesthetics. I assume that if the just mentioned joke makes any sense, this truism of better and worse aesthetics is at the very least implicitly acknowledged.
Movies and books that average one star reviews, for example, can then be deemed to typically hold poorer aesthetics (this relative to the average human ) than those which average four star reviews or greater.
Since the issue of aesthetics in general, as I broadly understand it, does tie in with one of @Terrapin Station 's recent posts to me, I’ll mention his observation:
Quoting Terrapin Station
Very many attributes pertaining to the average human psyche are not possible to empirically demonstrate (as least not currently). As one example, it is impossible to empirically demonstrate that most people out there experience the same exact thing we do in relation to what we all address as the color red—yet there is good reason for all of us to hold this belief to be true. To my mind, this gets into heavy duty issues of epistemology—many being very contentious—of which I have no interest to investigate in this thread.
Nevertheless, it is true that this general aspect of epistemology does apply to issues such as those of imagination (e.g., what of this faculty is commonly experienced among at least most humans, what then constitutes more of it for most humans, and, in consequence, what best improves it for most humans—here of interest, known human conditions pertaining to visualizations can range from photographic memory to aphantasia (the inability to visualize) … and this doesn’t even touch on things such as imagined smells, tastes, etc., or the more complicated forms of conceptual imagination—which is how new theories are for example produced); it likewise applies to the attribute of intelligence (e.g., intelligence’s definition is currently controversial, which of itself makes IQ tests less than objective/unbiased … yet, correlations between IQ scores and other human capabilities often do hold statistical importance), and—here skipping a potentially very long list of psychological attributes—the same epistemological issue also applies to the human capacity to experience aesthetics (an experience not shared to any degree with most lesser animals, and only somewhat with lesser animals of greater intelligence).
Again, without wanting to get into epistemological debates about all of this: As we typically hold good reason to uphold that all humans experience the same quality of color when claiming to see the color red, and that imagination and intelligence as we experience it is something universal to humans at large, so too do we hold good reason to presume that experiences of the aesthetic are universal to humans at large. Likewise, as we hold good reason to judge that some reds are redder than others, and that imagination and intelligence can be more/greater/better, so too can we then hold good reason to judge that some givens are more aesthetic than others (i.e., that some givens hold better aesthetics).
I offer these (imo, generally accepted) perspectives without in any way denying that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, or that variations in magnitude of aesthetic experience can, and likely do, occur among different humans (e.g., the professional musician can be argued capable of finding far more beauty in a liked melody than the typical tone-deaf non-musician who enjoys the same melody; or a mathematician to find more beauty in a mathematical paradigm than the non-mathematician who also likes the same mathematical paradigm; etc.).
Hence, I take the psychological issue of aesthetics to be a very complex topic—and the background I just offered serves to illustrate some of the complexities I find in it. But—just as can be said of imagination, intelligence, introspection, joy, suffering, etc.—I very confidently believe that aesthetics too can be better and worse, or greater and poorer, or more in comparison to less. This despite the epistemological complexities involved.
Having addressed this summarized general understanding (which might be contentious for some) in the hopes of better illustrating where I’m coming from, what I basically wanted to find out is the following:
I was curious about whether or not your own experiences of the aesthetic can be described by the three descriptions I previously offered. In sum:
I wouldn’t be surprised that these three descriptors of the aesthetic would not be universally attested to by all humans. But, if not, I would then be curious to understand what “aesthetics” then signifies to such individuals; importantly, such that the understanding yet conforms to the common usage of the term.
It seems to me that once we can roughly agree upon what the aesthetic is as a generalized experience, we could then better address whether or not aesthetics can be better and worse.
I agree with much of your latest post, btw. I’ll reply to it later on.
Quoting javra
You make a valid point here, but my opinion would be that it is only valid for about 10% of people who have seen those movies. One need not know Descartes, or even the underlying ideas of his philosophy (or any other philosophical ideas), to enjoy the Matrix. Similarly, some people will have their experience of watching the Matrix enhanced by an understanding of philosophy, but someone like me would just count it as an interesting side note that doesn't add much to the story...If I wanted to study philosophy I would have done so directly. For me, putting philosophy into fiction is a way to make it more fun, interesting, entertaining, etc. There are better, more direct methods of learning, if one is less concerned with being entertained in the process. This is going to be my biggest issue with saying literature is important because we can learn philosophy (or anything else). Literature can teach us about emotions that we would otherwise only rarely experience. But if we go beyond emotions, can't everything that is taught abstractly in literature be taught more directly using another method? In your next post you describe how impactful that funeral portion of Fahrenheit 451 was to you:
Quoting javra
I entirely understand the learning you are expressing here. You explained it in just a few simple sentences. You lament your own lack of elegance, I applaud your concision. The "elegance" of Bradbury may have made this topic interesting or palatable to someone who is generally disinterested. But for someone who truly wants to learn, there is a better way (by better, I mean faster, more efficient, more complete, etc).
A related example: I have been in many discussions with libertarians or objectivists or republicans where they ask me if I have read "Atlas Shrugged" or "The Fountainhead". I respond, no, but I have read Rand's essays where she directly lays out her philosophies. What more can I gain from the novels? (I do not mean to imply that Rand had good philosophy or novels - just using the example).
Quoting javra
Hmmm, my over-literal low emotional IQ brain doesn't get this. At first I thought along the lines of the supreme court justice that said "I can't define pornography, but I know it when I see it". But you seem to be saying something more? I can understand something emotionally before I actually understand it? How do I know I understand it in any way, if I can't express that in words (or at least point at an example)? I expect this is more weird to me personally, than an actual problem, but it is tough for me to understand.
Quoting javra
I feel it is easy (for me, I am learning not for everyone) to pinpoint my ideas on justice, good, aesthetics, etc; I run into problems (debates) when I try to universalize them or ask other people to accept my ideas as their own (this thread :grin: ).
Quoting javra
I think this will blow your mind; I find poetic language (usually) to be anti-aesthetic (to me personally). Few things annoy me more than dressing something up in fancy language when it could have been simply stated in far fewer words (I find a nice concise summary of a very complicated topic to be far more beautiful than nearly all poetry). This suggests to me that while aesthetics can (and do) "ring true" with individuals, it will be a difficult idea to apply to large groups.
Quoting javra
I do not wish to deny this or argue that it is wrong, but just say that I do not get it. I would ask for an example, but if you can explain it in writing, then it is not what you are talking about (sounds like the Tao, haha). I certainly lie somewhere on the spectrum of emotional deficiency, so it may just be me. Try to explain if you can, but I can admit this may be my failure to understand (indeed it was, see next paragraph).
Quoting javra
Ok, well this is an example that does answer my question above. I can even understand it, haha. But it does not sound familiar. I liked the Matrix because it was an action movie with a bit of comedy. It had an interesting sci-fi twist and the special effects were great for the time. It also included some martial arts which has been a hobby of mine (more so in my 20s when the matrix was new-ish). It also had the vital feature of the hero having no major moral flaws (he may have had them, but if so, they were never included in the movie). Notice, "It made me think about whether I can trust my senses" is no where on the list. For me that all just rolls into the "interesting sci-fi twist". If I actually wanted to think about whether I can trust my five senses, I would come here and read a couple threads where that topic is being debated.
Quoting javra
Sorry I keep forgetting this bit.
Quoting javra
I think I agree, but as is probably showing, I do often struggle to separate the two (I understand the 2 distinct concepts, but where does emotion leave off and intention take over...?? But I think I still have to agree. What is "beauty" if not some type of emotional response (even if some intellect is included)?
Quoting javra
Ok, this more tells us what aesthetics is not, but the distinction needs to be made.
Quoting javra
Perhaps I am overly verbal and underly emotive, but I do not feel that I form the connections ambiguously. I "feel" like I immediately state and quantify how/why I like something. Perhaps you are referring to the split seconds that take place before my brain can justify why "this is good"? Notice that I have overly analyzed my own tastes to the point that I am rarely pleasantly surprised by a piece of art. Based on past experiences, I have a general idea why I will like something, and my brain is pretty quick to fill in those reasons when viewing something new. If this seems like a type of closed mindedness, I disagree (that's like saying it is closed minded to always assume 2+2 =4). I have just verbalized many of my emotions (I think?).
What about the idea that depending on my mood, what is aesthetic (to me) changes? Is that just a whole new can of worms?
Quoting javra
This bit was a bit extreme for me, but your next lines brought into context for me:
Quoting javra
Now this I understand. I am still working on NOT caring about my opinion being demeaned or exalted, but it is very difficult. That is definitely an example where I experience the emotion long before my brain tells me that was petty to feel that way (although the more I remind myself not be bothered by such things, the faster intention kicks in).
Quoting javra
I don't think I disagreed too much. No big surprise but my understanding of aesthetics is the literal definition (I am not in any way trying to belittle or suggest you are wrong, in fact I am half making fun of my own simplicity): "concerned with the nature or appreciation of beauty, especially in art" Simplified: How we decide what we think is beautiful, especially in art.
Quoting javra
Because I don't see how your definition created universality. Even if I agree, why does it suggest that my emotions, etc would lead to the same aesthetic conclusions as yours?
Using some general aesthetic scale, I would conclude that modern humans find Transformers et al more aesthetic than Shakespeare because that is where they voluntarily invest time and money. But I assume you would disagree.
Well I finished one post and FINALLY got around to your description of aesthetics that you have been asking me to do for a while (don't hesitate to put me on track :grin: ). I think I just have your 2 most recent posts to respond to.
I just realized I have not proof-read, but have to go. Be gentle :smile:
The kind of catch 22 'progressive' critique... Wherein any distinction of value is a contrivance is easily put at their feet too...
a) the same piece of art claimed to be painted by a white conservative male or a Hispanic lesbian which has more value? If you want to claim both would have equal opportunity to get their art hung in a gallery you are out of your mind....
b) a conversation in contrasting the significance of Starry Night by Van Gough, The Old Guitarist by Pablo Picasso and Tracy Imin's unmade bed.... Go on have a chop don't just go to the catch 22 Renaissance writers, poets and other mainstream cultural icons paint your own artist canon with the same brush.... Have a real go... then after you get done defending the bed half-heartedly contrast the value of Tracy Imin's art to the kind of aesthetic commentary one might draw from Artist's Shit by Piero Manzoni....
c) If one is a philistine for treating some art as shit and others as not but all are equal then consider the biography of a man like Auguste Rodin whose classical style in France elicited criticism and scorn in his day but still triumphed....
d) If you don't like Shakespeare that is up to you but his stories were written 400 years ago... You will have to forgive the writer if they did not weather as well as some English majors hyperbole would have you believe.... But given his pre-industrial revolution pre democracy writing one might have to be a little more forgiving...
e) The reason why you wouldn't see Shakespeare in a lot of schools today is that he is probably one of the best and most humanistic centers of CULTURE the C word that some artsy wishy-washy Lefty Safe Space Occupying Morons don't want anymore...
The idea Shakespeare is still dominating English classrooms is as much just another battle of one fucktard who calls himself a right winged/conservative against another fucktard that calls himself a SJW/Left (other synonyms....)
I just don't understand why kids need to read the same book.... Surely we could have an electronic database of books and let them pick in 2019.... Insisting on references (reference generators), cut and paste quotations and a digital copy so teachers could cut and paste a reference in doubt into said data base and quickly know whether it is there or not..
Considering its all arbitrary anyway a kid might as well read and write a report on the book of their children rather than read the same book and share opinions nobody cares about or learn to form those opinions. At least they might actually get some joy out of their English class, but an education system that enfranchizes individuated learning and thinking... This is the thing most out of the minds of most people.... It is probably the most significant bipartisan issue for Right and Left Idealogs their want to control and systematize children's thinking and learning.... The only difference of their sycophantic Orwellian Intent is branding.
It's clearly the case that lots of people don't agree with the "books require/catalyze/etc. more imagination than films" bumper sticker.
We could rather easily do surveys about whether people agree with that or not.
It's just not something that anyone has done any sort of rigorous survey about.
Reinforcing the narrative and myth of 'age' appropriate material is the beginning of ageism ignorance. we should move beyond that in its entirety.
It isn't even an opinion the complete lack of standards in aesthetics is one thing, to apply that to education is just disgusting. If one wants to dispute aesthetic predilections of literature more power to you but if one wants to suggest literacy rates or all texts assess the same level of literacy and interpretation you are insane.....
The idea of replacing film with reading is just shit and missing the entire point of education... That is to also develop a toolbox of cognitive ability.... Including but not limited to READING ABILITY
Well until very recently odds would have been WAY higher for a white male (like 100 to 1). Today I would say it is slightly in favor of the hispanic lesbian (more like 3 to 2 than 100 to 1). Either way, those are examples of the type of subjective assessments of art that I have a problem with.
Quoting thedeadidea
This is a bit jumbled, but I get the sense you are saying that I need to be as critical of Michael Bay as I am of Shakespeare? If that is what you are saying, then no worries, that is exactly what I am doing. In fact I am arguing that art critics and elites DO NOT apply the same standards to the 2. I am exactly applying the same standard to Shakespeare as I am to Michael Bay.
Quoting thedeadidea
Wait, isn't eventual recognition of his triumph support for my position that we should not just listen to the established authorities?
Quoting thedeadidea
My point is that the stories do not hold up, not that they did not have some value in the past. I would even admit that, to some people alive today, Shakespeare may be very beneficial or rewarding. I just don't think he will resonate with a very large audience anymore (I would even go as far as to suggest that part of the reason for Shakespeare's enduring success would be the lack of competition until recently).
Quoting thedeadidea
Wait, I am complaining that there is way too much Shakespeare (and as you have just joined, I am using Shakespeare as a placeholder for all art that is well respected but rarely actually enjoyed).
Quoting thedeadidea
This sounds like stuff I would agree with and yet...
Quoting thedeadidea
Well less insane than attempting to use Shakespeare to teach literacy. Also, I am not necessarily advocating for a complete lack of standards. Just pointing out that the current "standards" are almost entirely arbitrary and subjective.
Quoting thedeadidea
Huh? So if currently around 90% of learning in English classes takes place through reading, and I think that should be reduced to 70 or 80% with movies (or other options) replacing some of the reading; how have we hindered students' reading ability?
Meanwhile in the real world I need to understand certain facts...
like Bob the Builder and To kill a Mockingbird have very different reading levels and the latter is a reading level I want high school students to experience....
It is not okay for the board of education to let people read anything universally... Try think of some controversial titles and imagine if parents would phone in or not....
More so the problem with unlimited and infinite aesthetics sameness is it applies to values too...
If I get a book on how to bake muffins.... that is the value too... contrasted to To Kill a Mockingbird... are you so vacuously relativistic that you want to argue the sameness of educational importance ?
I doubt it... I mean maybe you would double down on the bullshit... but as an educator I have a real world and normative interpretation of reality to consider outside of the context of your own hypothetical musings.
'Postmodernism' or whatever synonym you want to use for relativisim ad-infinitum pedaling twits is full of shit and although I am for democratization of school content where possible some key underlying themes need to be insisted upon for a syllabus of any kind.... The fact you don't get my clear sarcastic ridicule just goes to further highlight one of my current hypothesis that is Postmodern theories and literature generates autism and autistic interpretation.
Hey Terrapin. Just making sure you don't feel ignored in this thread. I think we are in general agreement (perhaps not exact, but much closer than those I am responding to). I just don't have anything to say when people are in agreement with me, haha. Certainly let me know if you feel I have missed anything.
Quoting javra
Well how much practice do we need at this skill (visualizing words in our minds as the ideas they represent)? I would consider that skill to just be part of "literacy". And I don't know many people who lament their lack of ability to visualize imagery. I am not saying this skill should NOT be taught. Just that it is taught. And if we taught it 10% less, I don't see a problem (I get you are arguing we should teach it more - but at the expense of what?).
Quoting javra
I addressed this in the previous post. The summary is that my problem with this example is that what you learned could have been taught in a more succinct and direct manner, assuming an interested audience.
Quoting javra
I like all of this. But if the goal was to learn, "that the typical adult human would rather die than find himself holding beliefs antithetical to those beliefs he’s assimilated into himself as an adult", couldn't we have taught that in less than the 20 hours required to read the book (40 if we assume they are actually taking the time to understand these complicated ideas you are mentioning). Notice that if we knew that EVERYONE (or close to it) would enjoy the story, then it is worth the extra time to engage the students. But if only 20% of the class is going to like any given story, it seems more just a waste of time, not to mention filling their brain with unimportant facts that elbow out all the useful ones. (this paragraph has too harsh a tone - take everything said as my reasoning for teaching 10-20% less formal literature, not eliminating it entirely).
Quoting javra
So the main reason I LIKE novels more than movies is that they are longer. If it is a world you enjoy (by world - I mean the fictional environment that the story takes place in) then likely 2 or 3 hours is not enough. However, there are very few movies (even the great ones) that end leaving me wondering about background or character details. And for me personally, I would struggle to separate my enjoyment of one over the other (book vs movie). I would say that if teachers approached movies similar to books, there would be plenty of opportunity to flex mental muscle. Notice a concept like symbolism could be taught just as easily in either format. Why not introduce it in the format students are most comfortable with, and interested in, then they can use their new found skills and knowledge when they are given a more complex and less familiar work, like the novels you have mentioned?
Quoting javra
I think we would have to have a whole discussion on "what is imagination" for this to go anywhere. I have found it interesting that my "creativity" directly correlates with how much knowledge I have. I am not trying to deride creativity, just point out that if creativity refers to "wholly original" then I wonder if it exists, if it means "a slight or significant change to an already existing idea" then you can see how more knowledge = more creativity; and yet that does not seem to fit the meaning of creativity. I understand "creativity" as more of an emotional expression than something that is logical and concrete (the connotation far outweighs the denotation). I would also point out, that WHATEVER creativity is, it is NOT equally attainable for all. Just like intelligence, or athleticism, we are all born with certain potentials and limitations. Can I teach someone to play soccer? Of course. Can I teach someone to play soccer like Lionel Messi? Of course not.
Quoting javra
I don't think you will be able to convince me that people learn more creativity from literature than movies. Maybe you are talking a specific type of creativity? Notice visualizing imagery is a very different type of creativity than creating an interesting story or developing a new theory of physics. I could develop my ability to create stories by watching movies. If I want to develop my creativity in physics, I will have to learn some math (the best mathematician will not necessarily be the most creative physicist {ie Einstein}, but without a fairly solid math base, good luck creating some important new theory.
I am getting closer to caught up!
Sure, no problem. It's a topic I'm very interested in, but so far in this thread I primarily keep hoping that people will relax from typing so much, haha. I like to interact with folks so that it reads like a transcript of a casual in-person conversation we might have . . . which makes me picture people obliviously going into interminable lecture mode with all of these long posts.
I get what you are saying and have been trying to think of a way to accomplish that. But I think part of the problem for people like Javra and I is that I can go a long time between responses. Therefore I try to include a lot and respond to every point a person has made. I do wonder though, if every post between us is so long, will we ever be able to recognize any progress? I think for me personally, I need to learn to respond to the spirit of people's arguments rather than nitpicking every word (but I can't help it). I will work on it...this is still longer than most of your posts, haha.
Quoting ZhouBoTong
There’s a lot that I haven’t yet replied to. Even if I don’t get around to all of it, I thank you for the candid replies. It in the meantime struck me that we might not ever resolve our differences due to reasons that are far more foundational philosophically: those pertaining to our underlying views concerning human universals. I’ll do my best to illustrate this possible disparity via one analogy:
The aesthetic experience is not the only human-relative experience that conforms to the three descriptions we’ve so far roughly agreed upon in relation to aesthetics. In want of addressing the issue somewhat more impartially, I’ll here reference the experience of being in love. Being in love is a) an emotive experience, b) is a narrow subset of attraction-toward, and c) becomes intertwined with one’s own being such that others’ derisions of that person one is in love with is in many ways sensed as a derision of one’s own being.
In further rough parallel to the experience of aesthetics: While some can sincerely fall in love multiple times in the course of a lifetime, others never do experience this state of being. Some find this emotion to be very transient; others can be affected by this emotion for the remainder of their lives. Those givens, such as personality traits, with which one person falls in love with will very often not be those which some other person falls in love with. Relative to individuals that can experience it, this state of being can be of greater intensities and of lesser intensities. Also, there are no currently known empirical means of establishing the specifics of what this experience is like for the average human psyche.
Chances are you’d fall in love with people with whom I’d not fall in love with, and vice versa—this though we’d both experience the same emotive state of being we term “being in love”. Chances are no two people can experience the exact same psychological states of being when being in love—just like no two people can likely ever experience the exact same visual impressions of the same physical object (for no two people share the same spatiotemporal point of view in relation to a commonly experienced physical object). Chances are that being in love with some person qualitatively fluctuates over time. Etc.
Now, if due to the aforementioned you are one to argue that, therefore, what we English speakers commonly term the experience of “being in love” cannot be validly upheld to hold a universal referent relative to our human species—a universal referent relative to which greater or better, and lesser or worse, instantiations of this universal can occur in individuals—I find that we then sharply disagree on the far more basic issue of human ontology at large. This, specifically, in relation to universal properties of human psychology (As an example: such as the human capacity to experience the color red; while some colorblind people may not be so able, this, to me, does not then dispel the human universality of the experience of red as a color). If this disagreement is there, than no amount of discussion on aesthetics per se can resolve our differences, for these differences are then rooted in our differing perspectives in relation to ontology of mind—again, particularly, in relation to the nature of human psychological universals.
If it is the case that we disagree on this rudimentary issue pertaining to the human mind, I’ll then respectfully bow out of this discussion - primarily because the discussion would enter a completely different ballpark.
I appreciate what you are trying to do here. I was just thinking after my last post that we might just go back and forth on details for eternity :smile:
In that spirit, after reading your post a couple of times, and deleting my own unhelpful ramblings, I think I can get to the heart of the matter a bit quicker.
Quoting javra
So I would say the "experience of being in love" is quite comparable to "the experience of enjoying a work of art". But how does this make Shakespeare universally better than Transformers? I feel like I missed something major, because as I read your description of love and how we are unlikely to fall in love with the same person, I immediately thought, "exactly. just as we are unlikely to like the same work of art to the same degree".
Quoting javra
Wait, I got lost here. How can love be better or worse? If a husband beats his wife, is that worse love than a husband not beating his wife, or is beating NOT an act of love...even if the perpetrator thinks it is? Is love better if you remember every valentine's day? Notice I have ZERO idea how love could be "better" or "worse"? Human expressions of love could be viewed as better or worse by the recipient, but that seems very different (Do I love my mom more if I remember Mother's Day? No. But Mom sure seems to think so).
Basically, how can I take the universal truth that "most (all?) people enjoy some art" and somehow then conclude that Shakespeare creates "better" art than Michael Bay?
Quoting javra
I hope this example can help. I think it is easy to establish the universality of red (to a fairly strong degree). Put the colors ROY G. BIV on a piece of paper and ask people to point to red, as you said absent colorblindness, we will approach 100% agreement. Now obviously if I have people choose from 50 colors ranging from light pink to dark maroon, then we will see it is not EXACTLY universal, but pretty close. Why do we believe people when they point at red, but not believe them when they say they like Transformers more than Hamlet? And if art appreciation involves more than "what people like", then we need to specifically define that and provide justification (and I admit you have been trying provide justification for why Shakespeare or other high art is generally better than the "lower" arts; but I have not seen the definition that brings your justification into context).
Quoting javra
Haha, sorry. I can't even make it that easy. I think I partially agreed, but still had plenty of disagreement. I felt like I started saying new stuff, but by the end it probably is just the same tired argument I have been making (with maybe a new example or two).
As I won't even agree to disagree, haha, you are likely right that we have gone as far as we can with this. I am happy to read and respond to more, but ENTIRELY understand a desire to bow out. Thanks for giving me a few specifics to think about.
So, just got done typing away another long reply. But then I realized that it's all skirting around underlying issues regarding universals—rather than directly addressing the specific comparison you have in mind. Yea, despite my continued interest in the topic, I think we may have well gone as far as we can.
So, I’m now replying, basically, to let you know that I’ve enjoyed talking to you.
Quoting ZhouBoTong
Thanks for this. Cheers.
Cool. Same for me. If I think of some mind blowing idea that will completely transform your view (haha, yeah right), I will let you know...feel free to do the same :smile:
I have been using the dictionary definition of art (the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power), but I can't see how "experts" could be created based on that definition either. So I think we are in agreement. But I have thought I was in agreement with others who were actually being sarcastic or making a different point, so feel free to clarify if I have missed something.
If you meant that art is more subjective that other activities, then I guess it is some cases. People may argue over who the best footballer is and some people’s views will be more more informed than others due to their understanding of the sport ... same goes for art. In football some people with no idea about the game will make judgements about who is a ‘better’ player and be completely wrong - because they don’t fully understand the game and take some particular technique or skill as indicative of being a ‘better’ football player.
Do you really find it difficult to imagine that some have more expertise than others in regards to judging works of aft just as some judge the best football player? If so, how and why?
You can't be more or less an expert in a field where there aren't facts to get right or wrong. So one can't be more of an expert than another when it comes to values, better/worse, etc. qua values.
One can be more of an expert than another when it comes to the meta aspects of value fields--ethics, aesthetics, for example, and one can be more of an expert than another in the factual considerations that we consider when valuing things, but none of those things are value themselves.
With values themselves, there's nothing to get right or wrong, in terms of correctly or incorrectly matching facts. So it's not possible to be more or less an expert in that.
Show me that someone who’s never seen or played a game of football has as much expertise as someone who’s been playing professionally all their lives at the highest level and who has been successful in management too.
The value of the judgments made is subjective/it's something that each individual determines for him/herself based on highly variable criteria. So I wouldn't say that it makes no difference. It's that the difference it makes, if any, is potentially different for each individual.
This is just the point I'm making. There are no value facts to get right or wrong. Hence why we can't be more or less of an expert on value.
Quoting I like sushi
They have just as much expertise with respect to value judgments, since no expertise is possible for value judgments.
Obviously the one person knows a lot more about the facts involved with playing football. It's just that those facts include no values.
Your ability to choose better players for a team is an ability to understand the value of the players. I don’t see how you can dance around this fact and pretend it doesn’t exist?
I am not suggesting value judgement id infallible, but I would argue against anyone claiming value is purely a subjective matter - that doesn’t make any sense to me.
No. I'm not saying it's arbitrary (presumably you mean that in the sense of "random.") I'm saying that the value of football players to a club is not an extramental fact. It's a matter of how much the individuals who are doing the valuing actually value someone, for the reasons they value them. They can't get that right or wrong, because there's nothing to get right or wrong. But that doesn't matter, of course. What they care about are what they value and why they value it as individuals.
Quoting I like sushi
What it is in the first place to be a "better player" is for individuals to value certain things over others, and the "better thing" has more of the stuff an individual values. Different individuals value different things (as is very obvious if you talk to many people). It's not arbitrary, but there are no facts to get right or wrong re values qua values, either.
People certainly choose players they feel are better, and some other people will agree with them, especially when it comes to something like players chosen for a team. That doesn't imply that there are any facts they're getting right or that they can be more or less experts on when it comes to values.
Quoting I like sushi
If value is objective in some way, show the evidence for it.
Evidence for it would have to be evidence of valuations occurring independently of any person, any person's judgment, proclamation, etc.
People can be experts at lots of things. What would it mean to be an art expert? When we use the word "expert" for me that suggests that their OPINION matters. If expert just means, knowing a bunch about a subject, then google is more of an "expert" than any human at ANY subject.
So why does the opinion of very knowledgeable people in the field of art not count as expertise? Because of definitions:
Art: the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.
Soccer: a game played by two teams of eleven players with a round ball that may not be touched with the hands or arms during play except by the goalkeepers. The object of the game is to score goals by kicking or heading the ball into the opponents' goal.
These definitions suggest to me that art is far more subjective than soccer.
Notice there is an "object" to the game of soccer. Therefor, it seems clear that a more knowledgeable person would be better at telling me how to win a soccer game. What is the object of art? Something along the lines of "to be appreciated for their beauty or emotional power"? How is anyone going to tell me what I think is beautiful or emotionally moving?
Take movie critics. They are worthless until I have read several reviews by any given critic. If they have significantly different tastes than I, then it doesn't help me in any way.
So there can be informed people that offer up their opinions on art, and because they are interested in the same things as I, I might pay attention. But what makes them experts? Notice an expert in soccer makes a lot of money to help teams win games. Art experts teach at colleges (sounds like their expertise is not widely valued). Unless we want to count the Michael Bays and Quentin Tarantinos of the world as the experts, but most of the art "experts" I know of consider Bay's movies to be very "low brow".
Did that help at all? Or is an art "expert" the still the same to you as an "expert" soccer coach? If you were trying to win a soccer game would you hire an expert? If you were trying to enjoy a movie, would you hire an expert?
Of course. I was contrasting to make the point that art isn’t entirely a matter of subjectivity.
Take a bunch of kids to a Michelin star restaurant and a McDonalds. I wouldn’t be surprised if they preferred the later. The same goes for Transformers movies, and even Bay himself admits he makes films for teenagers ... nothing wrong with that. The point is if compared to Sing in the Rain or Alien it falls seriously short in the opinions of anyone with broader tastes.
People disagree over who the best football player of all time is, and many understand the difficulty of comparing eras as the sport has evolved - there is a general consensus though.
In works of art there are distinct objective markers relating to proportion and universal geometry - all visually art necessarily plays off of this base.
Very simply put would you ask a five year old to sit down and offer a review of Casablanca and Transformers or a person whose daily life involves watching movies and analysing filmography and studying the history of film? If you’re a five year old you’d listen to a five year old.
One of the greatest directors to have ever lived is Akira Kurosawa. Even he will have his critics too because critics often have agendas and they wish to make a name for themselves. It makes sense to find a critic you mostly agree with and then watch films they recommend.
Knowledge, and application of said knowledge. I am sure I could listen to a few piano recitals and find them all to be practically indistinguishable ... but what do I know? I don’t play the piano and I don’t spend vast amounts of time listening to piano concertos (live or recorded).
Zhoubotong maintains that ‘Tranformers’ carries as much moral content as ‘Macbeth’, so why should ‘Macbeth’ be regarded as superior. He argues that it’s through the persistence of the elites that it still holds this position, even though its not viewed that way by most of the population.He’s probably right.It’s possible that without the elites Shakespeare may have become relatively unknown.
And why shouldn’t ‘Transformers’ be used as an educational tool over Shakespeare, given that students, generally, will just shut down on Shakespeare, with the result that they come away with nothing but a dislike for Shakespeare?
So Zhoubotong goes for film first as a learning tool over the written word, or at least regards it as an equal.(I’m think that’s his position).
But, the idea of books and the written word have one quality film does not have, and that’s in the area of literacy. Whether a film is developed from an existing novel or from an original script there has to be a written work before the film:the script comes first.
Writing, literacy, an understanding of grammar, etc. cannot be learned from watching a film, it comes about from both reading and writing.
So while Shakespeare may no longer be considered of value, the written word itself still is.
Something determines the superiority of one piece of writing over another. Something about the movie script convinces millions to be invested, something about it inspires the director and actors to take it on (and it’s not always money).
From those written words all the ideas, images, symbols and meaning are converted into film.
That script for ‘Transformers’ is the source from what the film became.(Let’s not forget that ‘Macbeth’ is the script for a play).
There must be some quality in the writing behind all that.Call it art if you like, and also concede it reaches a certain standard, a particular quality that might be rare or distinguished in scriptwriting, which is what the writer was consciously working towards.
I know a movie script is a tool, but looking at things in terms of the same form, writing, then ‘Macbeth’ contains a lot more than the script for ‘Transformers’, the poetry for a start.
This is a bit if a ramble and I don’t want to make it too long.If I haven’t started to make my point then I probably don’t have one.
An argument from pure ignorance. Enough said ... no need for nuance from me or I’ll sound too snooty and/or be labeled snooty because I understand the difference between prose and soulless dialogue.
Do you mean my post or Zhoubotong’s?
The point is that in order to be an expert at x, it has to be possible to get claims about x right or wrong.
So, for example, you can't be an expert on Elvis Presley if you don't know that he was born in Tupelo, Mississippi, if you don't know that he was in a film called Clambake, if you don't know that he did a duet with Kitty White on a song, "Crawfish," for another film, King Creole, and if you don't know that DJ Fontana was the drummer on over 450 Elvis recordings, including "Hound Dog", while Ron(nie) Tutt was often his drummer in Elvis' later years. It's not that knowing those things is sufficient to be an Elvis expert, but knowing them is required to be an Elvis expert. They're basic facts about Elvis that one can be correct or incorrect about.
However, one can not be an expert on value judgments about Elvis. Saying that Elvis' version of "Hound Dog" artistically surpasses Big Mama Thornton's version, or saying that "Hound Dog" is a better song than "Old MacDonald" (which Elvis does a version of on the Double Trouble soundtrack), saying that the Beatles were superior artists to Elvis because they wrote their own music, saying that Elvis was a superior artist to the Shaggs despite the fact that the Shaggs wrote their own music, and so on, are not things that one can get correct or incorrect. There's no option for expertise on such matters, because there are no facts to know or be ignorant of when it comes to making value judgments. Knowing that Elvis didn't write his own music (aside from handful of "courtesy" songwriting credits) while the Beatles did is subject to expertise--you can get that correct or incorrect, but claiming that it's artistically better to write one's own material is not subject to expertise, because there is no fact in that regard to get right or wrong.
The simple fact is some people are better equipped than others to judge music; in this sense they have more EXPERTISE.
I guess if you believe there are no experts anywhere then you may have a position (sorry, non-position!) cease the absurdity please.
First, if you read what I just wrote, I obviously believe there can be experts in general.
It's just that you can't be an expert on value judgments, because there's nothing to be correct or incorrect about.
You bring up "singing in key" for example (which as an expert on music theory/composition myself--it's one of two fields I have degrees in and it's the field in which I earn a living--I can tell you is a different idea than intonation, or being "on pitch"). An expert understands what is meant by "in key" or "in tune"/"on pitch" (even though there's plenty of ambiguity in those notions; we still can describe what is conventionally referred to by those terms), and we can hear when something is "in key" or "in tune"/"on pitch", but what no one can be an expert on is whether it's better to sing "in key" or "in tune"/"on pitch" or not. That's because there's no fact (re what's better) to be correct or incorrect about in that regard. You can get correct or not that "Most people prefer singing that's 'in key' or 'in tune'/'on pitch'," but you can't get correct that it's better to do what most people prefer, because there's no fact in that regard.
The same thing goes for composition in general re keys, chords, progressions, melodies, counterpoint, large-scale structures (say a 12-bar blues versus sonata form or whatever), and so on. You can be an expert when it comes to identifying such things, identifying relationships between them, and so on, but you can't be an expert when it comes to claims that any content is better than any other content.
I judge this to be contrary and you don’t. One of us is wrong, agree? FIN
Sure. So what you'd have to do is show some sort of evidence for there being a fact that one possibility is better or worse than another. (Anything you'd like to use as an example --this chord progression versus that one, this melody versus that one, this piece of music versus that one--whatever example will most easily serve the demonstration of a fact that one thing is better than another.)
Well, if the definition of "art" is broad enough to embrace creativity, that would be one reason. :chin:
Well said. Art is art if the artist says that it's art. Our part in this is that we - as individuals, not collectively - get to decide whether we like it or not. That's how artists and their audiences relate.
If you're talking about a technical appraisal of the music, you're right, of course. But if you're referring to making a value judgement of the music as art, then you are wrong, I think. There's no such thing as Good Art or Bad Art, in that sense, but only art. Art is art if the artist says it is. You only get to say if you like it or not. And no-one is more qualified to do that that anyone else.
Even with technical aspects, there still are no factual/human-independent valuations. It still comes down to what people like/dislike, and it's still a fallacy to say that something is a factual value just because there's a consensus about it (that's simply the argumentum ad populum fallacy).
People mistake consensuses, widespread agreement for facts independent of the widespread opinion as such.
I absolutely take your point. But in the case of a technical appraisal of a musical performance, such as one musician might make of another's performance, it's fair to say that some have more expertise than others. :chin:
Well, you can better identify what folks are doing, how they're doing it and indications of the sorts of things they can probably do, at least.
You didn’t reply to my post. I asked whether it was my comments you were calling rubbish or my paraphrasing Zhoubotong.
Just in case it was mine I’d like to make it clear that I’m in agreement with you, though your posts haven’t been successful in convincing others.
One of my comments was: ‘I know a movie script is a tool, but looking at things in terms of the same form, writing, then ‘Macbeth’ contains a lot more than the script for ‘Transformers’, the poetry for a start‘.
What I’m saying is that in writing we can at least judge one piece from another based on how the sentences are structured, syntax, etc. At the very least it can be judged by how easily the reader understands what the writer is saying. I don’t think this is a subjective, or based on likes or dislikes, it has to reach a certain standard to succeed at what it sets out to do. If you agree with this then it can be taken further: the script for ‘Macbeth’ and ‘Transformers’ must at least have achieved this criteria. After that they begin to separate in relation to content. ‘Macbeth’ continues on with other attributes that ‘Transformers does not have.
It’s a shame we’ve got stuck on Shakespeare. It would be a lot easier to refer to some contemporary written work, then we might be able to compare apples with apples.
?? How would understanding not be something dependent on mentality?
Art goes undefined like it's nature, or it is a signifier of something good.
Is smell art? Yes. Is the smell of strawberry good art? How? With rhythmic body movement and emotion cycles.
Well your right, but in this conversation it seems to me that by subjective we are meaning something determined to be ‘good’ or ‘art’ by personal likes and dislikes, personal preferences, and because of that it’s impossible to determine whether ‘Macbeth’ is better than the film ‘Transformers’.
When I said “At the very least it can be judged by how easily the reader understands what the writer is saying. I don’t think this is a subjective, or based on likes or dislikes, it has to reach a certain standard to succeed at what it sets out to do”, I was referring to the idea that writing has to reach a degree of function to be understood. The writing of a ten year old is more advanced than a six year old. This develops until a degree of sophistication is reached that is determined by everyone around us. If it can’t be read and understood then it fails in intent.
What we require in writing to be understood are the accepted rules of language, otherwise it’s meaningless.
Some writers develop great sophistication in their use of language, but we would still not call it art. It’s just extremely functional writing. But it’s recognised as being more advanced than how people generally write.
Then someone who has proven themselves to be a master of this functional form of expression or communication suddenly breaks the rules. An example of this would be Virginia Woolf or James Joyce. Joyce wrote ‘Dubliners’, ‘A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man’, then ‘Ulysses’ and then finally ‘Finnegans Wake’.
‘Finnegans Wake’ broke the rules completely. The trajectory of his writing is like a curve moving from functional writing steadily through to something completely unknown. Somewhere on that curve he crossed over into art, but he was still operating in a form rooted in tradition and the rules of language, even if that meant breaking those rules
How does that wind up making anything nonsubjective when it comes to judgments? We can note objective differences in the writing--for example, comparing "Jack ran" to "Jack sprightly sprinted through the spruce forest." One objectively has more words, more types of words, one has alliteration, etc., and we can call one more sophisticated, though especially as something with a normative or evaluative connotation, calling something more sophisticated just because it has more words, etc. is itself subjective. But also saying that "more/ less sophisticated writing is better" is subjective.
It seems like maybe you're appealing a bit to consensus, at least a consensus of people considered "experts" (by another consensus), but that would simply be an argumentum ad populum for claims of objectivity that aren't simply and explicitly claims about what the consensus is.
Let me try this using the soccer analogy. There is one player among the team of players who are all extremely skilled. This player takes more goals and creates more opportunities for others to take goals. He doesn’t use any other moves or techniques that the others don’t use, but there is something about how those skills when he applies them that create magic to watch.
Those people who go to the games regularly or watch his team on tv recognise that there is something special going on here, within the rules of the game. Those who do not follow soccer would not recognise what they are seeing, what is happening in front of them. But everyone else does: the fans, the coach, the team, management, the media.
The important thing is that he is playing within the rules, the language, that others operate within and those that watch recognise.
Is this merely consensus when it’s the very rules he operates under, those that confine him and direct him, that prove and demonstrate his skill above all others. The rules aren’t arbitrary, nor are they interpreted differently by each individual watching. If, to perform his magic, he breaks the rule then he’s immediately penalised, and everyone can see, because they know, when he breaks a rule.
People can have a mental model of an ideal for something, and people can influence each others' mental models, so that many people who spend time focusing on a particular thing have a similar ideal model in mind. And yeah, that happens moreso when it comes to sports, since there are literal rules, statistics are kept, etc.
But none of that is non-subjective re valuing or evaluating anything.
I don’t think I can, or need to, prove that these evaluations in art are non-subjective.
I haven’t seen anything to convince me otherwise that art is common only to people. If this was not true then, if it appeared that other life forms created art, then there would be grounds for believing there was an objective evaluation of art.
Though there is a problem with that, because if someone showed me an example of art being created by an animal then I could not be sure we were back to the subjective again. So I can’t see any way of proving an objective evaluation of art.
That doesn’t mean I don’t believe that there is work that is greater than work that is lesser. For some reason I do believe that, and in this post I’m trying to build an argument that I can put into a language that is beyond ‘good’, ‘bad’, ‘brilliant’, etc., all obvious and useless subjective views.
In schools in this part of the world, as a teacher, you are discouraged from teaching ‘creativity’ in art classes on the basis that if you can’t assess it then you can teach it. If a parent comes to you, concerned that their child got low marks in creativity, how are you going to explain to them why they don’t have it?
Creativity shouldn’t be confused with expression, which is what children do with paint.
So I’m looking for a set of rules, a language, that’s understood and agreed upon to move a bit further up the curve, closer to that line we cross into art. Sport is very easy, as you say. My example of writing still holds, I think. And not because sophistication is indicated by the number of words as you suggest but by the control over those words.
Art is man made, so of course any evaluation is subjective. That’s doesn’t preclude us from understanding and appreciating what we might regard, or construct, as more valuable in terms of art. Somewhere I believe there is a way of determining this in a rational way, as opposed to the way Schzophr regards it.
This is probably based on the comment of Duchamp. It has some merit, but it only leads us to ask “What is an artist?”
How do we trust the artist, how do we know he’s being honest and not just playing a game?
That is not the same as saying some art is better than other art. That is clearly no the case and there are objectively measurable reasons for this due to geometric patterns and things such as ‘harmony’.
I can club a baby to death whilst screaming and farting and call it ‘art’, but I am pretty sure no sane person would regard it as ‘art’ or class it as anything other than an abomination. If I used my club in a rhythmic manner, and/or farted a tune then there would be a technical basis for calling it ‘art’.
Technical ability is part of the artistic endeavor. People reach for perfection in art they don’t abandon it; even if they claim to be reaching for the perfection of not expressing art perfectly - such talk is in the realms of the so-called ‘conceptual artist’ (not something I am inclined to regard as ‘art’ for the reasons outlined).
An artist is someone who creates art. You don't trust an artist, any more than you admire a scientist. Trust yourself to determine if you like it (the art, that is). Art can be a game too, and maybe even a deception (for artistic purposes). Art is art. Analysing art leads to misleading and misguided conclusions.
No, it isn't. We agree. :up: Art is art if the artist says it is. There is no art that is "better" than other art; there is only art. You will find that you like some art, and don't like some other art. This is the nature of you (i.e. all of us humans), art and the world.
If you shit on the floor and call it ‘art’ I ain’t gonna do more than regard you as an imbecile (unless you happen to be able to shat out some geometrically beautiful wonder.
If you take my post as “agreement” you clearly misread or have no idea how to think. Regarding any item of human experience as ‘art’ willy nilly isn’t ‘art’ it is merely to have an ‘artistic’ outlook on experience. You may as well say anything is what I choose to say it is because I say so. That is likely why you believe no art is ‘better’ or ‘worse’ even though you personally experience ‘better’ and ‘worse’ every moment of your life.
Agreed. Again. :wink: Opinion is all there is when we're judging art. Subjective truth, wholly dependent for its truth on the person who holds that it is true. As for measurement, if you're trying to measure art - aesthetically or otherwise - in order to judge it, I think you may misunderstand art. :chin:
Quoting I like sushi
I make value judgements all the time. As you say, we all do. But the words we use to express ourselves matter, especially here, in a philosophy forum. So I say it's wrong to describe art as being better or worse, because those words imply that my own conclusions have meaning and value to someone else. If they do, it's mere coincidence. What I experience every moment of my life is 'like' and 'don't like'. My opinions, not presented or offered as anything more. There is no reason to expect you to agree with my opinions, and it doesn't matter anyway. If we're offering value judgements on art, then our words reflect only our own opinions of it.
Quoting I like sushi
In the broadest sense of the word, I suppose we could agree that a value judgement is a sort of measurement. But I wouldn't use that word, as it carries many baggage concepts that don't belong (in a discussion about value judgements). Opinions aren't based on measurements. They're based on mood, feeling and emotion. And loads of other influences too. Maybe the pattern the wind blew the leaves into just before you saw the art you're judging. This is not measurement; it's just saying, what you (or I, or whoever) like.
Quoting I like sushi
And yet, if he was still with us, Salvador Dali might disagree with you. [Remembering that Dali was a renowned artist and coprophile (if I spelled that correctly).]
Have fun playing with someone else :)
Its because art is considered so subjective that we need to have this trust. If an artist is going to take us somewhere, like Picasso did with Cubism, then we have to trust that he’s doing it with some integrity (that may not be the best word), unlike the copycats who came along on his coat tails.
This is part of the problem for me. If the copycats come along, and because art is subjective that work is given as much value as the originator then it demeans the original and turns art into a commodity.
Quoting Pattern-chaser
At its most basic art, visual art for instance, can be measured aesthetically or otherwise. These are ‘The Elements and Principles of Art’: line, shape,form, colour, value, texture and space. A shape for instance is created when a line crosses itself, a shape is given form with tone.
Artists use these elements consciously and unconsciously.
Unfortunately what you’re talking about here is just consumerism, which maybe explains the state of art today.
Some people can appreciate different cultures' art on it's own terms. These people are not elitist.
You may look at this response and say, "that's art"; whether it deserves merit is down to logic.
How much effort? How skillful? Controversial?
Some items logically deserve bigger praise because expert judgement can deem it.
There is no elitism in raw judgement of art; some are better than others.
However, the way art is judged in the modern era may highlight elitism of opinion.
I would be interested to know how we might usefully and meaningfully (to humans) apply logic to the appreciation of art. :chin:
You can't measure objective (e)valuations at all, because there are none. People obviously have (e)valuative opinions, because we have psychological reactions to things, we apply our personal concepts (such as what we count as art or not), and so on.
You can measure the objective stuff in various ways, but the word aesthetic has value connotations (and other mental connotations) that can't be measured in the items in question. That stuff is about how we react to the items in question, how they affect us (or not) psychologically.
Shit in a can is not something I consider ‘art’ just because someone calls it “Conceptual Art”. I’ve made that explicit. Just because you call a banana a strawberry it doesn’t mean I have to agree. That is not to say such “Conceptual Art” is meaningless, only that I don’t class something that possesses meaning as necessarily being ‘art’.
We can disagree there no problems. If we’re talking about paintings or movies there are discernible differences in quality and just because we may have preferences and tastes we can still appreciate that quality - just like a classical pianist would appreciate death metal even though they may not find it massively appealing (they’d still likely be a better judge of the music than someone who is tone deaf and into boy bands).
You seem to be talking about taste/preference rather than quality.
I rather think that "quality" has strong associations with taste and with preference, although that is far from a definition of the word (quality). :chin:
If you think I agreed with that, you didn't understand what I was saying.
No one can be more or less right in assessing anything, or assess things "better" or "worse," than anyone else. Period.
That's regardless of how much they know about the thing in question. Because there are no facts about quality re good, bad, better , worse, etc. Period.
So that's why no one can be more of an expert than anyone else when it comes to making value judgments, evaluations, etc.
Quoting I like sushi
No. There are no factual differences in quality (in that sense where you're alluding to the relative value of one thing over another). There are factual differences in things like shapes, colors, textures, lighting, etc. None of those amount to factual differences of quality. There are no facts that x visual composition is better than y visual composition, etc.
Quoting I like sushi
What I said was that they might be more skilled in identifying the objective properties of the music--for example, they can maybe tell you that a guitarist is playing a run off of a locrian scale, that they're playing sextuplets, etc. None of that tells you anything about whether one thing versus another is better. That same thing goes for something like, "Guitarist A is playing a run off of a locrian scale, but half of his pitches are at least 20 cents off of standard tuning, and he's rushing his sextuplets, whereas guitarist B is conventionally 'on pitch' and he's right in the pocket rhythmically."--That doesn't at all amount to guitarist B being better than guitarist A. You can be an expert in identifying those differences, but they don't equate to anything being better than anything else.
If you're using "quality" to simply refer to "property," that's fine, but we need to make that clear, because when we're talking about aesthetics, "quality" conventionally has a value connotation. No one is going to read the word "quality" in an aesthetics discussion so that it refers to whether someone is playing a locrian or lydian scale.
:up:
Just being honest. Have fun, we’ll make better progress elsewhere I think. Sorry if I wasted your time (genuinely)
There's justification for it, and not only a little. Art has a purpose, and when we understand the purpose we can understand which piece of art fulfills it more.
How was art defined in this thread? Piece of art is human product with primary purpose to provide you with an impression of human experience through passive consumption (no interaction), usually through sight and/or sound.
A little exercise regarding quality of art is to think about art genres.
For example, a photograph can be an art, and so can a written story.
Is there a photograph that can give you more depth, width, impression of human experience - as a piece of art - then, for example, Chekhov's play or Dostoevsky's novel? Not only is there no such photograph, but it's impossible for there to be such photograph, since medium of photography itself is constricted (in terms of art's purpose) compared to the medium of written words.
Now, you can certainly see a photograph that can heavily tug your heart. But it's not because you are seeing art, it's because you are seeing a document - a documented picture of (sad) reality.
With that said, how much of a human experience was impressed into you through seeing Transformers movie? A certain amount, just as we can get a certain amount of nutrients from Coca-Cola. But can you find a piece of music or literature that impresses much more, much deeper and wider than that movie, or any movie for that matter? I would say absolutely yes. And if you couldn't do it now, it wouldn't be because of subjectivity, but because of lack of exposure and experience.
There are no objective purposes,
- Hey coach, why did you lose all ten games from the start of the season?
- Lose? There are no objective purposes.
- You are fired.
Which has what to do with the fact that there are no objective purposes?
- Hey man, what the f***? Why are you shitting your pants in the office? Go to the bathroom, what's wrong with you?
- To the bathroom? There are no objective purposes.
- You are fired.
If you believe that there are objective purposes and you wanted to support that, you could try to provide some evidence of objective purposes, for example. Talking about people subjectively having purposes in mind wouldn't do the trick probably (unless someone were arguing that there are no subjective purposes).
- I almost puked. I just saw a man eating his own feces, through my window.
- Eating feces? What's the problem? There are no objective purposes.
- You are fired.
Of course, you could just post stupid stuff in a very OCDish way like a jackass, too. I guess that works . . . for something.
At least I wasn't labeling you with insults.
That would be better than the anti-conversation you're having. How about putting on your big boy pants and trying to have a real conversation about this?
I guess, keep insulting away, since that's better than "anti-conversation".
Is it that you're not capable of something like a philosophical discussion about this? Maybe you don't know how to support it?
Maybe you are the one who doesn't comprehend? So you resort to insults.
Maybe. What do you believe I'm not comprehending?
Aside the fact that it's impossible to show that "There are no objective purposes" is a truth claim, I actually didn't mention "objective purposes" anywhere. So maybe the first thing you don't comprehend is how much you hijack a thread, or try to grind it to shallow waters. With nonsense nonetheless. I wouldn't be surprised if it occurs relatively regularly with you.
So if you're not claiming that there are objective purposes, and that art has one, then when you say "Art has a purpose," what you're really saying is that artists can have purposes for their art. Which is fine--they definitely can.
One problem with this, though, is that we need to be familiar with meta information. Namely, we need statements from the artist saying what the purpose of the art in question is, because the purpose in mind can be different for every artist who has a purpose, and for every work they create. An additional problem with this aspect is that we need to be able to sort out whether a stated purpose is really the purpose the artist had in mind, or whether it's not instead just positioning for the sake of marketing, or maybe it was something that's not very accurate but the artist said it because their gallery, or agent, or whatever, was pressuring them for an artist's statement, or maybe the artist see's the statement about purpose as an artwork in itself, or any number of other possibilities.
A more serious problem, though, is justifying, beyond your personal opinion (as well as those who happen to feel the same way that you do), why the artwork's relation to the (meta-stated) purpose is an important factor in judging the artwork.
Or maybe you don't understand art, among other things you don't understand, so you create a "problem" to justify your own ignorance, consciously or unconsciously. And you are so blind that you actually do it publicly.
There is a reason why we can understand who is a winner of a game, which food is healthier, and what photo better documents corresponding news article. And there is a reason why certain piece of art is better than the other. Just because it's more nuanced doesn't make it a wild west of subjectivity. But you seem to be so out of touch of many things, let alone art, that this discussion with you is probably one big "much ado for nothing".
The reasons are that we have ideals, desires, goals, etc. and we can judge whether some things meet them, no?
Eh... too broad a statement, no? One can, with irrationality and perseverance, run anywhere with it.
How would we narrow it while saying something accurate?
I'm sorry, I have seen quite inaccurate and illogical statements coming from you today, so I don't have confidence that you understand what "accurate" means. So, to answer your question - please don't.
What does me knowing what it means have to do with anything? Don't you know so that you can correct it to the narrower version that's right?
Otherwise it seems like you're stalling/diverting because you have no idea. It's like a Jr. High tactic--"Oh, I know, but I'm not going to tell you." You're supposed to be able to discuss philosophy like an intelligent adult here.
Take it however you like. Not that you have demonstrated to have a mind that can reason rationally and logically. At least not in what I have seen today. Maybe take a nap. Or just go to some other adventures.
Are you figuring that only you and I will ever read this? You don't want to reveal the answer to others who might read the thread, and thus share your wisdom with those folks?
I am always predicting: whodunnit; what happens next; sit there waiting for the hero to have his "crisis of confidence" with mind numbing regularity; and it all tends to end up with fisty-cuffs - even it the most futuristic scenarios. Boy meets girl - split up - get back together. ad nauseum
So it can be very refreshing when something different comes along. Breaking Bad, for example.
But even when remarkable TV comes along the pressures of the money-men tend to mean that they milk the thing until it runs dry and dies. Though I have not seen the latest Game of Thrones I am given to understand that it is complete rubbish.
As for so-called "high brow"...
The more Shakespeare I see the more I love it. Beethoven is peerless. Yes until the the early 1980; Led Zeppelin; Pink Floyd; are unsurpassed in their genres.
If you don't like that stuff it might not mean you are less for it, but there is no doubt that some criteria can be use to determine that some music and drama is better than others.
I made my contribution in previous page, to the OP. Am looking forward to replies from people with whom it's possible to reason with. Que sera, sera.
Okay, but folks might be curious re your comment that "The reasons are that we have ideals, desires, goals, etc. and we can judge whether some things meet them" is too broad, and they might want to know how you'd narrow it. I guess they'll never know. It's a big secret.
Well, folks certainly have a mouth to voice what they want. I don't know how far off am I to guess that for most people here, if you were to be their mouthpiece in life, they would be in trouble. Maybe end up prematurely dead, even.
I'd tell people to talk (and think) for themselves . . .unless they have big secrets they don't want to reveal, I suppose.
Atta boy, let them!
As @Brett was paraphrasing the OP, maybe I can help (probably not, haha). I would say that use of the word "nuance" strongly hints at an elitist perspective. It really becomes a problem in education. If a student is graded down for their "lack of nuance" that is a problem (whether we are grading recognition of nuance or including it in one's own writing). That would be like getting a bad grade in physical education because you can't do 100 push-ups in 2 minutes or run a 5 minute mile. You are grading/teaching something that should be viewed as largely a natural talent. Can I teach someone to play soccer? Of course. Can I teach someone to be a pro soccer player? Not unless they have a lot of natural talent (and, in fact, if they are largely uncoordinated and not huge fans of the sport, then we are just torturing everyone involved).
Nuance reminds me of the french phrase, je ne sais quoi (I don't know what). To me, when someone applauds nuance, they are actually saying, "I like it, but I can't express exactly why". Well if you can't say why, then are you sure it is so great? (the "I"s and "you"s that I have used here are just figures of speech, I am not trying to directly tie these ideas to @I like sushi - more a summary of past conversations I have had)
If "nuance" is beyond most people for most subjects, and you think "nuance" is a required aspect of creating or even enjoying "high art", then I think you have defined it as elitist. I have not said whether that elitism is always good or bad (only "elite" soccer player get to go pro, and yet I like soccer).
Well thanks for reading :smile: I think you summarized my position fairly well, but may have missed one point I made that may solve our disagreement (I think you have already seen that our disagreement is much smaller than the way many people are disagreeing with my stance).
Somewhere in the last 17 pages (I do not expect you to go back and read, haha), I mentioned that I would like to see around 10-20% of high school (secondary school if you are not from USA) literature taught using movies. Notice that does not quite suggest I view film as a better tool. I just think that film IS an available tool that is typically ignored because it is viewed as "lesser". Films are "lesser" when it comes to teaching grammar and literacy. Films are in no way lesser when it comes to teaching moral lessons or universal truths...why would they be? Films are also not lesser when it comes to teaching many of the literary devices - symbolism is expressed just as well, if not better in a visual medium; on the other imagery is handled so differently in films that it is almost unrelated to imagery in books. Things like metaphor, simile, personification, irony, allusion, etc can all easily be taught using films along with a pause button.
I get the sense that you were thinking I want to replace half of all literature with films. If I only want to replace 10-20% of literature (including scripts, plays, etc) with films, does that seem more acceptable? If not, is there any percent of literature that could be replaced with film? 10%? 5%? 2%? If so then we are just hashing out where to draw the line. If you think no films should ever be used because written words are a better teaching tool, then please give your reasons and I will argue with them :grin:
Your logic is unassailable. Most of your posts are reasonable even, most times, under pressure. And in the case of art and subjectivity I agree with you, even though I don’t want to.
The visual arts has been a central interest all my life and it’s difficult for me to accept that the appreciation of art is subjective, that it’s based on preferences. But there’s no way I can see of getting around it, though it’s hard to accept that some work I look at is not better than others or worse.
It’s partly because of this subjectivity that enables so many charlatans to operate and even steer or influence the course of art. Which is why it’s hard to go along with.
I’ve tried to look at this on a steady incline, where it’s still within the bounds of The Principles and Elements of art. A portrait is a good start. It has to have the basic features of a face: even at its most basic children will draw a circle with two dots or circles for eyes. Then the eyes have to resemble the subject, the nose, the mouth, and so on. These are all based on the the principles of art. So, so far it’s logical and clear what’s working and what isn’t happening, success or failure. But we’re still going up that incline. Then there might be expressions of the subject, things not fixed, but recognisable. The expressions are still formed by the principles of art.
But after that things get difficult. The artist might use colour to suggest character, or darkness, the features of the face may take second place, the portrait becomes more about the personality, or even how the painter ‘knows’ or ‘sees’ the subject.
Now we’re crossing the line, moving away from the stability and logic of the principles of art.
Picasso’s portrait of Daniel-Henry Kahnweiler crashes right through the line. Now you have to know something about Picasso, Cubism, and what Kahnweiler looks like to appreciate it. If one had an understanding of Cubism then they would see the logic applied, the principles of Cubism in action. If you didn’t have this understanding you’d regard it as the work of a moron.
So in a way art is a closed circle. People can call those inside ‘the elite’ if they want, but they have a greater appreciation of what’s happening in a painting than someone who just wants to see a Picasso and see if it’s true that he paints like a child.
This doesn’t explain much except my position.
No, I wasn’t thinking that, well I don’t think so (I can’t be bothered even going back over my own posts). Anyway, I don’t now. Like I said, if kids aren’t going to engage with books and if things are going nowhere then why not use film?
But, because students don’t want to engage with books is no reason to let them have it their way. However, if I was going to use a film for the purpose of education it wouldn’t be ‘Transformers’.
If you can clarify the "purpose" of art beyond its definition, then maybe. But you would have to justify the "purpose" using the definition, and I don't see how you can.
Quoting Henri
Close. I went with this one (first one on google): the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.
Quoting Henri
Neither of our definitions suggest how much "depth, width, or impression of human experience" is best. Why is more better? What "purpose of art" does the added depth achieve? If a photo can't be judged to be as artistically valuable as a novel, what about a painting? So, War and Peace is automatically better than the Mona Lisa? I don't get it? What definition or purpose of art would allow us to even begin to make such an assessment?
Quoting Henri
IN ALL HONESTY (capitals denote emphasis, not sarcasm), more human experience was "impressed into" me in ANY Transformers movie than was "impressed into" me by ANY Shakespeare novel. Oh, and if you tell me it is because I did not really grasp or comprehend Shakespeare, then I will just respond by saying "well everything I am saying makes perfect sense if you are smart enough to understand it" (sorry Henri, I don't mean to blame you, but I hate when that line of reasoning is used without justification).
Quoting Henri
And there it is :grin: My knowledge of Dostoyevsky is VERY limited. However, I will happily test my knowledge of Shakespeare against 98% of ALL humans on the planet (I have to teach it).
Maybe, just maybe, it is possible to be of average or even above-average intellect, and not like all of the classics? And maybe, such a person would find more value in artworks that have not historically been highly valued. Crazy, I know, but if such a person exists, there is nothing in the definition of art to suggest that they are wrong...unless you see something I don't?
I should add that there are many closed circles, some big, some small. They’re closed only in the sense that you get it or you don’t. Some get William Burroughs, some don’t, some get Harold Pinter, some don’t, some get Van Gogh, some don’t, I never have. But I accept the love others have for him. ‘Transformers’, nah.
yes, giving kids a little bit of film does not mean they get a pass on reading. And I really picked Transformers because I know people view it as crap for teens, but I don't hate it (certainly like it more than Shakespeare). But I could teach the concept of "symbolism" just as well using a Transformers movie, and many other concepts as well (many literary devices do not actually require literature). Aside from concepts that require a written medium, please list everything you can think of that one could learn from Shakespeare, that cannot be learned from a Transformers movie. Careful, it is trickier than one might think. Maybe start with, what important lessons have you learned from Shakespeare?
Quoting Brett
indeed, ALL art is subject to interpretation and perspective. except Transformers apparently, which is just crap :roll:
I’m not disagreeing. When I said ‘nah’ I’m just being flippant. It’s how we elites roll.
Promoting friendship loyalty and goodwill is not crap. It doesn't require alien life that somehow comes in the form of our car designs, but none the less...
Crap overstates the case.
Piece of art, generally speaking, is one of the, if not the most intricate product human makes, which communicates to the mind of another human with the purpose to impress a human experience. So we have highly complex variables in the mix. If you don't appreciate the intricacy of the product itself, generally speaking, there's not much to be said really.
You could also understand that since art is highly intricate product, one we don't know how to empirically directly measure for quality, a list of "historically valued art" is an approximation mixed with politics and other additional factors, and as such certainly questionable.
But that still doesn't change the fact that one piece of art is better than the other.
You can be brought up with store bought frozen pizzas, and that's what your palate will be trained for and will know. That doesn't mean pizzas cannot be ranked from worst to best, or that fresh pizza makers are snobs. It just means your palate is living in poverty.
elitists, but with a different taste, at the very least.
Quoting ZhouBoTongI'm pretty radical when it comes to education, so I dislike forcing anyone to learn certain things or pushing aesthetic issues - and I think this even backfires. I've had to overcome resistence to certain classics because they were forced on me. So the dynamic I can be critical of also, but here's a difference between Michael Bay and, say, The Brother's Karamazov.
The former work can entertain, and heck you might even learn something about fathers or nobleness or whatever. But there is a limit to what you can learn. From a work like dostoyevsky's there are actions parts, there is a kind of thriller or mystery AND there is a whole wealth of other stuff. Michael Bay films don't have much new to offer over the previous Michael Bay or some other skilled but shallow director (shallow at least to the extent he is a director, he might be the deepest guy in the world other wise.) I can't see any point to choosing to show children a Michael Bay film. They will find that stuff on their own. Many of the classic works continue to give you something the more you dive into it. Dive into Michael Bay and you reach pixels. Classic works, most of them, changed the range of ways we can think about life, ourselves, relationships, meaning and more. And these options got sucked up directly and indirectly by the culture. They increase possibilities and insights. Amazingly, they can often still do this even centuries later. Transformers is not offering anything new.
Which does not mean I am against Bay films. I love and enjoy all sorts of media and from what some would call low to high art. But from the latter I often can get things beyond the enjoyment and it can be worth the struggle. And the skills used to get more are useful in other contexts. I am sure I could come up with a way to base a lesson on Transformers, though I might as well use Homer. But the possibility that students would turn to more challenging works in their lives and have the tools to do this well, makes many of the classics much better choices. This is all done in a fucked up manner by most schools, but I get why they choose certain works and not others. Because they offer more.
Bay's got nothing (that he is showing through his films) that shows he has a deeper understanding of anything related to human relations, psychology, the nature of the world, what the good is, how to come fully alive, whatever. He's not in Kubrick's league, let alone Shakespeare.
Why not learn from the best?
Surely art is presented to you (to us) by the artist, and we like it or we don't. I can imagine that, sometimes, the artist might pass along some idea of her intention, but is this really necessary? Do you need art to be explained to you before you will like it, or to persuade you (how? :chin: ) to like it? Are we so unsure of ourselves we need to be told what art is intended to convey before we can ... discover what it conveys to us? :chin: Isn't the 'mystery' part of its appeal?
I was saying you need that if you want to know the purpose the artist had in mind, if any, for the art. You can't glean the purpose from the art itself.
I don't personally think one needs to know the purpose, and I don't personally evaluate any art relative to the artist's purpose (I more or less buy the tenets of "the intentional fallacy").
If I really like someone's work, I will be interested in some of the background info, but just as general curiosity about something I like a lot.
Elitism isn't about judgments per se--it's not about liking/disliking things, or what specific things one likes or dislikes. Elitism is about one's attitude and beliefs about those judgments and the people who make judgments. Elitists think that there are right and wrong judgments, they think that people who make right judgments are superior to people who make wrong judgments, they think that there's something deficient or flawed with people who make wrong judgments, and they have a lot of attitude about all of this.
This is where things begin to diverge a little, or a lot. If someone is looking at Picasso’s ‘Ma Jolie’ without any idea of what’s going on then they’re going to be mystified and maybe just turn away. Others may like just the appearance of it without understanding. Sometimes things do need explaining, probably every new art movement needs explaining. So it’s not just about liking something. The artists has a purpose, an intent and a challenge. Just looking at it as an appealing object is far removed from what the artist had in mind.
I might add to that, that if the artist had no purpose or intent then what are they doing, what does their art represent, why is it there and why should it be valued above others?
They days, usually because the people who were commissioned to make it are related to politicians. Most frequently, spouses of city officials.
Which is an interesting point. The use of the word elite in these posts is beginning to get very general and broad. But in your case I would regard them as part of the elite. I’d like to refine this use of the word ‘elite’, mainly because my question is going to be: if there is a group of people who understand art more than others, let’s call them the ones inside the movement, then why shouldn’t their opinions have precedent over the general appreciation and understanding of that work? If you are conscious and understanding of Cubism then why shouldn’t your opinions be taught over the general ideas of personal preference?
My assessment was correct. There is no common ground for us based in your use of the term ‘factual’. This will hopefully become apparent elsewhere (certainly not in this thread because I’ve no intention of engaging with you on this topic anymore.)
Anyway, you make points in other threads I can get on board with so let’s leave it at that for now.
Thanks. See ya arroooond! :)
by Henri
Some say a piece of art is but a fart,
Transformers save the universe,
And Hamlet only dies, not smart,
Where is the might? Who is real bard?
O art, thy heart, so full of surprise
I’m sure there’s a moral in there somewhere.
I'd say why you should value art is because you like it as art, for its (more or less) formal properties. (I only say "more or less" there because content (what's depicted in visual art, the story in fiction, etc.) will have something to do with it, too.)
If artists' purposes include things like, "I want to write some music that moves me because of its formal properties--the way the pitches and rhythms etc. work together, or the way these shapes and textures etc. work together" or "I need to put out a new album before going on tour" etc., then I'd say that there's probably little work that doesn't have a purpose behind it, but I don't know if you'd include those sorts of things. At any rate, the problems with knowing an artist's intentions, the purposes they had in mind, remain.
And I preceded that with looking down on people for their tastes. I also asked if that was the case. Did you look down on those with certain tastes in the arts? Do you think certain art is not good? You took one piece, without the context that makes that question precisely about how one views one's likes and dislikes as better than other people? If I had said if you like some art more than other art than you are elitists, your response would make sense.
Again, I don't think that the word is proper language.
Art is not just man made, all animals have their arts, and as I've suggested our universe may have compulsory art.
I think it would be better designed as creativity grading of subject. So you would say to a painting, because you enjoyed it or because it was skillful, that is art; it gives people the right to say that it's is not art but an attempt.
That forever essence about life, that it's seemingly endless like a lens unto the unknown. That's an artistic process; a special art.
We have looks, we have beauty, perhaps this is more evidence that the universe is somewhat artistic.
It's not toon, per say, it's it's art.
I could go on...
No it isn't. What are you claiming the difference is?
I especially enjoy African goose special haiku. Marabou storks are up there too. But man, even masters like Taneda or Samukawa don't hold a candle to what male African goose can produce while in heat. But that's my opinion.
If you say you like something that's about what happens when you experience it.
If someone says Hamlet is bad or good, well, that could lead to a discussion of the play and someone could argue against that evaluation.
If you dislike something I can't argue that you do. And certainly not with a stranger. Because you know if you like it or not.
Some people might mistakenly believe that's what they're doing, but there are no objective qualities in that vein. Saying that something is good is really a result of liking it (at least liking the aspects that one feels are good). Thinking that "That is good" is attributing properties to the item in question is simply an example of psychological projection.
She comes east almost every year...and we meet and talk...almost always in one of The Big Apple's museums. Tomorrow will be at a favorite of ours...the Met. I'll stand in a room with the works of Van Gogh and be moved close to tears to be that near to the great man. I'll see some works of Rembrant, Rubin, Fra Angelico, Breugel the Elder, and so many others.
I'll be in heaven. Truly.
I care not whether others even like the paintings and sculptures I adore. I'll just be near them and feel something I cannot describe.
Hope all of you people have a great day, too.
I was responding to someone who did not like being judged for his tastes. I asked him or her to see if....I repeat IF....IF they too judged other people for considering some things good that do not seem so to him or her.
He was taking the stance, similar to yours, that really its just a taste issue. I asked a question....
a question...
to see if somewhere in there he also had an objective set of aesthetic values also. That he or she might find that he judges people wrong for liking this or that piece of modern art or speed metal or someone nailing themselves to a volvo as performance art. That while he/she focuses on being judged, perhaps he also things some things just plain are bad or good.
He or she may not. But it was, again, a question.
Perhaps he/she (and perhaps you) never do this, never react to other people's choices and think 'but that is shit, that's bad'. Fine. That person can say that. You can say that.
If you met a romantic partner and she or he loved telly tubbies as art. Maybe you would just think, hm, I don't like that stuff, she/he does. Perhaps you might think woh, that's weird, that stuff is not good, not for adults anyway. It's worth exploring I think.
But sure, you might never think that anyone is wrong. That it is all taste. That's a pretty strong philosophical position, much like the one that says there are not objective values.
But note the context of his or her post that I responded to. Even if it is true that it is all taste, there still might be reasons to teach children certain classive works rather than showing them Michal Bay films.
Plenty of people think that. They're wrong. There's no (ontological) difference between "That is good" and "I like that."
Quoting Coben
Right, it's part of there being no objective values (which is correct--there are no objective values).
You can't "get wrong" liking or disliking anything.
Quoting Coben
Sure, there are subjective reasons that we stress some things rather than others (where what's stressed isn't uniform). For one, it's not unusual to want the sort of stuff we prefer to be preferred by others, too, because that increases the chances that there will be more material in that vein.
What arts?
Can you be sure you’re not applying your subjective opinion on what art is, that what you recognise as art is just yourself applying our concept of art to something that happens outside of human activity?
To know that animals produce art you would have to prove they’re doing it as a conscious act.
Beyond that interpretive imagination to form the associations required to understand the meanings and significances of the characters, things, places and events in both cases, so overall it seems obvious that more use of the imagination would be required in the case of a novel than would be required with its film equivalent. (Of course the amount of imaginative activity required to engage with a work also depends on the degree of subtly and nuance in it, so when it comes to comparing films and novels, so I am assuming an equal degree of each for the purpose of comparison)
While I wish your post convinced everyone I myself still see a problem.
Someone might read a book and take no more from it than they might from a film. There are books that do no more than that, so basic and rudimentary is the narrative and characters.
The idea of interpretive imagination to understand the meaning of the text is still subject to whoever is reading it: some may bring more to the reading than others, some may have less experience to apply to the reading, some may interpret it from their cultural background. So how can we agree on the degree of nuance and subtlety?
Because anything can be said to be art then anyone can be an artist, and so the world is flooded with ‘art’ that is meaningless and flourishes in a world of personal preference. Consequently anyone’s opinion about art is also valid.
Can this really be all that art ever was, or has it become this?
Though there are other factors at work in a film, like emotion for instance. And some films are very complex, much more so than ‘Transformer’. Which is the problem I have with ‘Transformers’. It does have a moral to it as Zhoubotong insists, just like ‘Macbeth’, but it’s extremely simplistic and doesn’t require much from the viewer. But then maybe it’s universal because of that simplicity and therefore reaches a greater audience that responds to those values, which is good, I guess.
I have tried to raise that point myself, but I still find it hard to break through the subjective argument posts.
That's true, and the more emotionally engaging a film or book is the more associationally or imaginationally rich it will be. Indeed it would seem that a book wiil require more imagination to elicit an equivalent emotional response since the emotions are not directly shown in the faces or behavior of the actors as they are (ideally) in films, but are merely described or evoked.
And since it is arguably easier, that is requires less imagination, to respond with empathy via directly witnessing a character's emotion (even if simulated as it is may be in films) than it is to respond with empathy to descriptions or evocations of a character's emotion.
So it begs the question: would ‘Transformers’ as a book or script be able to compete with another novel: ‘The Thin Red Line’ for instance? Probably not. As you say, like must be compared with like.
But your argument is that the novel is superior to film. Interestingly, I have seen the film ‘The Thin Red Line’ and thought it a great film. But I then later read the book and it gave me a lot more information about the characters than the film was able to do and I now see those characters in the film with a lot more depth. So I can’t help but feel that the novel can be superior to film. On the other hand Ingmar Bergman wrote his scripts specifically for film, because he felt the image was the most powerful way to tell the story.
I’ve just had a thought about this. Was it the demands on my imagination that gave me more insight into the TTRL book or the skill of the writer that elicited them?
Does this mean, then, that
1: art is a one of the great mysteries of man, or
2: it exists outside of us, which would mean there is an objective truth to it.
Does belief in one’s own genius trump genius itself? Can believing one is a genius enough make one a genius? A genius can only be recognised for producing work that rouses those of better judgement.
The naivety of saying “art is above judgement” and holding to some romantic and noble notion of “art” is childish and vapid at best - at worst we’re talking about the actual self destruction of the human spirit to strive to be better rather than to abscond cloyingly to the petticoats of some comforting mother whom wishes only to end your life to ‘protect’ you from pain ... join a monastic order instead and save your drivel for the silent corridors of your minds.
To paraphrase a madman:
“Humanities biggest mistake is to set an obtainable ideal.”
I like that and I like the word genius. And I’d like to believe that there is the work of genius, then there is the work of also rans.
So let’s ignore the also rans, let’s consider the geniuses.
“Bay has responded to his critics, saying "I make movies for teenage boys. Oh, dear, what a crime."[77] Besides being accused of making films that pander to a low demographic, critics and audiences have been critical of elements of Bay's filmmaking style such as the overuse of Dutch angles, rapid cutting, and cliché camerawork.” Wikipedia.
Great observations.
Books are just sets of marks on paper. Films are just sets of shapes, colors and sounds. To understand either, you need to think about what you're seeing, you need to supply semantic content, you need to fill in/imagine things that you're not told/shown, etc.
Trying to quantify which requires "more imagination" is a ridiculous notion in my view. Not only because the very idea of quantification is not well-defined here, but because every experience is going to be unique--each book, film, and person, on each occasion, is going to be different.
That's one of the very few films I've ever been tempted to walk out of. I hate Malick.
By what criteria?
I agree with a lot of what @Janus has written, so I won't repeat. I have also come to conclusion that because of the nature of what art is, some art forms are just limited in format, regardless of how skilled the artist is.
Art communicates something that's beyond it's physical state. To simplify things let's say that art communicates to our imagination. Well, some art formats present too much direct obvious information which doesn't allow our imagination to work much. Like movie, even more so, photograph. The thing is given to you on a plate. A face, a color, a shade, an angle, a move, a speed, a sound.
That's why a lot of movies move you superficially, as many have experienced, having a great time in cinema and then walking out and forgetting what you were seeing just 15 minutes before. Your mind just didn't work much to get it, and it's out of it. Like what a candy, empty calories, does.
But when you read a novel, you are creating along with it, you are working with it much more. So the experience is much more ingrained in you, deeper, richer. Better.
Of course, there are degrees of quality in any art form. Great movie is better than bad novel. But I would say that great movie cannot be better than great novel, simply due to format constraints.
That's why music is so powerful as an art form, too. It's abstract yet relatable. Our minds have no option but to work with it.
With any art form, a great artist is able to create a product that can dance with your mind in a way to extract the most "imaginative work" out of you, so you get the most ingrained experience. Both artist and you are humans, both of you bleed, dream and die. What best artists are able to do, in a way, is to get closest to the core of what human is within their piece of work, making a piece which ends up communicating with your mind, through your imagination, like a glove to a hand.
Now, as Janus mentions in one of the posts, it's a feedback system of sorts. It is not only about the piece of art, but about your mind that works with it. It does take a certain exposure, certain "training" or "getting used to", certain experience, to be able to receive the art the most. Especially the greatest art, since there's greatest intricacy in it. Probably even an attitude of humbleness to receive is needed. But it's not about intelligence, as I see it.
If you were to read something for just 90-100 minutes, say, and then not read it again, or if you were to listen to a piece of music just once and not listen to it again, and especially if you were to do this regularly, do you think you'd remember the reading or music long-term any better than you remember films you just watch once?
There's not a right answer there--it's going to depend on how your individual mind works, but I'm just curious what your answer would be.
I am not interested much in a dialog with you, really... How your memory works is not important factor in this discussion. The experience itself is richer, as you are experiencing it. The example of a movie in a cinema you forget 15 minutes later is about a consequence of having a shallow experience itself.
I don’t care for it ... if my judgement bad? If so you’re in the awkward position of denying judgement as being good or bad whilst insisting it is good or bad. You be the judge :)
So were you just saying that each individual might prefer some people as judges, where different individuals might prefer different people?
So literally you might watch a film and forget it 15 minutes later?
? During the movie, what you got is shallow experience, and after the movie, you remember the thing nominally, but it's as if you didn't even watch it, it's inconsequential. That's the meaning of "forget a movie 15 minutes later".
You're saying it's not important to you 15 minutes later then? Not that you literally can't recall it?
A ruleset I think is: how much skill does the artist have based on his/her work scaled.with how much work was done, is it new? This would constitute to whether a good judge might consider it a good experience, not a minority because the majority is the only real judge of art appeal.
Art is truly a competition of things who want to showcase their artwork. In Martial Art you can win or lose, in Art, it is the same.
How would you suggest we quantify skill?
In arts, aptitude with chosen tool. A good singer is able to hold notes for longer or hit higher or lower pitches; is noteworthy skill (aptitude of vocals). In a painting, it's aptitude of brush, which is directly, 'stroke'. Paintings are greater the greater, or sometimes luckier, one's stroke is. This requires careful observation.
Some arts may be lucky splashes of paint on paper because it has new style about it; but in asking the artist to redo the picture he/she may become stuck. This makes the artist lucky but his/her art may become popular.
One thing I wanted to clarify is if you were looking to correlate it to effort, work put in, etc. So I suppose not?
Aside from that, do you think that music, say, is better if it has a wider pitch range (in a vocal part, say)?
From an artificially de-lifed perspective books may be thought of as "just marks on paper, etc.", but that is not our ordinary experience. This kind of attenuated view of things is always abstracted from lived experience, so it is secondary and derivative. It is the one-dimensional machine man who claims this view is somehow the one and only truth of things.
It's weird that you'd not understand what I wrote contextually. The whole point of the first part is that a book qua a book (not qua our experience of a book--because that's different than what a book is), is just marks on paper (and likewise with films). The reason to point that out is to stress the second part--"To understand either, you need to think about what you're seeing, you need to supply semantic content, you need to fill in/imagine things that you're not told/shown, etc."
It's the same deal for both.
What would be some examples of music that you think is some of the best because of an extended pitch range?
Try this song I think is good:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TlV1TkA2S3E
Wouldn't you think that someone like Mike Patton is better, then? He has a wider vocal range than Whitney and Elton. He's the singer on the album below, for example:
So you're not actually equating increased range with better singing then.
People can only have better judgment in the sense of us preferring their judgment though, right?
What about descriptions including relations, character's thoughts, other connections between things (such as how they're related implicationally, plotwise, etc.), why we're being shown what we are, etc.?
Seriously Patton has a wider range than Elton and Whitney.
Are you suggesting we get lost in music rather than interpret it for what it is?
Call it my eye of perfection but some art is greater.
If someone thinks death metal is just noise then maybe they should look into why others find it attractive if they are really passionate about music. Appreciation doesn’t mean we have to adore something.
Note: Disco Volante is one of my fav albums of all time. That doesn’t mean you or I have better taste, but I assume we’re at least both open to people in music who push the boundaries - or simply perverse.
Just checked and this article confirms it : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Patton
another song.
He is I think the best known artist.
Let's not forget lyrical genius. Style of voice (controversial, new, unqiue, fun?), and centralization.
Though I say the song is only good at the start here not like no others.
That also means that the mumbling of an old man in a gallery looking at Picasso’s Ma Jolie is as valid as a critics view of a painting or book , and vice versa. Each is entitled and each must be treated as having equal value.
If this is the case with art, then what is art? If it’s not necessarily about techniques, knowledge, ideas and concepts, or emotion, if none of these make it art then what are we left with to call it art? What can we say the artists are actually doing?
What could be the common ground to all these responses? Then apply that to music and dance. Then is it reasonable for a football player to be called an artist, and if so what is he doing for people to call him that?
It could be about expression, but expression of what, of beauty, grace? If so then what is the ape expressing?
In the end is it true that the observer makes it art just by acknowledging it? So the artist doesn’t really exist because anything can be art and anything be an artist.
Rails highlight the elitism of transport.
I like Faith No More and Patton okay, but I'm not a very big fan. I was just making a point about the criteria being suggested.
Well, those are things that have to be imagined when you watch films that books usually force-feed to you.
And transport highlights the elitism of space.
With space highlighting the elitism of speed.
I always suspected there was something snobby about speed.
No worries there. For those who genuinely enjoy that stuff, more power to them. And while staring at vomit may have few fans, we know a lot of people like soap operas. So even if I think they are crap, I cannot dismiss their artistic value. To be fair, even the few people who like staring at vomit for the emotions it causes, suggest some value to that art. It is just such a small percent that I would not suggest using it to teach.
Quoting Coben
There is. But if my goal is to teach, say, the concept of symbolism, Transformers might be a better teaching tool. Notice in Transformers the symbols slap you across the face, whereas in most novels they are so subtle that it might take 3 readings to actually understand the symbols. What is being taught by Brother's Karamazov that you think is so important? Wouldn't there be a more direct way to teach that concept if it was really important? Literature uses subtlety and nuance to dance around relatively simple ideas and make them feel significant and complex. It gives us a way to experience emotions and consider our responses in situations that we are unlikely to ever encounter. If we want to learn an actual concept, there will be a more direct way.
Quoting Coben
And yet, the better I understand Shakespeare, the more I am convinced the stories are not all that great, and don't teach much of value (I can admit that I do not know exactly how much his stories have influenced history and society over the last few centuries - to the point that his ideas have become redundant...but they do not teach anything of value to a modern reader). Also, many people will find similar depth in movies.
Quoting Coben
Hopefully we have a REASON for whatever we are teaching. Hopefully, Transformers, or Hamlet, or War and Peace, are being taught because they can TEACH something? I am not selecting these things because "students should be exposed to 'X'". That is the elitist attitude I am talking about. If 'X' has value, then we should be able to clearly state its value. If it is just traditional, we can throw it out.
Quoting Coben
I obviously don't really get this (or I do, but feel the effect is tiny, where as you seem to be implying a large noticeable effect). Let's keep this simple (for my sake). How does Romeo and Juliet do the above? Wouldn't a modern reader have very little change in "the range of ways we can think about life, ourselves, relationships, meaning and more" after reading the story?
Quoting Coben
I did acknowledge this somewhat.
Quoting Coben
I have already asked for specific examples, so those would help me to buy this argument as well.
Quoting Coben
Neither is Shakespeare anymore! Whether or not those ideas were original centuries ago, they just come across as saying nothing of value. To give an example with a slight subject change, picture any book about the holocaust (I am thinking of "Night" by Ellie Wiesel). What is learned? "The holocaust was bad and it would have sucked to be in a death camp. People will still struggle to survive and even make the best of a bad situation." Now if I was 6 when I read that, maybe I learned something. By the time I am 10 years old, it is a bit redundant. MOST literature (and movies) feels that way to me. The art is for entertainment. Sometimes entertainment makes boring concepts interesting. But if we REALLY want to learn a concept, art is not the best way.
Quoting Coben
It seems obvious that most adults (I think 90%, but we can hopefully agree 51%+) do not read much at all, and if they do, it is usually not the classics. I am in America. Is this wrong in the rest of the world? I don't know anyone besides English teachers that have read Shakespeare since high school. I am sure in the world of college professors, everyone reads Shakespeare for fun. But the other 99.7% of the population doesn't seem to get much out of it.
Quoting Coben
I am obviously unconvinced that Kubrick and Shakespeare are teaching anything more of value in these areas. i would appreciate specifics.
Quoting Coben
We must first identify exactly what we are trying to learn. Then we can begin to make assumptions about who or what is the best method. Notice, that I would generally say there is a better way to "learn" rather than literature or movies. These things expose us to ideas that may encourage us to go out and do some actual learning.
Doesn't this just lead to the conclusion that the more figurative the art, the better? It also sounds like empty space would be the ultimate artistic expression as the viewer would have to engage their imagination 100% to get anything out of the artwork.
Quoting Janus
Might film "engage" the audience in ways that literature does not?
I am still waiting for an example of one of the incredible insights anyone has had from reading literature? I am still baffled by the suggestion that "insight" regularly occurs. The bar for "insight" seems to be set rather low.
Notice if we say that "X" novel teaches that power corrupts. Well that can't be insight because we already knew that. I understand that some of these novels contain ideas that USED TO BE clever and insightful. But they are just universal truths (I am using "universal truths" as an English teacher would, not a as a philosophy professor would) at this point.
I don't see why you would say that. I haven't been arguing that literature is somehow "greater" than film, just that it requires more imagination by virtue of the fact that in the case of literature you are being presented with descriptions rather than images. In other words we don't have to do the 'imaging' (which is the function of image-ination) when it comes to what is visually presented to us.
I also am not seeing the point about empty space being the "ultimate artistic expression" because there would be nothing there to engage the imagination.
Of course film engages the audience, the emotions and even the imagination in ways that literature does not, and vice versa.
I want to persevere with this point in relation to elitism and what exactly elitism is.
If art is subjective, and therefor it’s true that art is an agreement between artist and audience, and I don’t see how it can be anything else, then each audience is going to gave an opinion not just about the artist and art they form this agreement with but with work they judge as lesser or not art at all. Each agreement has its own particular preferences, it might be about colour, beauty, technique, imagination, symbolism and Cubism in the visual arts and other preferences in text work.
If this is true then how can anyone even call one of these preferences and its opinion ‘elitist’? It’s merely a preference, but by the audience it’s the real and only thing, naturally. So fans of Shakespeare regard him as a genius with text, timeless, etc., no less than fans of Michael Bay regard him as a genius, and they have their own relative ideas of what is inferior.
So in that sense every group of fans/supporters/audience are elitist.
For everything shown in a film, a description must be imagined.
Those called “elitist” thrive on being wrong whilst those that don’t ...
Art is not about extracting (intellectual) insights. I guess you do mean insight as an intellectual, logical, deduction. A thought of wisdom of sorts. A moral. Reading a novel is not about extracting an insight, just as having a baby is not about extracting an insight, for example. You could get an insight from a novel, but you could also read a novel to learn a language. That doesn't mean the novel is a language-learning aid. It just means you are using it as such, by skimming a surface from the whole.
While we're at it, I could also use a novel to level a desk, by putting it under one of the desk's legs. And I am still waiting for an example where a DVD with a movie is a sturdier leveler for my desk than the hardcover, 200-page novel.
No picturing of what's described in a book is required, either.
Why would we be framing this in terms of requirements, by the way?
When I read a novel I do visualize the events, characters and places described. If you don't or cannot so this, then I can only conclude that you are reading the wrong novels or that you lack a vivid imagination. Judging from your general philosophical disposition as it is demonstrated in your posts, I would be inclined to opt for the latter explanation. You generally come across as a one-dimensional thinker.
For many people, when they watch films, they do imagine descriptions of what they're shown. If you don't or cannot do this, perhaps you lack a vivid imagination. (I wouldn't say that anything is a "wrong" film or novel.)
Can you cement the distinction you're making?
So the distinction between imagination and thought that you're making is?
Wow. You can't even handle the most rudimentary aspects of forwarding a position. You're forwarding an argument based on a putative distinction between imagination and thought, where picturing something described supposedly counts as one, and describing something pictured counts as the other. To support that argument, you need to be explicit about what the supposed distinction is. So what are the details of the distinction you're claiming?
So are you saying that imagination is only visualization? So you'd say that music involves no imagination? Does devising personality traits, dialogue,.etc. for characters when writing fiction involve no imagination?
You want it all, but you can't have it...
The distinction was between the imaginative effort required for novels that is not required for films/movies...
Denying that is foolish.
Imagination is thought, but not all thought is imaginative.
Of course the writing of fiction, since it characteristically does not consist merely in descriptions of witnessed as opposed to imagined events involves imagination. You keep trying to change the subject; that's why so many seem to find conversing with you so frustrating.
I do and I can't. :cry:
I visit The Met often...and never fail to spend time in the Impressionist/post impressionist area to view the paintings of my personal favorite, Vincent Van Gogh.
He only sold one painting in his lifetime...and for all practical purposes, died a failure. Yet today, a painting of his (there are over 800) would sell for millions. One sold for $66 million a few years back.
Price is not the final indicator of beauty, but I look at a Van Gogh and damn near always come close to tears at what I see...and think about the man and his art.
Just some commentary I think belongs in this thread.
What are you trying to say in relation to this thread?
Those who view Shakespeare as a great writer of plays displaying ideas of morality, human nature, conflict or right and wrong, are behaving exactly the same as those who believe Michael is a great director portraying the same ideas, or Saul Bellow or Bergman or Joyce or Tennessee Williams.
Even if we believe the Shakespearean supporters are doing it out of some idea of belonging, glamour, class or sense of superiority, that is their reason, that is the basis for their preference; somehow for some reason they get something from it. It may be unfair that millions are poured into Shakespeare and very little goes to some smaller play that lasts a few months then disappears, but that’s the breaks that goes with artists and their audience.
Maybe Shakespeare is propped up artificially, but no more than a piece of performance art put on at a gallery that can’t actually be sold and taken home, that only appears because the gallery paid the performer to do it and sold some other work as a result from the publicity or the cache the work generates for the gallery.
So all work exists and survives according to its audience. So yes, art is the opinion of elitist groups.
How and why it should find its way into education is another matter? Outside of school people can act on their preference by choosing or ignoring a book or film. Inside of school the work is pressed on them by those who chose the curriculum. Actually, that’s not necessarily the case, the teacher is allowed to chose an artist or writer that he/she can use to work within the demands of the curriculum.
What do you suppose I was trying to say in relation to this thread?
And such referring to “imagining” versus films and novels. There are studies that look at these things and how they differ.
You can look or not. Doesn’t bother me.
Well you said you liked Van Gogh, but I couldn’t make any connection after that.
So "imagination" is "something, not necessarily visualization, that doesn't involve 'linguistically-mediated conceptual thought'."
What's the "something?" And insofar as one might think of what one is doing musically linguistically--for example, "I'm playing a whole tone scale-based pattern over a series of major seventh chords," it's not imaginative then?
Also, what does "linguistically-mediated conceptual thought" refer to where simply "language" wouldn't have sufficed?
This isn't changing the subject. Your argument hinged on a dubious claim about a distinction between imagination and thought.
The "conventional wisdom" there is what's foolish. Try doing philosophy for once instead of just being an apologist for conventional wisdom.
What's the distinction you'd make between thought and imagination? Let's see if your distinction works for the purposes Janus wants his distinction to work for.
You still haven't told me just what studies you are referring to.
That has been the only point I have been making. If you think there is something wrong with the distinctions I have made between the different kinds of thought then say what it is you think is wrong. Don't try to change the subject by claiming that I am saying there is necessarily no imagination involved in describing or making some are other equally false and unrelated assertion.
Fair enough. I just have a couple of disjointed thoughts/questions on imagination. I am not sure if I am disagreeing with you, or just trying to understand your position...
I think that using less imagination on imagery, setting, etc might open up room for my imagination to delve into other areas. I think that has been part of Terrapin's point (admittedly, a small part).
And just to be sure, we can agree that sometimes an image requires more imagination to understand than words...right?
Finally, isn't visualizing verbal imagery about the simplest form of imagination possible? You just barely have to imagine anything (the "better" the author, the more vivid the description, the less I have to work to imagine the scenario). Hell, the more I read, the better I am at skimming through and ignoring character descriptions, because they matter very little to the part of the story I do care about.
Isn't..."gee, I wonder how I would feel/respond if I were in that situation" the most significant imagination that takes place with works of fiction? That would be the same, whether, poetry, prose, film, plays, or any other version of story telling.
You have definitely highlighted that "imagination" is just another word in these discussions where I suddenly realize that we all think we mean the same thing when we use the word, and yet we don't mean exactly the same thing, do we?
For me that kind of imagining is automatic. When I read a (good) novel I am immersed in the imagined world the novel evokes for me; the characters, the scenes, the events and how they all look. When I watch a film I don't need to imagine the world to the same degree; I witness the characters, the scenes and the events on the screen (of course I may still imagine what is not shown but the same will be true of what is not described in a novel). So, there just is extra imaginative work, presuming the content to be equal, for me to do when reading a book, as opposed to watching an equivalent film.
As I tend to view art as entertainment (even when we learn, the "art" made learning more fun/engaging - there is always a more direct way to learn something), I agree.
People were saying Shakespeare is better than Transformers because of what it can teach. That is why I asked for examples.
Quoting Henri
No question that a book is a better brick than a DVD. But a DVD flies farther when thrown. It also reflects light better :razz:
This was taken from your response to another post and I’m not sure if you are raising what they said to question it or because you believe it to be true.
Art could be said to be raising intellectual insights about art, could it not?
Edit: actually I would go further and say some visual art offers insights about how we see things.
Yep. No problem with that.
Quoting Brett
Outside education, I don't have a problem. We each like what we like. Additionally, outside education, art has been monetized, so I don't have to worry. People willing spend billions on Transformers movies. Much less on Shakespeare. People vote with dollars and asses in seats. But once it comes to education, we let the elites decide for us; and most of us just assume they are right (until I had to re-read Shakespeare as an adult, I assumed I just didn't get it - now I know I get it, and I like it even less).
I’m not sure this is exactly true. We’re all coming from different parts of the world here so our experiences might differ. But my experience is that the elites are not imposing their views. Though a Principal might draw the line at certain works being used in class.
Where are you seeing this, and what work are you seeing?
All opinion does is fill up one's bag with groceries. Whether you fill it with oranges or mangos, portraits or a few squiggly lines, is all the same.
What's wrong is that you're attempting an idiosyncratically gerrymandered distinction ad hoc-designed to support a dubious claim--a claim you're forwarding out of some combination of personal preference, personal dispositions and apologetics for a silly bit of conventional wisdom--where I don't believe that you'd endorse the idiosyncratically gerrymandered distinction in other contexts.
So for example, you'd have to say--given the distinction you're attempting--that devising character personality traits, as well as dialogue, characters' thoughts, etc., when writing fiction involves no imagination.
[My highlighting.] It's the emboldened bit I have a problem with. Do you think that's true? Have you any justification to offer? Yes, there are examples of man-made things to which your description applies, but I don't think we can extend that to a blanket cover of all man-made things, can we?
You could extract insight from anything, essentially. From reading a news article, having a blister on your hand, observing a toddler. And from art too, of course. But that's not what art is for. So, if one only takes some insights from art, he or she is missing on what art provides.
Maybe a metaphor would be seeing a gate of a city, but not the city itself as a whole and with all the details. You still saw something of a city, an outer gate, but you miss everything else about the city. And at the same time, the gate exists because of a city, as a sort of a consequence of building a city, not vice versa.
You think the elites don't decide how to distract and addict you? That tastes are not created? The people who create the Transformer movies are rich, powerful and have at their disposal experts in a kind of cognitive science that relates directly to addiction. And this leads to certain products being promoted and others not seeing the light of movie screens. Now of course people's tastes are involved, but these tastes have been built up by television and gaming. Fortunately some television has been moving in directions where one is both entertained and challenged, iow a richer experience. But in general people are being trained to have shorter adn shorter attention spans - the length of scenes in movies has been going down for decades, shorter and shorter - and this shortening is not based on what we as humans most enjoy. In fact its somelike like the putting of sugar and salt in all processed foods, where people's senses are dumbed down via overload and intensity. Addiction, addiction created by rich powerful people, who can hire technocrats to develop your tastes.
Being entertained is certainly a slice of what you can get through art.
But it's a very small segment out of all experiences you can get. And I would say, among the most shallow, fleeting experiences at that.
If you measure art by the level of how entertained you are, your measuring instrument is not calibrated to measure all there is, but only to measure some there is.
In that case it's baseless for you to claim that you understand art better than people who get all what art provides. You are the one that gets less, not them. It's like colorblind person arguing with people with regular sight, explaining how those more colors they (regular-sighted people) see are in fact something less, not more. Being colorblind is a reduction of capabilities, just like getting one aspect of human experiences out of art.
No, wrong again. Perhaps if you were to lay out the reasoning that you want to claim leads inexorably from what I have said to what you claim here I therefore must agree with I will be able to show you where you went wrong.
The reasoning is this: in what way is devising character personality traits, for example, thinking in terms of one of these sensory patterns: visual, aural, olfactory, tactile, proprioceptive?
The way I have described it in that sentence makes it sound much more intentional and conspiratorial than I intend. In fact, the "elite" domination of English classes is more of a status quo at this point. The fact that 4 years of English education is required when one only needs 2-3 years of math (depending on the state) shows the power of artistic elitism (even if it is an unintentional cultural force). Most of English class focuses on art. Generally speaking, art has been almost entirely eliminated from schools as frivolous. But literature and poetry are still going strong (to the point that I am required to learn more literature and poetry than biology, chemistry, physics, history, math, philosophy, etc). Why do we all just accept this?
I have no idea what you are on about.
So you think literature and poetry is more important than math, science, and history?
Quoting Henri
Well it’s possible that that’s exactly what art is for and anything else is not art.
If a painting is working within the idea of realism, where the painting reproduces the observed accurately, a landscape for instance, then what is the artist really doing? Is that painting really their experience of that landscape, just this artificial reproduction of what was before them? A photo can do that. The post-impressionists and cubists tried to show us that that’s not how we see.
The painting that looks exactly like the landscape the painter stood in front of is not what he was really seeing, that’s not how we look at things, with that passive frozen attitude. Our own sensibility and understanding are always at work as we look, so that reproduction that the artist has made, the landscape, ‘so real’, as people say, is in effect just a painted surface, it’s just something beautiful to look at.
Cubist paintings include all, or many sides, of an object, because we may not see it but we know there is another side to the bottle, or box, or guitar, and we know that we are in the same space, and we know that the object also stirs up memories and emotions at the time of painting. So the painting is the experience of the artist just as it is for us observing something.
That’s how we really see, it’s not just the appearance of things before our eyes. So art does offer intellectual insights.
Some books do this, though they may have other agendas: about memory, or how we I think and act. Some posts here have said film can’t do this as well as books can do, but I wonder if films do do it just as well, in fact so effectively that we hardly even notice it happening.
I’m not sure. It seems to me that if you do something twice then it’s no longer random, you’re applying a set of ‘rules’, or chain of events’, to make it happen again and you have to do that every time to get the same result. My mind is a bit sluggish at the moment but I can’t think of anything we do that isn’t done this way.
Well then you’re talking about entertainment. That’s different from art. ‘Transformers’ is entertainment. So is Shakespeare, or was. Now it’s an idea, of what art is. Once you begin viewing everything through the prism of entertainment then you have a few basic parameters to judge it by: dollars and asses.
So your attitude to art is very warped by your entertainment expectations. Other than that you have education: art as an instrument of instruction. So for you art is just utilitarian.
Tragedy preys on the inner desire to be villainous - a simpering disgust of disgust.
All art preys on the inept and enlivens the bold (deluded or other-wise).
We all die.
Most, if not all, die procrastinating.
If the artistic endeavor does anything noteworthy it breaks the shackles of procrastination; albeit fleetingly.
For who, artist or audience?
What would you say art is for, then? (You may have already said so but I can’t find it).
Well, if the novel takes place in a jungle village in Columbia, I have to imagine what that looks like. I have to make the images. In a film, the film shows me. I am more passive watching a film. And I tend not to use my imagination in any active way to wonder how i would feel when watching a film. When reading a book I might pause and do this. With a film I might do it after. With films I tend to just automatically identifty. This is not a problem with film, per se. I mean, I love films. It's like comparing bicycles and oranges, both of which I am fond of. Reading a short story - perhaps a more fair comparison - one I could finish in an hour and a half say, perhaps a novella, requires more work while I am experiencing it. I cocreate more. Poetry requries even more work, if it is fairly metaphorical or ambiguous. Fiction elicits, films show. Both can have subtext and symbolism and hidden deeper stuff and these can be pulled out - after for both, during with literature. But the basic process of experiencing the film is more passive. And that includes even watching with my wife, where we both yell stuff out at home, make guess and do more actively go after subtext while watching - though not if its a great film where we'd tell the other person to shut up.
It’s possible you may not be conscious of that. Film does elicit, but maybe not the films you like to watch.
Edit: I take that back having thought about it some more.
I think this could partly be why people look down on action films, they ask so little of you.
“the act or power of forming a mental image of something not present to the senses or never before wholly perceived in reality” Merriam Webster
I think this must be true, otherwise we’re not talking about imagination.
I think it might be your conception of "entertainment", as a commercial/business/profit/money/American thing, that's making art not resemble entertainment in your eyes. Art is often entertaining, often disturbing too....
That's fine that that's the case for you if it really is. The problem is that just because it's the case for you, it doesn't imply that it's the case for everyone.
There are a number of angles regarding why it may not be the case for everyone. A couple examples: one, someone could read a novel set in a jungle village in Columbia and not bother thinking about what it looks like. They could just read the words at face value and not think much about it beyond that. You might say something like "they're not reading right" if that's all they're doing, but that brings us to a second example:
It's a standard in filmmaking theory that you don't show anything, from any perspective, without there being a good reason for it. The reasons can vary, including things that are integral to plot, including foreshadowing, or they could be related to characterization, or background info, or symbolism, etc. This means that even the briefest of shots in the most "innocuous" montages are usually executed with this in mind (the standard has it that the shot should be removed otherwise), and ideally every element of every shot, including production design elements (sets, props, costumes, etc.), and including cinematography (the way the shot is framed, the angle, the lighting, the color processing, etc.), as well as just how shots are linked, the timing, etc. (editing), as well as sound (both ambient/environmental sound and music), etc. is just as it is for a reason. The reasons for these elements are not made explicit. We could be talking about something as simple as a three-second shot of an unoccupied office lobby with an automatic door opening cutting to a two-second shot of a streetlamp, say. And most directors follow this standard most of the time, even when we're talking about films that people typically call "popcorn" movies.
Viewers need to think about these things. They need to actively think, "Why am I being shown an empty office lobby with an opening automatic door and then a streetlamp?" They need to think about the style of the lobby, the lighting, the angle, the sound, the timing, etc., and the same for the streetlamp, as all of these things can factor into it. Some viewers do not do this, and for example, this is one reason that some people have trouble watching silent films. Many would say that the viewers who just passively let seemingly innocuous montage shots go by--and this stuff is still a factor even in dialogue and "action" shots-- are "not watching right."
No, they don't. We are more than capable of simply absorbing this sort of thing unconsciously, and we do it all the time. In layman's terms, I might just say we get the (right) idea by feel.
Art is for impressing on you a (human) experience through an agent. An agent is a piece of art in its raw, or direct, state - a story you read about or see on a screen or stage, notes you hear, a scene you see on a painting...
They need to do that if they want to get out of the film what the filmmakers are putting into it.
Here are three paintings with three levels of abstraction.
First is hyperrealism. It looks exactly like a photo, especially when viewed on screen. Last is full abstraction.
The limitation with last is rather evident, I think. There is a place for full-abstracted paintings, but they can take you only so far. It's too much separated from meaning, which makes it hard for us to create a connection and work with it. We can still get something from it, but the ceiling is not so high.
The first one has a problem with being seen as a document, and as such, not an art. I am not talking only about this one, but about hyperrealism in general. It would be better, of course, to see the painting live to get it's full impact. But that is especially true for the second portrait, so... Anyway, what works for the first painting is a juxtaposition, a contrast, between the quality of a simulated studio environment, including lighting placed on a subject, as if for some distinguished portrait, and the subject who is presented as ailing and poor (by looking at the shirt). That's unexpected, and I would say, if we are to simplify it, it is the main mechanism which creates art in what looks like a document. (That also makes it somewhat gimmicky.)
The difference in impact between first and second painting might not be super obvious at first glance, but it seems to me that first painting gets old relatively fast, and as it does it looses some of it's initially perceived depth. It sort of flattens.
But this is not primarily to judge these three paintings. This is just a little example of how level of abstraction sets different fields for artists, and for us as recipients. One can say, "They are different, and that's it." But I don't think that's correct approach. We could say that having a loving parental relationship with a child and having a hair cut are just two different experiences, who can say which one is better. But we don't say such things. While each good art is valuable and has it's place, it is not "just different" from other pieces of art.
How could they ever do that if, as you often claim, there are no shared meanings?
So first, we need to clarify that on my view there are no shared meanings in the sense of there being a numerically identical meaning--in other words, just one single unit--that's somehow instantiated in multiple people.
People can have similar meanings in mind--as similar as, say, two copies of a book.
That question aside for the moment, if the viewer can get out of a film what the filmmaker put into it then there is shared meaning, full stop. Quibbles along the lines that the meaning in the viewer's head is not "numerically identical" to the meaning in the film, which is not numerically identical to the meaning in the filmmaker's head on account of their different spatiotemporal locations would seem to be quite irrelevant.
If the viewer cannot get out of a film what the filmmaker put into it, then your objection,
Quoting Terrapin Station
is moot. You can't have it both ways.
Art may often be entertaining but that doesn’t mean its intent was to be entertaining. The artist is producing the work first for themselves. The intent is not to entertain people. If someone then comes along and looks on the work as entertaining then that’s nothing to do with the artist.
I think you’re being a bit slippery there by saying art can be disturbing, which can be true, and using that to legitimise the word ‘entertaining’ that comes before it.
What your saying is that I’m being merely subjective in separating entertainment from art. But there is a difference, at least from the point of view of the artist. Was Van Gogh seeking to entertain, was Gauguin seeking to entertain by moving to the Pacific, was Cezanne seeking to entertain by returning again and again to Montaigne Sainte-Victoria to paint?
I’ll go along with that.
Of course Zhoubotong will argue that ‘Transformers’ does exactly that. Or have you cunningly included ‘raw’.
Am I imagining it or are we starting to see a bit of agreement happening?
How so?
Make the distinction between normal creativity and art.
The primary difference (I believe) between the first and second painting is that the first is primarily about the subject and the second is about the artist (self portrait aside). In the first painting the artist is absent, in the second the artist has put himself between the subject and the viewer. The second painting is about Van Gogh
That could be regarded as taking martial arts to the level of art. But the idea of art, it’s definition, comes before, its dipping into art to help describe the attainment.
Does the human objective effect what is art?
No, it doesn't. But it's the audience that judges art, not the artist.
Quoting Brett
Agreed, but the same observation applies: It's the audience that judges art, not the artist.
Quoting Brett
I only wanted to avoid saying that art is only entertainment.
But is the message sent by the artist the same as the message received by the audience? :chin:
Yes it’s true that the audience passes judgement on a piece of art. And they may judge it as entertaining in many different ways, but that’s only a response and it’s their subjective response. They may pass judgement in all ignorance of what they’re looking at. Is that proof that art is entertainment?
And if the audience judges art, not the artist, does that mean the audience determine what art is and that being entertaining is all that’s required?
It’s a bit like the tree falling in the forest: is it art if no one else sees it?
No, it's just a consequence of being the judge(s) of art.
Quoting Brett
No, they don't decide what art is, the artist does that. The audience judge whether they like it or not.
Yes, ‘Transformers’ are a piece of art. But as I wrote previously:
"Being entertained is certainly a slice of what you can get through art. But it's a very small segment out of all experiences you can get. And I would say, among the most shallow, fleeting experiences at that."
So, a movie like ‘Transformers’ that does a lot of entertaining and not much of other things, is not an art with high value. But it's still an art.
Maybe to add, while it's not an art with high value in terms of whole art universe, it's a piece of art with high entertainment value. The difference between quality of it as an art generally and quality of it as an entertainment product is such that people don't even address this and similar products as art. But they are.
But what about the subject and the artist is it?
You could also extract an information in terms of race, and say, the difference is that one painting is about black person and the other is about white person.
But what is it actually about, beyond this surface identification?
What I'm saying is that art is not about an information, but about something that's being transferred beyond it's information or raw message. And that something is intangible, an experience.
When I made the book comment, for some reason you were focusing on the semantic aspect of that. I didn't bring that up for that reason--I wasn't thinking about the "semantic content of a book" at all. The idea is rather that two copies of the "same" book aren't identical, they're just similar. That's just like two electrons aren't identical, they're just similar, and two refrigerators the "same" make/model/etc., produced by the same factory on the same day, aren't identical, they're just similar. And so on.
I don't have a categorical objection to any-arbitrary-thing-we're-calling "shared meaning," as if I simply have a problem with that term, whatever it refers to. What I was saying is that two people can have meaning in mind that's as similar as two refrigerators can be similar (of the same make/model/etc. made by the same factory on the same day). If we want to call that "shared meaning," that's fine. I buy shared meaning in that sense in that case.
It's just that there's a need to clarify just what we're saying when we posit "shared meaning," because we can be saying very different things, especially since there are so many realists on universals/types around, whether they're realists on that issue uncritically or not.
Generally speaking, yes. With the distinction that artist doesn't send a message but an experience.
Art (a piece of art) is complex product, but it's a product. When a chair maker creates a chair, customers are not scratching their heads wondering what to do with "the contraption". When a news writer publishes an article, readers are not bewildered in how to interpret sentences they read.
Essentially, it is the same with art. There is more complexity to art than to chair or news article, so an explanation can be expanded, but essentially, what author creates, the audience gets.
Art is not a product, I don't think. [A work of art can perhaps be seen as a product, but not usefully or meaningfully (IMO).] Art is a form of communication. A unidirectional communication, from the artist to the audience, without direct interaction. Art is beauty too, sometimes. And other times it's just anger or frustration (Picasso's Guernica?). Often, art simply challenges cultural values that we have, perhaps, come to take for granted. Art does lots of stuff that mere 'products' don't.
As you rightly point out, a chair is a product, and we don't puzzle about what to do with it, because we already know. And we already know what art is, in general terms. But that doesn't apply to an individual work of art. When we see art for the first time (or hear, if it's music, etc), we don't know what it's for, or what it means, or is intended to mean. But we know whether we like it or not, which is our role in the proceedings. We can judge products in a simple and practical way. I'm not convinced that we can (meaningfully and usefully) treat art in the same way.
Art is a product that we need to learn how to use. And it cannot come with instructions, though an introduction might give us some tips. It is a product but not just a product. It is an expression, it can be self-revealing, it is about things that it is not about on the surface. We think of art, at least great art, differently than we think about products.
It's a product as "a thing that is the result of an action or process". A man made thing. It doesn't just happen. It's produced. Maybe more precisely to say - a piece of art is a product.
I wouldn't say it's communication, especially not in terms of literal messages. It does communication as means to transfer experience, which is the goal. So it's a transfer of experience. If you want to call that communication also, ok.
Quoting Pattern-chaser
If you have listened to classical music but never heard "Ode to Joy", and then you hear "Ode to Joy" for the first time, I would find it hard to believe you'd tell me you "don't know what it's for or is intended to mean." And you don't need to know the name. You wouldn't be confused to name it "Ode to Sadness" or something like that.
Yes, I agree. I meant product as a "produced thing". A piece of art as man made creation.
It's certainly produced, intentionally. One might argue that views of nature (say) are art, but I think this is a refutation of that: art is intentional...
Quoting Henri
...but why is it intentional? Because it carries a message. Not a literal message, as you say. If a painting is intended to carry a literal message, it's reduced to a poor and inaccurate copy of a photograph. I can't see how it transfers experience, though. Guernica offers a message to me: the savagery of war is wrong! To you it might say something different. It doesn't matter. But there is a message there, not experience. To me (again), the experience was an air raid; the painting is a comment (i.e. a message) on the actual event, which I don't think Picasso experienced. :chin:
Which one of the two provides more experience, a sense, a feeling, of "war is wrong"?
The second one is not subtle, which is often a minus in art, but war is not subtle, so war gets treated as war is.
With first one, I don't even get much of a "war is wrong" as a literal, intelectual message. It's quite flat.
Last century, as it continued in this one too, was a century for destruction of meaning. There is no meaning. There is no God (by the way, God is He). There is no objectivity. There is no family. There is no gender. There is as you think it is.
So we also got meaningless art. Full abstraction promoted as highest value.
This Picasso is not full abstraction but it is high abstraction. And it doesn't hold much value nevertheless, as I see it. Not that there is no value. But it's puffed up to heights it doesn't belong to.
I think much of the value of this kind of art is a result of political, in a broad sense, movement. When people get swayed that meaninglessness is "the shitz", then abstracted paintings get the glory.
But it's an emperor with no clothes.
A message? :wink: That depends. Are you asking in relation to me? To you? To someone else? To all humans? The answer might be different in each case. That's the joy of art!
Quoting Henri
It's the last 4 words that make your statement true. Others may disagree, no? Again, that's the joy of art!
I didn't ask what is the difference between literal message of the paintings (which is always secondary thing), but what is the difference between two paintings having a feeling of "war is wrong". If you think that we just can't say, that it simply depends on a person, well, that's what promotion of meaninglessness does to people.
I add "as I see it" because I speak for myself. But I don't negate objective reality. I believe I have a good hold on what is good and bad, objectively, but I don't get it 100%, as human, so I add, "as I see it.". More precise phrase would be, "as I see it from here", where "here" is perspective that is both human and specifically mine.
That's good, because I didn't answer that particular question. :up:
Quoting Henri
Then I have nothing more to offer on this subject that you will be able to hear. :sad:
Take care! :smile:
But that joke is on you. You present these two paintings to people who didn't see them, with just a name of the painting and the painting itself. First one is named Guernica. They won't even have to know the name of the second, which in fact has "war" in to, to explain the second one in terms of war. For the first one, they (many, most, practically all?) wouldn't even get to the war. It's just what seems like some people and horses.
No, you presented two paintings; I merely offered Guernica as one of (very) many examples.
You offered Guernica as an example of a message without experience. You said: "Guernica offers a message to me: the savagery of war is wrong! To you it might say something different. It doesn't matter. But there is a message there, not experience."
I agree that there is not much experience to get from Guernica. Because it's a low level art.
Art is about the experience, not the message, so I provided an example of a piece of art about war that's more potent than Guernica. Guernica doesn't even provide a message about war unless you know extra information about it.
The fact that there is not much experience you get from Guernica, and the thing you get, a message, is after you learn some extra info about the painting, hints at how low of a quality that painting is.
It shouldn't be used as an example of good art, to demonstrate what art is. That's what I'm saying. It's an example of very limited piece of art, and one can make wrong conclusions about art if he extrapolates what art is based on Guernica.
The reason I define art as I do is that all other definitions I've come across have the same fundamental failing. They end up concluding that only members of some elite are capable of recognising/appreciating art. I reject all such conceptions of 'art' because of this unfortunate and incorrect feature.
Quoting Pattern-chaser
You keep quoting me incompletely, making the thing I said it's opposite. I said - I believe I have a good hold on what is good and bad, objectively, but I don't get it 100%, as human, so I add, "as I see it".
Precisely because I don't claim to know it all, neither I claim to believe I know it all, I add, "as I see it".
But anyway, art being an experience transfer doesn't make it some exclusive fit to "members of the elite".
Maybe you could just be humble that you don't have great understanding about what art is, and once you do, you'll get much more from all the art you'll discover. As I recall, you were a hardware/software engineer. Becoming a hardware/software engineer demanded humbleness in learning and discovery, not pridefulness in ignorance.
Art doesn't have to be one piece; it can be a collection of pieces, or a universe.
It's about interest.
If you intended to send a message, and gained a lot of interest for that reason, some able judge may determine your painting is art. If you never have interest from an able judge, you'll never know the art factor.
Some art remains locked away in people's minds, maybe sharing the person's interest or third party energies.
Client: I have made my own definition of what hardware engineering is, because all definitions I saw seem to lead to a conclusion that only members of some elite are capable of recognising good hardware engineering. So, build me a chair.
Pattern-chaser: But Mr. Client, hardware engineering is not for building chairs. Let me explain you what...
Client: Don't act like some objectivity-trumpeting know-it-all. Just take your computer boards, stack them one on the other, and build me a chair to sit on.
Pattern-chaser: (To himself) What pattern is this?
Can you give an example of a work of art that "entertainment" is not part of it? Show me art where a message is delivered, and there was no more direct way to deliver it? That "indirectness" is the entertainment. Why else would we not say it directly other than to make it more interesting/engaging/entertaining? I get those 3 words do not have identical definitions, but when applied to art, I can see very little distinction (if I am interested, it goes without saying that I am entertained).
Deja vu
A solid effort, but for me, that doesn't seem to fit the definition of art:
art: the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.
I am happy to drop the "human" from the definition but not "creative skill and imagination". I am sure some biological interpretation could see this behavior as creative and intentional...but isn't that just the consciousness argument (ie which animals are conscious and to what degree relative to humans)?
Any examples that almost everyone would accept as art? I don't think most people will accept nature as "art" until a human puts a frame around it (whether a literal or figurative frame).
Yes, then 'art' is a short lasting, ephemeral term; lasting appeal of a piece is down to interest keeping art hype alive. See what I'm getting at?
Art is more the hanging on wall phase of some creative work: rather than the process.
It takes a keen eye to know how to respond to this question.
I think most posters in this thread would argue that my thoughts are not keen enough...:smile:
Generally though, I would just say that your definition of art is unrecognizable to me. I am not saying it is wrong, just not very close to what I think when I read definitions of art.
Quoting Schzophr
I think I very much agree with this.
I think your definition of art is just too artistic for me, haha. It seems like trying to "feel" what a word means. I just use words/definitions (this might be because I have emotional deficiencies, I often act similarly to someone with mild Asperger's, autism, etc).
A woman is crying a out a sick, possibly dying/dead, man. There is fire, dismemberment and expressions of anguish.
In Picasso’s work there is light being shined on horrors - dismemberment and expressions of anguish. The broken sword and bull are symbolic on meaning so I won’t comment.
Personally I don’t much care for either painting. It is interesting to view abstract art as trying to reach someone without relying on historical symbolism.
Which one gets the message of “war is wrong” across more blatantly? At a glance the second one. Once you look more closely the first does hands down for me - maybe I’m overly influenced by the poor quality of the second in regards to the images being obviously lifted from several different sources and clumsily mashed together.
Just to reiterate, not keen on either tbh. I can appreciate the message in the first and enjoy the idea of shining a light on the horrors portrayed.
“Nothing is; everything represents. The moment the curtain is raised , an agreement between stage and audience manifests itself. And now, together, we’ll create!”
I think this applies to all art, it has to have an audience engage otherwise nothing happens: without agreement there’s no moment of creation. Like I said, all art has its own audience that’s prepared or ready to engage and reject what it doesn’t like as ‘poor art’. These are all unique relationships.
Whatever you might think, this is as elitist as those Shakespearean supporters who insist Shakespeare is a genius. I imagine that each audience would prefer to see ‘their’ art taught in schools, too.
Obviously presenting something to others that they won’t engage with (Shakespeare in school) is not going to create this relationship. To get students to engage with Shakespeare you might have to do a lot of work before hand about art and theatre and the years around the end of the 16th century to get them interested enough to engage.
“Transformers” would take a lot less time than that, though there may still be other films doing just as much without all the action, which is really male orientated and probably leaves the girls cold.
I don’t think the intention was necessarily ‘War is wrong’. Does that mean all war is wrong? I think it’s more that war is a horror. The first one is Picasso working out his own symbols and techniques about how he feels. The second one is just ‘Transformers’, almost comical in its strident efforts, and drowning in clumsy cliche.
I don’t think one has to necessarily be at the event to experience it. Picasso’s experience of the bombing could be what was impressed on him by the nature of the bombing. It’s about his response to the horror. It’s a personal message to the world. Who understands it is another matter.
Yes, the message/experience thing is probably a semantic misunderstanding. As for the rest of what you say, it's what I was trying to say, but better put. :up:
You might have had different opinion if Picasso wasn't heavily promoted to you as one of the genius artists of 20th century and Guernica as masterpiece. But he was promoted as such because meaninglessness is promoted, not because he created great art.
Picasso represents politics that today says there is no gender. That's what it is.
Do you think unisex bathrooms for children in schools just happened out of thin air? It's just the latest step in a march of meaninglessness, which previously brought forward Picasso and other abstract "geniuses".
Second painting is not especially great, I would say it's good, but Guernica is quite flat when you take away the name and the extra info and the promotion. There are more impressive cave paintings.
As for the non-subtlety of the second painting, war is not subtle. Woman's expression, the main thing in the painting, is strong, not "clumsy cliche". That's how pain for the loss of the loved one looks like. If you find the scene comical, that's actually sad. But perfectly in line with meaninglessness.
I certainly wouldn’t have a different opinion about the pics you posted - I may have been more inclined to say nice things about the first but I recognised it instantly.
Basically ... you couldn’t be more wrong :)
I don't know if it's worth that much. Maybe 50, 60 million dollars tops, eh? Maybe Picasso connoisseurs, message extractors, or even hardware engineers, can tell.
He created great art because I love his work.