What IS art?
RainLover
have a perennial question. It comes up almost every time I enter a
museum or gallery.
What is Art?
Some would say, it's ALL art, there's just 'good' art and 'bad' art,
but I disagree.
Even a modern sculpture such as David Smith makes me ask that question
on some of his pieces. I'm sorry, but I don't see 3 pieces of rusty
metal found in a scrap yard and welded together as always being 'art'
I'm all for abstract art, that's my thing after all, but, would it be
art if I take a drive shaft from a 1975 Ford and stick it in the
ground? I could even give it a title: " Ford Drive Shaft"
It's not art.
Or is it? If I did such a thing and a local Microsoft Millionaire
paid me $12,000 to 'install' it in his yard, I could argue it Was art
indeed, or, the Microsofty was a no-account moron with too much money.
I have a friend, she says EVERYTHING manmade is art. Stop signs,
chain link fences, even the stripe down the middle of the road. They
all convey a feeling, or provoke emotions under the right
circumstances, don't they?
Sometimes, I sketch out something for artistic consideration, only to
determine it is not worthy of being art. There have even been 2 times
where I was finishing up a small piece only to discover to my horror
that what I made was NOT art at all but some terrible mistake meant to
resemble true art.
Am I alone here in my quandary? Have you all stopped reading this by
now and have moved on to how galleries gouge us poor artists? God, my
artistic angst is overwhelming! I've worked myself into a fit.
I think I'll go weld all my little pieces of scrap metal to my '84
Audi Quattro. I can't sell the damn thing for $3,000 as a car, I
might as well get $20,000 for it as sculpture.
Love,
James, Seattle, Washington, USA, Earth, One of the outer spiral arms
of the milky way.
Dig That Crazy Accordion
class or something? This is the most meaningless question I can think of.
sue.
Relinquished Art * Tree Houses * Sand Collector.
http://www.asapnet.net/suebob
RainLover wrote in message ...
Andy Dingley
>What is Art?
One of the best answers I've seen is in Bill Drummond's book "45"
If you don't recognise the name, he's half of the K Foundation, the
KLF and many other organisations des artistes terroristique.
They're not the greatest artists in the world (Rachel Whiteread is far
better), but they have tried harder than most to ask the question
"What time is art?"
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0316853852/codesmiths/
RainLover
you do it on a street corner, would that be considered performance
art? And if so, do you think people would drop spare change in your
hat? Or would you simply be a non-artistic Freak destined to be
locked away and placed on lithium?
It's NOT a meaningless question (What is art), but, your answer to it
seems to be meaningless.
Hugs,
James, Seattle, Wa, USA, Earth
Kromkowski
<rain...@spamfilter.raincity.com> writes:
>Even a modern sculpture such as David Smith makes me ask that question
>on some of his pieces. I'm sorry, but I don't see 3 pieces of rusty
>metal found in a scrap yard and welded together as always being 'art'
>
>I'm all for abstract art, that's my thing after all, but, would it be
>art if I take a drive shaft from a 1975 Ford and stick it in the
>ground? I could even give it a title: " Ford Drive Shaft"
>
>It's not art.
The hypothetical is where we get in trouble.
Would it be art, if I did x, y, or z? I don't know, do it and as the creator
decide for yourself if it is art. If you decide it is, then the rest of us can
get on with appreciating it, either because of its good qualities or via
negativa, learning from what is poor about it, so that we can avoid it.
What is art is deep down a subversive question (by this, I do not imply that
you _intended_ that effect.) It either distracts us from the issues of
aestetics/quality or is a question used to be exclusionary -- which amounts to
a denial of the universal capacity of all humans to create art.
JDKromkowski
Dan Spector
JDKrom is realll close here. It's something created, or even just pointed out,
or "framed;" a certain visible scene which the Artist wants you (us) to share,
as differentiated from that which he does not create, or frame. Sometimes you
are aware that the door of the gallery is better art than the stuff on the
walls. That's bad art, or good door. That's You selecting the thing to be
considered as art. Now you're the artist. Have a cigar.
--
Dan <arch...@earthlink.net>
http://www.archicast.com
----------
In article <dn7nfscvh0knaojok...@4ax.com>, RainLover
<rain...@spamfilter.raincity.com> wrote:
> Okay, maybe this is just my 15 minutes of mental masturbation, but I
> have a perennial question. It comes up almost every time I enter a
> museum or gallery.
>
> What is Art?
>
> Some would say, it's ALL art, there's just 'good' art and 'bad' art,
> but I disagree.
>
> Even a modern sculpture such as David Smith makes me ask that question
> on some of his pieces. I'm sorry, but I don't see 3 pieces of rusty
> metal found in a scrap yard and welded together as always being 'art'
>
> I'm all for abstract art, that's my thing after all, but, would it be
> art if I take a drive shaft from a 1975 Ford and stick it in the
> ground? I could even give it a title: " Ford Drive Shaft"
>
> It's not art.
>
John Donaghue
not understand what is/is not art, or how to look at things in a different
light. To tell the truth, the contradictions in your post and the question
itself almost feels like a troll. It's a non-question. Go look up Duchamp,
Arp, Claus Oldesburg, Minimalism, heck, even look at some of Picasso's
sculpture. The "What is art?" question has been pretty well dealt with,
imo.
I took a Drawing & Composition class before I got interested in sculpture,
and the 30 second gesture drawings were some of the most fun not only to
make, but also to look at. If you want to limit yourself to a
Neo-Classicist view of things, don't get frustrated with stuff you feel that
isn't art.
Last but not least, yeah, stick a drive shaft in the ground. Guess what?
It'll be ten times as hard as you thought it was. Believe me, if you just
dig a hole and stick it in, it's gonna look just like that; like it was done
in a half-assed way, without any real care or consideration, and that's bad
art. Otoh, if you actually take the time to look at it, you'll start seeing
how the object interacts with the entire environment around it, and if you
care at all about the piece, you're gonna have to work to get that object
placed the way that feels best to you.
If you're really serious about this, go look up Duchamp & Minimalism.
Duchamp for the question, and Minimalism to broaden the way you view art.
sculpt...@my-deja.com
Things people make, be they salt shakers or sculptures, look the
way they do because some person, somewhere, at some point
DECIDED they would look that way.
That act of aesthetic choice IS Art.
This definition can be applied to all creative acts of conscious will,
from writing a post to performing a pirrouette.
The key is the exercising of aesthetic choice.
Properly- it is the creative act that is art and when that aesthetic act
results in a discrete artifact, they should be referred to as 'works of
art', thereby placing the emphasis on the act of creation itself, the
work.
I agree (for once!) with Kromkowski that the question is itself
subversive, raising all manner of methods of exclusionary
definition, but my definition, I think, feels the closest to truth.
It does not exclude anything that has been called art, while clearly
defining that art is essentially aesthetic and therefore implying that
art CAN be categorized as good or bad.
As to what is "FINE ART"? That can be simply defined by price
point and target market.
Christopher
P.S. I think that "dig that crazy accordian" is the best username I
have hever seen!
wkrthwqlirubnqoirtuyqrthpqt t ty uu456u 5y345 7456 ug56 uy345
y456yuc ecy45yvue56 u56yv4wtw vwy v56u45 .
erwhyvue56yuberhyr5wy erwvhyrd. ertwhurtub67jer6 erth erhy.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
NiteMayor
A'bientot
NiteMayor
Kromkowski
>Last but not least, yeah, stick a drive shaft in the ground. Guess what?
>It'll be ten times as hard as you thought it was. Believe me, if you just
>dig a hole and stick it in, it's gonna look just like that; like it was done
>in a half-assed way, without any real care or consideration, and that's bad
>art.
This, to me, gets at "intentionality" as one of the most important aspects of
quality; in other words getting the right chosen elements in the right place in
the right way in the right time in the right relation so as to create a
compelling contemplative moment in the recipients. By this, especially since I
work in ceramic as well as other media, I do not exclude chance and the happy
accident, but the artist has to make the intentional decision to know when
accept the chance element. And this, as with the whole project, takes hard
work!
I was try to get at this in a recent artist's statement (which, by the way, I
hate having to do for curators or jurors, since it is more unnecessary
personalization of art). I post it here for any thoughts or commentary:
John David Kromkowski
Artist's Statement
My intent is to create what Clive Bell referred to as "significant form."
Although the term may imply merely visual shape, I use it to mean an underlying
universal principle that applies to all forms of art in all ages and all
cultures: music, sculpture, dance, literature, etc. Specifically, significant
form is the selection and combination of the "elements" of the chosen medium or
media in a way that aspires to create a compelling moment of contemplation. It
is in that contemplative state, the recipient of art becomes receptive to the
"form of the feeling," as Suzanne Langer suggests.
By elements, I mean to include for sculpture, (1) formal elements, e.g., line,
shape, volume, color, surface, etc.; (2) explicit and implicit content,
reference (visual and cultural), context (relation to environment), etc.; and
(3) juxtaposition, arrangement, order, and interactions. The whole is thus not
merely a sum of these parts but an infinite sum of the parts, including those
unknown and unknowable, and the infinite interactions of the parts. I note, as
an aside, that this is more than "the whole is more than the sum of the parts."
The interactions of the parts can often be negative, in which case a work fails
and the whole is less than the sum of its parts.
While the creation of art is obviously personally inspired, I believe as
Langer wrote:
"The art lover who views, hears, or reads . . . enters into a direct relation
not with the artist, but with the work. He responds to it as he would to a
'natural' symbol, simply finding its significance, which he is likely to think
of as the feeling in it. This feeling . . . is not communicated, but revealed;
. . ..
JDK
sculpt...@my-deja.com
> "The art lover who views, hears, or reads . . . enters into a direct
relation
> not with the artist, but with the work. He responds to it as he
would to a
> 'natural' symbol, simply finding its significance, which he is likely
to think
> of as the feeling in it. This feeling . . . is not communicated, but
revealed;
Nonsense. Everything in your statement preceeding this
disagrees by virtue of the fact that you brought intention to the
creation of the art. You yourself state that the artist exercises intent,
even in the element of random chance by deciding to allow it.
The artwork is as much a communication of that intent as is any
artifact of intent be it a book, film, road sign or painting.
Langer can say that art is viewed as any 'Natural Symbol'- but there
are no such things as natural symbols. Nature holds no
symbolism- the geese do not mean to cast their image on the
water, and the mountain has no significance other than its
existence. All percieved symbolism is imposed by the conscious
mind on experience which is itself just a symbolic representation
of reality.
It is not possible to view an artwork as one may view a rock (except
of course for those who see the rock as God's work of art, in which
case you are seeing the rock as you would art and not vice versa)-
The viewer is aware that the object being viewed was created
intentionally and, knowing this, understands tacitlly that it is an
exression of that creator's mind.
Go ahead and make an artwork that is indsitinguishable from a
naturally occuring rock and place it in public in a way that does not
say to the passersby "this is an artwork"; then stand aside and
watch how many people stop to "experience the feeling of the
form". Not one will even notice it. Okay, maybe a geologist if the
rock seems incongruous.
We make art to either be obvious as a human creation or display it
in such a way as to convey that it is a human creation precisely
because that is what makes it interesting. That someone made it.
In viewing art what is 'revealed' is the experiential reaction of one
mind to the physical expression of another. I can love a particular
work of art, but that is because I essentially am in sympathy with
what I understand was the artist's intent in creating it. I may
interpret the artist's intent incorrectly, or ascribe intent the artist did
not mean to be ascribed, but none of that alters the fact that I am
interpreting the art as intentionally symbolic.
If you ask me it is Langer that is chock full of overly romantic
hyperbole. She would like to elevate 'Art' into some kind of Platonic
netherworld of elemental form. The notion that you can separate
the deed from the doer in art is the worst kind of wooly thinking.
You think that your instructors requirement of a statement is an
unnecessary personalization of art; this just further illustrates that
you don't understand why you are making art in the first place. It is
because you want to. You have something to express.
Expressing yourself necessarily involves self.
While, for a Viewer, the art itself can stand as your statement on its
own, it is still your personal statement, not the art's. For an
Instructor- a statement of intent is necessary for them to assess
how effectively you COMMUNICATED your intent in your artwork; so
that they can grade it. See, if nobody 'gets' what you think you're
'saying', then, as an artist you have failed to convey your vision and
you get an F.
Your instructors are attempting to educate you. Learn something
from them.
Christopher
ksflashflwfblwfb liwhwqg h rthw rthewr gewr gwe rherwgh ewrg
erw ghewthertwghewrg er . erwyerwty erwtyewr terw hyerwt
sgewrgh wu yjurty ehjrtyhb dsg ewrgtewrgt. ethy erth ertwgewrg
ewrg erwg erw hyertwhy ertwy.
John Donaghue
When I look at a piece, I'm thinking about what that piece says to me, not
what the artist says. While the artist may intend to create something, I'm
not looking at it with those intentions in mind, nor do I want to. Yes, you
can make art that is perfectly clear in intentions, but frankly, most pieces
that I've seen that've been like that are pretty boring. I look at them, I
get the feeling, and I lose interest.
Of course making a fake rock and sticking it in public where people wouldn't
see it as art would be dumb; that's landscaping. Take the same fake rock,
put it in a place where people wouldn't see it as artwork and cover it with
bright blue paint, and then you can get the whole "feeling of the form"
thing going on. Then again, many people don't seem to understand looking at
an object solely for the sake of the form, so I doubt that you'd get many
people stopping to experience that feeling. You'd probably get a bunch
who'd stop and say something like, "Duh, what a moron. My kid could have
done that."
I don't care about making art for the general public to like; I make art
that I want to look at. If I finish a piece, and I feel that it is
finished, I don't really care if other people don't get my intent, as long
as the piece feels right to me. So far, I haven't seen any big signs in my
classes saying that I must convey my vision, or my art is crap. Then again;
I'm really interested in minimalism, and for me, that means the vision that
I'm trying to convey is that there is no vision.
sculpt...@my-deja.com
> When I look at a piece, I'm thinking about what that piece says to
> me, not
> what the artist says.
Yes, but that is not the point.
When you look at the piece- what you are seeing IS what the artist
has 'said'. What you think is just your reaction to what has been
said.
In the same manner, when you read this sentence, sure you are
thinking about what it says to you, but what you are reading is what
I wrote.
I will reiterate- art has no idea and no intent of its own. Art is
unavoidably the expression of the artist's intent. I don't care what
your state of mind is, or what you think you are thinking about;
when you look at art, the image on your retina was put there by the
artist, and it looks the way it does because the artist made it so.
> While the artist may intend to create something, I'm
> not looking at it with those intentions in mind, nor do I want to.
Yes, you are. You have no choice in this. Again, you are aware that
it is art. You understand that that means someone made it the way
it is, intentionally, and there is no way that you can UNknow this
fact.
You do not have to have this awareness "in mind" anymore than
you need to have the source of the light you are percieving in mind.
If you are looking at it as art, you are looking at it as the expression
of someone's mind. That makes it a communication from the artist
to you in every sense.
If I write a letter and stick it in a box and bury it for a thousand
years, when someone finally reads it, it is a communication from
me. No one else. When you look at the painting on the cave wall at
Lascaux- it is a communication that mattered to the caveman that
painted it.
Art is a message in a bottle in a sea of time, but it is still a
message.
> Of course making a fake rock and sticking it in public where
> people wouldn't
> see it as art would be dumb; that's landscaping. Take the same
> fake rock,
> put it in a place where people wouldn't see it as artwork and
> cover it with
> bright blue paint, and then you can get the whole "feeling of the
> form"
> thing going on.
Yes, but again- the only reason people would stop and look is
because it would be obvious that the rock was painted blue by a
person, on purpose. That is the key- purpose. Art is only
interesting insofar as we know it to have been made on purpose.
All our response to art is predicated on this basic foundation of
knowing it was made. Purposely.
The wind makes noise that we mostly ignore, but if it made a
noise that sounded like your name, you would certainly turn and
look.
We stop and look at art because it is speaking to us- saying
something.
And when art speaks to us, whose voice are we hearing?
The writer of the letter usually signs it somewhere.
> I don't care about making art for the general public to like; I make
> art
> that I want to look at.
Listen to yourself.
You make the art that you want. You want. That is intent. When I
look at your art I am seeing the thing you wanted to make. It may
not have been aimed at me, however, I am seeing your intent. I
may not understand it, but I AM seeing it.
> I don't really care if other people don't get my intent, as
> long
> as the piece feels right to me.
Do you show it? I f you even seek to display your work, you are
seeking to present your intent to other people.
Did you sign it? If you sign your work- you are wanting people to
know that what they are seeing is what you have made.
The reason it is important that it "feel right" to you- is that you want
to be sure that it expresses what YOU feel. Every artist feels this
way. If it "feels" right to us- then it is truely OUR expression. And
that is what we are offering to others. Our expression, our feeling.
> So far, I haven't seen any big signs in my
> classes saying that I must convey my vision, or my art is crap.
Perhaps your teachers feel this is too obvious to state, like telling
you that you have to blink or your eyes will dry out. You get grades
don't you? Critiques, right? They ask you about your intent, don't
they? What do you think classes are all about?
> Then again;
> I'm really interested in minimalism, and for me, that means the
> vision that
> I'm trying to convey is that there is no vision.
Your vision of 'No vision' is still a vision. (seems like your vision
would be snap to convey )
Saying nothing is one thing- but choosing to say nothing is still
exercising intent.
A blank piece of paper still leaves an impression on my retina.
What the heck is the matter with you guys?!
All this flowery verbiage about "Feeling The Form"...
Where did "The Form" come from?
From the mind of the artist!!!!
First the artist imagined it. Then the artist expressed it as an
object.
When you are looking at "The Form" you are looking into the artist's
mental space!
Whatever you "Feel" or "think" in response is IN response to the
ARTIST's idea!
There is no way you can 'not know' or be unaware that what you
are seeing was made by an artist!
Sheesh- You are not the infinite unknowable creating ideal
platonic solids in a dimension beyond time- you are people-
expressing yourselves. To other people. Snap out of it.
If you really don't care about communicating your vision- don't sign
it and don't show it.
Heck- don't even bother making it- the idea alone in your head
should suffice.
Christopher
fhglsa fpiwafhpiwfh lkwapiquhk hwhy erhj rh rtw hertwhy ert ersg
erfge rg erg th th ertg. ghr h rth rth tgh erwh . ergh vwe gvertg erwgt
erwg er ger gh ertju tyuo 8 ki u,k , th ghfghkty ukrt.
John Donaghue
is coming from a frustration of not really being able to explain my own
pieces right now, which is a result of several issues. First off, I think a
large part of it is just how I look at things... basic relations of shapes
to one another is the most un-vague way I can describe it. It's a very
abstract idea for me; it almost feels subconscious. Suffice to say that I
really like Richard Serra, Tony Smith, Carl Andre, and Minimalist type stuff
in general. I don't think many people are used to looking at things this
way, and it's a difficult thing for me to explain, so it's frustrating when
we do critiques in class, and everyone wants to know what my stuff Means,
when I don't really know. The other part is that I'm in somewhat of an
"escape mode" right now, with computer games, books, etc, and I'm not giving
sculpture the attention that it not only deserves, but requires.
For example, one of the things I've been thinking of would be to cut an old
railroad tie into two pieces... one 1/4 of the length, and the other 3/4,
and place them upright next to one another, maybe a foot or two apart. When
I think about doing that, I'm not thinking of much more content than the
shapes interacting with one another on the most basic levels (ie., big piece
more powerful than little piece), and interacting with the environment
around them. I don't want viewers to ponder the deep, hidden meaning,
because I didn't create the piece with any deep meaning in mind. Rather, I
guess the idea is more like what do you feel as the viewer when you look at
the piece (Yes, I know, my grammar is horrible). Is it a feeling of
discomfort, maybe caused by the imbalance in size? Or is it a calmer
feeling, that teh two pieces are both static and have a solid mass; a
feeling of rest. I dunno, maybe it's more of an introspective thing for the
viewer (and I guess I count myself as a viewer, too), more like, "I have a
discomforting feeling when I look at this piece, I wonder what in my
mind/experience/psychological makeup (for lack of better words) makes me
feel this way?" So forget my last post; I need to do some more poking
around in my head before I can come up with a better answer than, "Just
because" as to why I don't really agree with either the quote or your
response. ;) Hope this helped to clear things up some.
Marilyn Welch
I don't know "What IS art?"
Great minds have called it an unanswerable question,
but that doesn't stop Sculptingman. You gotta love him.
Marilyn
sculpt...@my-deja.com
even to oneself much less other people. When going for a degree,
your master's show will require a comprehensive statement of
intent. A difficult exam to pass if your intent is difficult to express in
words. (going back to art saying things that can not be defined in
spoken language)
I always recommend to artists in your predicament to elicit written
reviews (as opposed to critiques) from other artists you know- both
those whose work inspires you, and from those completely
perpendicular to your vision of art.
Often, in hearing others tell you what your art is saying to them you
will recognize your own voice when something they have to offer
rings true. Some of them will "get it" and say it back to you in words
you may never have thought of.
Such insights can help crystalize your own conception of what you
are trying to accomplish and re-focus your energies on the work.
Christopher
ealkfw poifgh 09i4j t;lqkwjr-0i2 rgtrjthpo5 p3oqi4t3u pi4q qjwhf
pqweijfh wqeijthp 3oip5iyu poi4t pqowth piutha pq3oiu4ht poq4iy
oi4ty poqw4thp oq4t ;l5ym3'l5yu [itu pwq[e0itp 2th.
John Donaghue
<sculpt...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8dsun4$m3b$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Often, in hearing others tell you what your art is saying to them you
> will recognize your own voice when something they have to offer
> rings true. Some of them will "get it" and say it back to you in words
> you may never have thought of.
I see what you're saying, but I'm still a beginning student and I'm not in
that type of community quite yet. I think I have a better idea of what my
original disagreement was about with the quote and your reply, and I think
it's that they both talk about the viewer seeing the piece with or without
the artist's influence, without any in-between. When I look at sculpture, I
think I look at it on two different levels. One level is what you
described, which is basically looking at the piece as a full statement by
the artist. I may not necessarily be thinking of what the artist means, or
why they did this or that in the piece, but I still have the idea that it
was created for some purpose in the back of my mind. The second level is
more on the level of the work itself. It's a given that the artist has
created this piece and presented it as art, so instead of questioning its
validity as art, or the strength of its content, I just look at the
object(s), and the way that different parts of the work interact with each
other. While I guess it's still based on the artist creating the piece for
a purpose, I'm not thinking of the piece as an extension of the artists
ideas, but rather as an entity in and of itself.
This could be the problem I'm having with the critiques; that the other
students are looking for what I am trying to say in my piece, while its
content is closer to the second level I described. Then again, looking at
my History of Modern Art class, maybe I'm just not wierd enough to be an
artist ;).
RainLover
>Sheesh- You are not the infinite unknowable creating ideal
>platonic solids in a dimension beyond time- you are people-
>expressing yourselves. To other people. Snap out of it.
>
You have issues, man.... serious ISSUES! :-)
Smiles,
James. Seattle, Washington, USA, Earth
RainLover
<lysa...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Go ahead and forget my last post :).
What post?? :-)
> I don't think many people are used to looking at things this
>way, and it's a difficult thing for me to explain, so it's frustrating when
>we do critiques in class, and everyone wants to know what my stuff Means,
>when I don't really know.
In my opinion, it's not up to YOU to give your work meaning. That's
up to the viewer. For me, without seeing your railroad tie piece, it
would give me a feeling of piece, and remind me of my childhood. I
won't explain why here, suffice it to say it would be because of the
smell, the unevenness of them sticking up, the dark, weathered
wood....
10 people can look at one piece of art and walk away with 10 different
meanings. You don't have to put a specific feeling in their heads for
them; the lazy bastards. Next time they ask you what it means, ask
THEM what it means to them. If they say 'nothing' they're lazy. Just
my opinion, like I said. :-)
> I don't want viewers to ponder the deep, hidden meaning,
>because I didn't create the piece with any deep meaning in mind.
EXACTLY!! :-)
> Hope this helped to clear things up some.
Clear as mud.
Good post though, it sounds like you're working it out nicely.
James, Seattle, Washington, USA, Earth
sculpt...@my-deja.com
But none of them serious.
Mostly I find myself laughing at the astonishing naivete and
fashionable new age posturing that passes for motivation among
the college crowd.
I simply can't believe you guys are so out of touch with reality.
I read goateed coffehouse drivel about etheral form and the art
itself being the only thing that matters and that you aren't trying to
communicate anything to anyone- and I laugh till my stomach
hurts. These guys are fooling themselves by denying the role of
ego in their art. Or maybe thery're trying to fool everyone else.
When Kromkowski complains about the "personalization" of art
and I ask him if he signs his pieces- Does he say no?
Of course not.
So Okay, your a new voice, Let me ask you, James; If the Art you
make isn't about anything, doesn't say anything, and has nothing
to do with you, then what the hell IS your involvement with it?
Why do you even get to put your name on it?
For cryin outloud-
It is the simplest thing in the world.
You make art.
It comes from you.
You sign it so others will know who it comes from.
You show it because you want others to see what you have made.
If your intent is to have a hundred different people come away with
a hundred different responses-
THEN THAT"S YOUR INTENT.
If you are trying to avoid any set meaning thru random movements
or a total absence of symbolism- then THAT is your intent.
If you are only interested in creating something that satifies some
elemental feeling deep within you- the that is your intent.
I am not saying that "art has to have a message"- I am merely
saying that if it does or doesn't have a message that its because
you chose not to include one. You chose. You., the artist, decide
what the art is going to look like, sound like, feel like. You exercise
control- not over other people's reactions, but over the thing they
are reacting to.
And that thing is your artistic statement. And It communicates
something to others.
James, SOMETHING moves your fingers when you make art- call it
an idea.
But its YOUR idea, isn't it?
Frankly- I think that those who strongly disagree with this simple
truth are the ones with issues of seriousness.
And, James, believe me, I am smiling.
Christopher
P.S.- Hey lets see a show of posts- Is there anyone else reading
these? I need to hear what you others think of this.
Am I full of it, or am I the sole voice of reason and common sense?
If I'm full of it- I'll shut the hell up.
hdfhdfghf j rtjrwju rj turth i h pg poo jhy hgdsghsghsg rtihgrt ;hjtgh
e;sghpgh hjpoetgh eirhyeporye;lkrnhg oiqghqerwgeh.
sculpt...@my-deja.com
agree that art is what human beings do to express complex ideas.
I know this lesser mind is fatigued.
Aside from that- what do you say Marilyn; Is your art personal?
Does it speak about the artist?
Christopher
r oiwqrh piwqethoigh oiwqfthwq
oirhlwqjhrbgfowqeifghpoiwqufghpoiwqugh oiwfjhlwqfrowqeo
iwqghqergegh er ghew ghew gh erwgt erwgtewrghew rg erg.
Chris Ray
>these? I need to hear what you others think of this.
>Am I full of it, or am I the sole voice of reason and common sense?
You're doing just fine Christopher. I'm sure that in spite of some differences
from some of the folks, there are others who may appreciate having some
alternative points of views offered here. Your comments are thoughtful and
reasoned as well as the comments from others that have been offered. We all
have a different point of view and it's not necessary to be right so much as it
is for each of us to find our own truth.
On too many points we seem to be pretty close or at least close enough in
agreement for me to offer any comments with perhaps one exception.
I won't make an issue out of it but I don't agree with your definition of what
differentiates a work of "fine art" from others. It isn't price point nor is
it popularity or whatever the second point was made in a previous post. That's
sort of like saying that the Academy Awards actually determine which movies are
in fact the best. Movies are movies but some are more than picture shows which
has nothing to do with box office receipts.
By the way I am especially appreciative of the comments pertaining to art as
language and you presented your views very well, I thought. This is an aspect
of artmaking that a lot of folks either don't really understand or are simply
confused about. Most of us may agree that artmaking can express our concepts
or intent but fail to understand that to express is to speak, whether anyone
is listening or not. It was interesting to see how much verbiage was used as
fuel to convey this very simple idea.
<If I'm full of it- I'll shut the hell up.
Perhaps we're all full of it but there's no need to be quiet about it. Please
continue.
Chris Ray
http://www.chrisray.com - contemporary sculpture
Crocus Design Works - web site design
http://www.websiteproject.com
Cathy Morgan
later. Keep going as long as you want. I don't think
you're the sole voice of reason and common sense, but
neither do I think you're full of it. Hence, the dialogue
is interesting.
sculpt...@my-deja.com wrote in message <8ducq9$6e9
>P.S.- Hey lets see a show of posts- Is there anyone else
reading
>these? I need to hear what you others think of this.
>Am I full of it, or am I the sole voice of reason and
common sense?
>
sculpt...@my-deja.com
> I won't make an issue out of it but I don't agree with your
definition of what
> differentiates a work of "fine art" from others. It isn't price point
nor is
> it popularity or whatever the second point was made in a
previous post. That's
> sort of like saying that the Academy Awards actually determine
which movies are
> in fact the best. Movies are movies but some are more than
picture shows which
> has nothing to do with box office receipts.
I was being flip, but only just.
Yes, The Academy Awards respond mostly to popularity,
I don't think, however, that price has anything to do with popularity.
Price has to do with "perceived value"-
People perceive fine art as having a higher value and so charge
and pay more for it than other items using the same kind and
amount of materials and effort.
In this sense- price is just a reflection of the fact that many people
see a far greater value in Fine Art than in giftware knick knacks.
As we would all hope they do.
I did not use the term price point in any sense meant to devalue
Fine Art, but rather as an observation that Fine Art IS higher priced-
In this sense it is a reliable indicator of what is considered to be
Fine Art.
The only problem I see with this definition comes in where slick
promotionalism and marketing can fool the uneducated into
thinking that something is fine art that may actually suck. I feel this
happens far too often.
Am I forgiven?
Chrsitopher
ksajfghlkfglksjfglkjflkjfdkjghghdkfjtest
Chris Ray
>Yes, The Academy Awards respond mostly to popularity,
>I don't think, however, that price has anything to do with popularity.
>Price has to do with "perceived value"-
I thought you weren't serious before but wasn't sure. Well, at any rate the
misconception is now cleared up. Thanks
db
week. We concluded that before you can place a sculpture, and then give it a
fancy-assed title like 'Dark spiral toward the true Proletariat: For Nancy',
you should first be forced to stand in front of Bernini's David, be slapped
smartly a single time in the face, and state 'I suck' in a sincere tone of
voice. Then you can do whatever you want, and call it whatever you want,
with impunity.You can weld a couple pieces of steel together and ask people
to view it aesthetically, fine, just don't get metaphysical about it. Its
the pomposity (whatever) of artists that kills me. Any visual artist who
has an 'artists statement' is full of crap. His/Her work may be ok, but
their statement is full of it.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Don Burt - Design/Fabrication
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Frogacuda Productions - www.frogacuda.com
<sculpt...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8dml24$ta$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
sculpt...@my-deja.com
I agree with your comment about pomposity- but I'm just saying
that the artist is expressing something with his art- and that makes
it a personal statement. Even if all he's stating is "ain't this pretty?"
Bernini certainly said a mouthful in every piece.
The worst offender of pomposity I ever saw was in the Chicago
museum of fine arts-
It was a 2 inch by one half inch by three quarter inch piece of
plywood- glued to the wall and entitled "completed portrait of
Jennie Meyers"
By the way, last summer in the Vatican, did I mention...
I suck
Christopher
Kromkowski
>and I ask him if he signs his pieces- Does he say no?
>Of course not.
Sometimes, I do; sometimes I don't. In the last show I was in (a group show of
approximately 30 Maryland sculptors) my pieces weren't signed. Quick frankly,
I'd never thought about it but it's usually a function of size and media. The
smaller the more likely to be signed. And ceramic pieces are more likely to be
signed. And I do recall vaguely that
someone told me once that signed pieces sell better. Which of course, explains
why the pieces didn't sell!
You also seem to lump me into the "college crowd"; what ever that maybe, I was
an undergrad 20 years ago. Quite frankly, I've always supposed that my
thoughts on the objectivity of quality (that it is) and the universality rather
than the personalism of art, were rather out of step with the so-called
"cutting edge". My view that the alleged need for an artist statements is
usually is trying to make up for something lacking in the work, is also
certainly not in vogue.
>You think that your instructors requirement of a statement is an
>unnecessary personalization of art
Did I say "instructor"? I thought I explained for a juried submission.
>She [Langer] would like to elevate 'Art' into some kind of Platonic
>netherworld of elemental form.
I think you may be correct, but I tend to have an affinity for the Platonic
idea of form.
>this [the artist's statement that was required] just further illustrates that
>you don't understand why you are making art in the first place.
Let's say someone finds one of your pieces two or three hundred years from now.
And let's also suppose that for the piece you have written a thorough
documentation of your personal motivation for the piece, but that the
documentation was lost. Are you saying that the quality of the piece is
lessened for future generations because documentation story is not accessable?
To me that would suggest, the story of your personal motivation is the most
important thing. In which case, it would seem to me that instead of the
sculpture, the better art might be your writing and that maybe you should be a
writer rather than a scupltor.
Again, maybe my point is too subtle (like the distinction I was trying to make
about why language is a subset of symbolic thought rather than a synonym). I
am not denying the existance of personal motivation, but to me, it's just a
matter of technique. If you need to wear a lucky red shirt to cast a piece,
does that personal motivation change the piece?
Your statement that you know something more than I know about my personal
motivation for making art is really presumptuous don't you think? But as you
have clairvoyance; I suspect that you already know what the two things I think
you are full of.
JDKromkowski
Marilyn Welch
sculpt...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Perhaps the Great Minds just got tired of trying to get people to
> agree that art is what human beings do to express complex ideas.
> I know this lesser mind is fatigued.
>
> Aside from that- what do you say Marilyn; Is your art personal?
> Does it speak about the artist?
It is so intensely personal, that it touches the universal (I hope).
I think how I began, at around age 5, looking around me, so much beauty,
so much terror, I wanted to capture it's affect on me.
M.
>
>
> Christopher
> r oiwqrh piwqethoigh oiwqfthwq
> oirhlwqjhrbgfowqeifghpoiwqufghpoiwqugh oiwfjhlwqfrowqeo
> iwqghqergegh er ghew ghew gh erwgt erwgtewrghew rg erg.
>
RainLover
>Yes, James, I have issues
Of Course you do :-)
>Mostly I find myself laughing at the astonishing naivete and
>fashionable new age posturing that passes for motivation among
>the college crowd.
>I simply can't believe you guys are so out of touch with reality.
I've seen you refer to many here (including me) as in college, or
school, or a class or something simular. Let me state, for the
record, I have only taken TWO art classes in my entire 35 years of
life; one in the 7th grade, and a bronze casting course last year.
Having lived on my own since age 16 and working my way through college
(no, not art), I am very IN TOUCH with reality.
>I read goateed coffehouse drivel about etheral form and the art
>itself being the only thing that matters and that you aren't trying to
>communicate anything to anyone- and I laugh till my stomach
>hurts. These guys are fooling themselves by denying the role of
>ego in their art. Or maybe thery're trying to fool everyone else.
I'm bald, and no goatee, but, alas, being in Seattle I must do the
coffeehouse thing. Please, don't hold it against me. I have never
said that I am not trying to communicate through my art, nor have I
ever denied my ego (and don't plan on it in the future).
As for those that do 'fooling' everyone else. There's a huge market
of people who buy art from "self-denying, ego-less" artists. If that
works for those artist, we should applaud them!
>When Kromkowski complains about the "personalization" of art
>and I ask him if he signs his pieces- Does he say no?
>Of course not.
I agree with you. All art is personal. It is all we know, unless we
are making a blatant forgery of someone else's art, and even then, is
speaks loudly about the 'artist'.
>So Okay, your a new voice, Let me ask you, James; If the Art you
>make isn't about anything, doesn't say anything, and has nothing
>to do with you, then what the hell IS your involvement with it?
>Why do you even get to put your name on it?
If you remember, my original post was to ask the question, "what is
art?". Instead of answering the question then, you verbally lambasted
me and (once again) refered to me as a student doing a class project.
You mistake me for another. *I* will always put my name on my art.
*I* want to be known throughout the WORLD for my art. Being in
Seattle, I have Chilully as my art-marketing mentor; the man is a P.R.
GENIOUS (albeit, not greatest glass artist)
>I am not saying that "art has to have a message"- I am merely
>saying that if it does or doesn't have a message that its because
>you chose not to include one. You chose. You., the artist, decide
>what the art is going to look like, sound like, feel like. You exercise
>control- not over other people's reactions, but over the thing they
>are reacting to.
I would contend that if a piece of art doesn't convey a message, then
it isn't art. Just because I can punch keys on a keyboard, or stick
metal together, or melt glass does NOT make me a writer, a welder, or
a glass artist.
If we as artists exercise control over the thing people react to, and
they have no reaction, then we, as artists, have failed in the worst
way.
>
>P.S.- Hey lets see a show of posts- Is there anyone else reading
>these? I need to hear what you others think of this.
>Am I full of it, or am I the sole voice of reason and common sense?
>
Ditto.
>If I'm full of it- I'll shut the hell up.
God, don't we all wish you could!!! LOL
Sincerely,
sculpt...@my-deja.com
> Sometimes, I do; sometimes I don't. In the last show I was in (a
> group show of
> approximately 30 Maryland sculptors) my pieces weren't signed.
Okay- but were you identified as the artist? Was your name on the
invitation? The wall? Were you present? All of these are just other
ways of calling the art yours.
> My view that the alleged need for an artist statements is
> usually is trying to make up for something lacking in the work, is
> also
> certainly not in vogue.
>
> >You think that your instructors requirement of a statement is an
> >unnecessary personalization of art
>
> Did I say "instructor"? I thought I explained for a juried
submission.
My mistake- Forgive me? still- a jury sits in judgement of your
work as does an instructor. One of the problems with post
modern, high abstraction and minimalism is determining what
constitutes good art and bad. Part of how that is done is by asking
the artist what the hell they are up to in the first place. This can
help clarify the difference between the occasional accidentally
good looking piece and the work of artists that are in control of
their excellence. If their work clearly and consistenlty reflects what
they state their vision to be, then they are "better" at making their
art.
Of course, this approach is limited by the reality that the jurors may
not be capable of recognizing your ability to express your vision.
This is a problem with all subjective evaluation. Sometimes the
evaluator is a functional idiot , and even the good ones are always
biased. But subjective evaluation is the only kind people are
capable of. Whaddayagonnado?
> I think you may be correct, but I tend to have an affinity for the
Platonic
> idea of form.
As an idea, Platonic ideals are wonderful. But as a person- what
you make is subjective by definition. Its still 'your' perception and
'your' expression of what 'you' think the platonic form looks like.
> Let's say someone finds one of your pieces two or three hundred
> years from now.
> And let's also suppose that for the piece you have written a
> thorough
> documentation of your personal motivation for the piece, but that
> the
> documentation was lost. Are you saying that the quality of the
> piece is
> lessened for future generations because documentation story is
> not accessable?
No, not at all. As I said before, for the viewing public- for whom the
work is intended- the artwork itself IS your statement. That is my
point. All you should have to say has been "said" by the artwork
itself. I am focusing instead on the fact that the art is, itself, YOUR
statement, and not its own.
That, because YOU made it, it is YOUR voice speaking thru it, no
other's.
As to artist's written statements- I think their only use is for
academic evaluation of your skills and, to a far more limited
degree, evaluating your work in comparsion to many others for the
purpose of selecting the artist's that will best fit a particular jury's
prejudice for a given show.
Other than that, I think the art alone speaks, not for itself, but for
you.
> In which case, it would seem to me that instead of the
> sculpture, the better art might be your writing and that maybe you
> should be a
> writer rather than a scupltor.
I'll take that s a compliment of my writing rather than a swipe at my
sculpture if you don't mind.
Again- this has been my very point- that art can say things that
simply can not be said in words. In this sense- it is the only
language for conveying certain things.
I don't think an artist CAN write a statement fully explaining his
motives or vision- as I said before- at best, any written "translation"
of the vision will be no more than a verbal description of the vision,
a vision that is evident in the artwork itself. The words are just a
finger, pointing at the thing you want other's to look to.
And, as said above- written statements have extremely limited
usefulness.
> Again, maybe my point is too subtle (like the distinction I was
trying to make
> about why language is a subset of symbolic thought rather than
a synonym).
Hey! I never said language was a synonym of symbolic thought.
What I said was "Language is Any Method Of Conveying Complex
Symbolic Thought From One Person To Another."
Any Method.
Because All such methods are evocative and aesthetic, I take the
position that all forms of expression are subsets of Art. Since all
methods of communicating meaning evince syntax-like structures
to aid in comprehension, so all forms of Art (including speech) are
also Language.
That's what I said.
However- neither is language a subset of symbolic thought.
Symbolic thought is what we grasp Out of language, or try to
express Thru it. Awareness and thought have no voice, no words.
Language is just the tool our brains have with which to "encode"
our thoughts so that they may be transmitted.
Kromkowski, the voice in your head is not YOU. The words are not
your thoughts. You already know what the inner voice will say
before it is said. That KNOWING is thought. (Metaphysics 101)
> I am not denying the existance of personal motivation, but to me,
> it's just a
> matter of technique. If you need to wear a lucky red shirt to cast a
> piece,
> does that personal motivation change the piece?
Dude, don't you get it?- whether the piece does change or doesn't
change, WHY!?? Because of YOUR choice as creator.
What the heck does the shirt have to do with it- what the heck
does anything have to do with why your art looks the way YOU
make it. You are souly responsible for the art.
You Make it! The art is your expression! An expression
communicates something!
If not about you, then who? The art? All it knows is what you told it.
> But as you
> have clairvoyance; I suspect that you already know what the two
> things I think
> you are full of.
-Sweetness and light?
no..no..that can't be it... lemmesee
-Reason and common sense?
nah... that's not it...hmmm lemme concentrate...
A ha! - Piss and Vinegar!?
nope ahemmmmm I feeeeelllll something with a
strong scent...
Oh- that.
well, Kromkowski- I'd say that was a given.
Christopher
sculpt...@my-deja.com
> I've seen you refer to many here (including me) as in college, or
> school, or a class or something simular. Let me state, for the
> record, I have only taken TWO art classes in my entire 35 years
of
> life; one in the 7th grade, and a bronze casting course last year.
>
> Having lived on my own since age 16 and working my way
through college
> (no, not art), I am very IN TOUCH with reality.
Sorry- I wasn't necessarliy referring to you. I was responding to a
Complaint that art teachers want a statement of intent, and another
post wherein someone stated that they had never seen a sign in
art class saying that they had to communicate their vision or their
work was crap. This lead me to the conclusion that these fellows
were in school.
Kromkowski already brought me up short on that erroneous
assumption. Mea culpa Mea culpa. Mea culpa colffee.
However- this is the kind of fuzzy thinking I see in lots of artists who
are still in school.
> I'm bald, and no goatee, but, alas, being in Seattle I must do the
> coffeehouse thing. Please, don't hold it against me.
When I was in San Francisco last August, I and my woman sat in
the park near the arts district and could easily identify every art
student by their affectations.
It was the season for Goatees and Black Clothes and serious
coffehouse discussions about Art and the cutting edge!
We wondered where all the individuality that art engenders and
embraces had gone.
> If you remember, my original post was to ask the question, "what
> is
> art?". Instead of answering the question then, you verbally
> lambasted
> me and (once again) refered to me as a student doing a class
> project.
Again- consider it friendly fire. It was Kromkowski I lambasted. And
I did answer the original question- What Is Art? Several times over-
Art is how we express complex thoughts to each other. Art is the
biological foundation of all language and symbolic reasoning. Art
is the act of aesthetic descision. Art is the only thing that separates
humanity from the animals. Art is the human response to
existence.
All pretty good definitions, I think. And all true.
> I would contend that if a piece of art doesn't convey a message, t
>hen
> it isn't art. Just because I can punch keys on a keyboard, or stick
> metal together, or melt glass does NOT make me a writer, a
>welder, or
> a glass artist.
I would agree, with the proviso that it is impossible to create
anything you might call art without intending to, and that intention
always shows in the work. But y'know art CAN suck. Its still art, just
art that sucks.
> >If I'm full of it- I'll shut the hell up.
>
> God, don't we all wish you could!!! LOL
>
Hey now- when you're as full of shit as I am, a guy like Kromkowski
is pure exlax.
Sorry about the mess.
Christopher
sculpt...@my-deja.com
> It is so intensely personal, that it touches the universal (I hope).
>
> I think how I began, at around age 5, looking around me, so
much beauty,
>
> so much terror, I wanted to capture it's affect on me.
Now THATS what I call an hoonest answer! (knew I'd get one from
you)
Cutting straight to the bone of the thing.
Marilyn- I agree with you- the only way to touch the universal is
straight thru the center of one's self.
Cathy Morgan
sculpt...@my-deja.com wrote in message
Kromkowski
>Okay- but were you identified as the artist? Was your name on the
>invitation? The wall? Were you present? All of these are just other
>ways of calling the art yours.
More importantly it's a way to identify who gets paid if someone wants to buy
it!
Look, I am not saying that art isn't, in its making, personal to the artist,
nor that nothing can be learned about the artist through the work. What I am
saying the "personal" aspect of the art, isn't what makes it important. There
are some who seem to think that quality is directly related to amount of "known
personal motivation story". Hence, the making of the "personal motivation
story" becomes the focus rather than the piece of art. In the worst case, the
"art" teeters on becoming merely a by-product (almost an afterthought) of some
psychological/emotional therapy/self-treatment. Do art, if you want to do art.
Go to a counselor, if you need counselling. Do both, if that's what you
require, but don't confuse the purpose of these two things.
I don't deny that artist statements can be interesting but in the same way the
a history of an invention can be interesting. But a good story doesn't make
the new mousetrap better. (In response to Chris Ray, btw Chris is there a
Philadelphia sculpting group?)
>>No, not at all. As I said before, for the viewing public- for whom the
work is intended- the artwork itself IS your statement. That is my
point. All you should have to say has been "said" by the artwork
itself. I am focusing instead on the fact that the art is, itself, YOUR
statement, and not its own.<<
Heck, we're really not that far apart. I'm just saying that a some point,
(when the artist says the particular work is done), the umbilical cord between
the artist and the art is severed. I also think its important that its severed
because otherwise there's the whole resting on past laurels of the artist
thing. And the whole "personal art history" notion that a work can't have any
meaning/import without the context of the work previously done or done
thereafter. Again, not denying that it might be interesting or that there is
nothing to learn from such a history -- only saying it is irrelevant to the
"art qua art".
>>Art is how we express complex thoughts to each other.>>
Agreed. But, I don't think that makes it language. (we can just agree to
disagree.)
>> Art is the biological foundation of all language and symbolic reasoning.>>
Disagree. I see see the relation differently. I'd say our inherent capacity
at symbolic reasoning is the source/foundation of language, art, logic,
mathematics. Each of which are similar but distinct examples of symbolic
reasoning. Not sure that I want to use the word "symbolic reasoning". Maybe
symbolic "thought" would be better. Since there are many, not me, who don't
think "intuition" is a form of "reasoning".
>> Art is the act of aesthetic descision. >>
Agreed.
>>Art is the only thing that separates humanity from the animals.>>
It is one of the things. I'd say complex symbolic reasoning, of which, art is
one example. The ability to knowing that one doesn't know some things, may
also separates us.
>>Art is the human response to existence.>>
Agreed, if you subistute "a" for "the".
JDK
sculpt...@my-deja.com
> When I look at sculpture, I
> think I look at it on two different levels. One level is what you
> described, which is basically looking at the piece as a full
> statement by
> the artist. I may not necessarily be thinking of what the artist
> means, or
> why they did this or that in the piece, but I still have the idea that it
> was created for some purpose in the back of my mind. The
> second level is
> more on the level of the work itself. It's a given that the artist has
> created this piece and presented it as art, so instead of
> questioning its
> validity as art, or the strength of its content, I just look at the
> object(s), and the way that different parts of the work interact with
> each
> other. While I guess it's still based on the artist creating the
piece for
> a purpose, I'm not thinking of the piece as an extension of the
artists
> ideas, but rather as an entity in and of itself.
Look- I'm still not making this clear- Both of the ways you look at
the piece are the same. Most artists create the work to be an entity
in and of itself- that very idea IS their intent.
The piece is never an "extension of the artists ideas"- the entity
itself IS the artist's idea.
What you SEE when you look at it is what the artist has SAID,
visually.
Your experience of the art is the sound of the artist's voice.
That still tells you something about the artist because the thing
itself was dreamed of in their minds- whatever the entity in and of
itself looks and feels like is a reflection of the artist's
consciousness at the moment of creation.
> This could be the problem I'm having with the critiques; that the
other
> students are looking for what I am trying to say in my piece, while
its
> content is closer to the second level I described. Then again,
looking at
> my History of Modern Art class, maybe I'm just not wierd enough
to be an
> artist ;).
Maybe other students should not be giving critiques- If they Knew
how to critique effectively, they would teachers not students.
Critique requires experience and knowledge. While they may need
to practice critique- they are young and inexperienced and should
not be allowed to practice on their peers. It is the responsibility of
the instructor to give the student cogent critique.
For Critique to be at all effective, the first question asked has to be
"What is your objective?" or "What are you trying to accomplish?"
and for the Critique to proceed you have to have an answer to this
question.
Again- it would be better for the student to give 'reviews' of each
other's work. A review is a verbal description of what they see in
the work, how it affects them, what it calls to mind and what they
think about in response to the experience of the work. This is often
more helpful in clarifying your purpose, and once your purpose is
clarified in your own mind- then you can answer the first question
in a critique.
christopher
Chris Ray
>Philadelphia sculpting group?)
There is an informal group of sculptors in the Philadelphia area. We gather at
each other's studio a few times each year but it's not something that's
regulated. If you're interested and would like to be notified when the next
meeting is then send an email from this site:
http://www.websiteproject.com/kbrown
There's also an on line site for Philadelphia sculptors but I don't know very
much about them.
http://members.aol.com/artsite2000
sculpt...@my-deja.com
> More importantly it's a way to identify who gets paid if someone
> wants to buy
> it!
Amen Brother!
> Look, I am not saying that art isn't, in its making, personal to the
> artist,
> nor that nothing can be learned about the artist through the
> What I am
> saying the "personal" aspect of the art, isn't what makes it
> important. There
> are some who seem to think that quality is directly related to
> amount of "known
> personal motivation story". Hence, the making of the "personal
> motivation
> story" becomes the focus rather than the piece of art.
But only if that is that particular artist's intent.
I think your wrong about the personal- The fact that it is someone's
expression of something is the only thing that makes art
interesting. If all humanity disppeared tomorrow- all existing art
would become immediately irrelevant and meaningless.
> I'm just saying that a some
> point,
> (when the artist says the particular work is done), the umbilical
> cord between
> the artist and the art is severed. I also think its important that its
> severed
> because otherwise there's the whole resting on past laurels of
> the artist
> thing. And the whole "personal art history" notion that a work
> can't have any
> meaning/import without the context of the work previously done
> or done
> thereafter. Again, not denying that it might be interesting or that
> there is
> nothing to learn from such a history -- only saying it is irrelevant t
> o the
> "art qua art".
I can't agree- had you been born in the year 1047, you would never
have conceived to create the art you do today. The art that came
before is the only context that makes modern art meaningful at all.
You may not even be aware of it, but you were born into a world
where you have been surrounded since birth with a visual
discussion regarding imagery. You can not UNknow the context
into which you create art.
You cannot take a Rothko back in time and expect anyone to
understand or appreciate it. The context in which it was created is
crucial to why it exists at all.
Its like a syntax, man, taking a work of art out of context is like
taking a word or phrase out of context- the true meaning is
distorted or lost.
Your own personal history of exression is no different. Someone
logging on today and reading these posts will be ill equipped to
understand the things we say today. To really appreciate the
thread of this conversation, they will have to review the past
postings.
In one sense each work of art is a singular statement of being- it
reflects your mind at the time you created it. In another sense-
looking at the work an artist produces over time you see
snapshots of their "being" as they grow and change.
Kromkowski- as much as you may wish it were different- look
around you- people "personalize" art becasue that is what they find
interesting about it.
And, hey, wouldn't you like to be able to rest on your laurels when
your 80? What's so bad about that?
> >> Art is the biological foundation of all language and symbolic
reasoning.>>
> Disagree. I see see the relation differently. I'd say our inherent
>capacity
> at symbolic reasoning is the source/foundation of language, art,
>logic,
> mathematics. Each of which are similar but distinct examples of
>symbolic
> reasoning. Not sure that I want to use the word "symbolic
>reasoning". Maybe
> symbolic "thought" would be better.
BUT. what IS thinking symbolicly? Imagine it. Seeing reality
symbolicly is fundamentally aesthetic. Everything you list, people
talk about as having a "beauty" to them. I am saying that the artistic
sense is what gave birth to all symbolic expression. We had to
SEE it before we tried to EXPRESSS it.
> >>Art is the only thing that separates humanity from the
>>animals.>>
> It is one of the things. I'd say complex symbolic reasoning, of
> which, art is
> one example. The ability to knowing that one doesn't know
> some things, may
> also separates us.
What we know- like that we don't know everything or mortality is
nothing but a result of symbolic thought - so cross that out as
derivative of the first.
If I am right- Complex symbolic reasoning essentially is an
aesthetic function- giving us just one characteristic to differentiate
us from the animals. I think its a more elegant model.
It all comes down to cogent symbolism. What is that if not art?
Kromkowski
>Most artists create the work to be an entity
>in and of itself- that very idea IS their intent.
>The piece is never an "extension of the artists ideas"- the entity
>itself IS the artist's idea.
I agree that it's not an "extension of the artist's ideas". But I'd say that
the work/entity is a symbol for the artist's chosen idea.
Art work ~= Idea (more or less, depending on ability and luck).
This is why it's an activity of "symbolic thought".
>That still tells you something about the artist because the thing
>itself was dreamed of in their minds- whatever the entity in and of
>itself looks and feels like is a reflection of the artist's
>consciousness at the moment of creation.
THis part (the reflection of the artist's consciousness) is just an
epiphenomenon. I don't think that the IDEA which the work symbolizes actually
resides in the artist mind; that is just where the artist can get at it, the
IDEA actually resides where IDEAS. You see now that I really am a bit of a
Platonist/Kantian!
>Maybe other students should not be giving critiques- If they Knew
>how to critique effectively, they would teachers not students.
>Critique requires experience and knowledge. While they may need
>to practice critique- they are young and inexperienced and should
>not be allowed to practice on their peers. It is the responsibility of
>the instructor to give the student cogent critique.
Hey, we agree on something!
>For Critique to be at all effective, the first question asked has to be
>"What is your objective?" or "What are you trying to accomplish?"
But alas, here we don't. In my view, that's probably the last question.
After looking at the piece quietly for about 30 seconds
I think the first question is "would I want to spend more than 30 seconds
looking at the piece?"
Then, I ask "why or why not?", in order to answer this question what needs to
be done is to catalogue what appear to be the chosen elements (first, the
formal visual ones and later, the contextual and conceptual ones) and the
qualities (physical characteristics) of those elements and the relations
between and among those elements. This may be what you call "review".
The verbalization of the catorgization of the elements into those that compel
further contemplation and those the repulse further contemplation, help in part
to teach the artist how to figure out themselves where they were successful or
unsuccessful in accomplishing their objective (the concretization of a chosen
idea/form) as well as sorting out how strong they really understood/grasped the
IDEA/form they had a glimpse or vision of in their mind.
Uniformally, I think that the artist, when confronted with objective (objective
in that they are there or they aren't) catalogueing of the elements and the
subjective (subjective in that the critic can be wrong) advice from the critic
on what worked and what didn't, will fess up to what they already know about
where they fell short of as well as where they "nailed" the idea/form they were
getting at, like Meno. They are confronted with "evidence" of where they added
(an) element(s) that actual wasn't part of the idea/form as they seemed to
imagine it or where they left out (an) element(s).
Of course, since the critic can't get inside of the artist head, it is up to
the artist own sense of honesty to the idea/form. There is also a second
aspect: the artist may still have a confused notion of what it was they were
glimpsing or envisioning. It may be that there are multiple and distinct
forms/idea that were imagined but the artist didn't understand the confusion
and confounding. Likewise, the blind chicken sometimes gets a kernel of corn.
The critic may point out an element that seems to work, but that the artist
wants to admit was accidental or unintentional. By investigating that element,
the artist may often find out that there was an uncounscious inclusion because
the artist actually glimpsed something.
In this sense, the critic acts as training for the artist to be able to step
back and make the objective and subjective critique themselves.
JDK
Kromkowski
>Kromkowski- as much as you may wish it were different- look
>around you- people "personalize" art becasue that is what they find
>interesting about it.
People personalize art because we're in an especially egotistical and
self-absorbed age. Didn't someone call it the "Me Generation" to describe the
phenomenon.
JDK
Kromkowski
>Your own personal history of exression is no different. Someone
>logging on today and reading these posts will be ill equipped to
>understand the things we say today. To really appreciate the
>thread of this conversation, they will have to review the past
>postings.
Yeah, but while I can only write for myself, my posts aren't ART! They're just
language not specifically chosen to be elements of a work of ART.
Now, if our thread were ART, say a play; then you'd be right. I couldn't
really appreciate a play if I only read one scene. But nor, could I really
appreciate a sculpture if I could only see it from one side.
Your argument suggests the entire body of an artists work is also ART. This
might be true if the artist specifically decides that all of his/her works, in
toto, are one piece -- a life long performance piece, if you will. But, I
doubt many artists are willing to declare such a thing because there is usually
plenty of stuff that they'd like to edit out, if that were the case. (The
chance to edit is the aesthetic choice.*) Moreover, as to any artist that
wants to make such a declaration, fine; I personally don't have the time or
energy to devote to appreciating such a "piece" and I doubt the capacity of
very many artist's to actually be able to make good enough to be worth the time
for the viewer.
* Is a retrospective exhibit also a work of art by the curator? If she says so,
yes; if not, no. But the retrospective curated by someone other than the
artist is not in itself a singular work of the art by the artist on exhibit.
JDKromkowski
Kromkowski
>You cannot take a Rothko back in time and expect anyone to understand or
appreciate it. <
I really disagree. Especially about Rothko, whose work I like. I find his
work to be especially NOT time-bound, since he specifically chose _not_ to
include time bound elements (such as content, and/or historical/cultural
context) . It seems very much related to the reaction that every one gets when
looking at the horizon meeting the ocean, the water meeting the dunes, the
meadow meeting the forest, the forest meeting the sky, the forehills meeting
the alps, the edge of a flower petal meeting the leave underneath, etc., etc.,
etc., where ever two planes of color meet. I don't think the primal way humans
see color, line, form, texture, empty space and other purely visual elements
has changed in at least 100,000 years.
While I can certainly respect and understand the artists who choose to also use
historically and culturally bound content and context as additional (or even as
the primary) elements in their work, it is specifically because of the limiting
effect of these types of elements, that I "tend" to avoid using those elements.
For example, your work may well be limited because you have choosen the whole
cowboys and indians thing (at least what I've seen) as an element. However, to
the extent that the "formal" visual elements (those elements that are not
historically or cultural bound) have been put in the right place, in the right
way, in the right manner, and in the right juxatposition, then you may still
have created something that might be good art, whether viewed now, in the U.
S., or in the future, or in the past, or in some culture that has no idea about
cowboys and indians or horses. On the other hand, to the extent that the
historically or cultural elements are the most integral; well, I'd sell
everything you can now since those elements may soon lose their import.
JDKromkowski
sculpt...@my-deja.com
> >You cannot take a Rothko back in time and expect anyone to
> >understand or
> >appreciate it. <
>
> I really disagree. Especially about Rothko, whose work I like. I
> find his
> work to be especially NOT time-bound, since he specifically
> chose _not_ to
> include time bound elements (such as content, and/or
> historical/cultural
> context) .
Please. The Raphaelites would have laughed at it. Rothko's work
is entirely contextual. It is in direct response to the art movements
of his time and prior to his time. You can not look at it out of this
context any more than you could at it without knowing your own
name. Your entire consciousness is a product of this context in
which you exist, and so was Rothko's ( understand- I love his
work- but the entire art world agrees that modern art only has
relevance within the context of the evolution of art)
> I don't think the primal way humans
> see color, line, form, texture, empty space and other purely visual
> elements
> has changed in at least 100,000 years.
You are wrong to think so. The art they produced illustrates that
their perspective on reality has changed over time. If they had seen
the world as Rothko did, they would have made paintings that
looked like his.
> While I can certainly respect and understand the artists who
> choose to also use
> historically and culturally bound content and context as additional
> (or even as
> the primary) elements in their work, it is specifically because of
> the limiting
> effect of these types of elements, that I "tend" to avoid using
> those elements.
You cannot avoid using them- they are all you have to use. You will
never in your life create a "new" element. Everything you think and
see and imagine is a product of the context of your times. You can
not UNKNOW that which you know.
> For example, your work may well be limited because you have
> choosen the whole
> cowboys and indians thing
Gawd please don't judge me by my commercial work.
It keeps coming back to the fact that you deny the affect the world
around you has on you- and the effect you have on the world.
I can prove unequivocally that all modern art is contextual- If, as
you say, we have always seen the world the same, then post
modern art would appear thruout history.
The term itself, postmodern, is contextual.
sculpt...@my-deja.com
> Yeah, but while I can only write for myself, my posts aren't ART! >
They're just
> language not specifically chosen to be elements of a work of
ART.
Don't know about you, but everything I write, I put art into. Language
is an art in every sense. Ask J.D. Salinger, or Dickens.
The fact that some writing sucks is no different than the fact that
some art sucks.
The body of an artist's work may or may not be an ART- depending
on the artist's intent. But even if it isn't ART- it still eveals
something about the artist's life. About what he thought and felt
from one work to the next. This is a fact, Kromkowki.
Look- your art is your expression. Something you express is
something you think or feel. Its you. Like it or not.
There is no objective reality. everything you think and feel and do is
just you- subjective.
Kromkowski
>It keeps coming back to the fact that you deny the affect the world
>around you has on you- and the effect you have on the world.
I'm not denying that (although, I suspect my effect on the world is rather
insignificant). But the effect the world has is on "style". Which, of
course, changes through time and culture. But mere "stylistics" difference are
really not that meaningful. For example, clothes have a wide variety of
styles through time, place and culture. But for any nudist alien race looking
down on earth, the differences are pretty insignificant. Some people like the
mountains, some people like the ocean -- mere stylistic differences of the
Creator.
>I can prove unequivocally that all modern art is contextual- If, as
>you say, we have always seen the world the same, then post
>modern art would appear thruout history.
>The term itself, postmodern, is contextual.
The gap between what you have arbitrarily called "modern" just isn't as clear
cut and important as you make it out to be. Part of the change in "styles" has
to do with changes in technology. We wear many different hued clothes today
because we can make them cheaply, not because they were less desirable 50 or
2000 years ago or more desirable today. There is always variation through
time, place, and culture; but not every difference or minor variation is in and
of itself significant. Flip a coin a 1000 times, you'll get so many heads. If
I do the same, I will almost assuredly get a different number. Is our
difference a reflection of something important in our flipping style?
Unlikely.
JDK
Kromkowski
>> While I can certainly respect and understand the artists who
>> choose to also use
>> historically and culturally bound content and context as additional
>> (or even as
>> the primary) elements in their work, it is specifically because of
>> the limiting
>> effect of these types of elements, that I "tend" to avoid using
>> those elements.
>You cannot avoid using them- they are all you have to use. You will
>never in your life create a "new" element. Everything you think and
>see and imagine is a product of the context of your times. You can
>not UNKNOW that which you know.
Who's talking about "new" elements. The "formal" visual elements are just the
opposite; they are primal. What is the specific time-bound or cultural bound
element or elements that Rothko uses? I'd like to know what you mean, because
maybe we aren't understanding each other.
Kromkowski
>> I don't think the primal way humans
>> see color, line, form, texture, empty space and other purely visual
>> elements
>> has changed in at least 100,000 years.
>You are wrong to think so. The art they produced illustrates that
>their perspective on reality has changed over time. If they had seen
>the world as Rothko did, they would have made paintings that
>looked like his.
Give me some specific biological evidence, to support your contention that the
way we see has significantly changed. Unless you saying that the invention of
glasses has altered art (an interesting hypothesis, certainly worthy of
investigation)
Kromkowski
>but the entire art world agrees that modern art only has
>relevance within the context of the evolution of art
Except me, I guess. Where does "modern art" begin for you by the way.
And I recall, can't find citation now, specific evidence that Rothko, himself,
would have disagreed about his work. He was stripping things down to universal
qualities that would evoke specific emotive responses unversally in viewers
across time and culture.
JDK
db
that I looked at had a lot of Indian stuff going on. I like it simpler,
abstract, but thats just me. I look at the question of this thread and think
a better question is 'what is cool sculpture'?. Chris, what is your best
piece of sculpture? Not your best seller, not the best piece of
fashion/journalism/sociology/whatever. What is the piece that when you look
at it with your sculp.....no wait....I got it...Chris, you're sitting at a
table with David Smith and Giacometti and Rodin and Donatello and
uh..Praxiteles, which piece are you going to show them? Bet its not your
best seller. Theres so many different ways to view the quality of art. The
way I like to view it most often is in the light of a fellow artist looking
at it and saying 'hey, thats pretty cool'. Actually, the stuff of Chris's
that I looked at was pretty cool.
sculpt...@my-deja.com
The style of clothes has changed because their function has
changed.
In the renaissance, clothing was the single most important
personal indicator of status outside of your home. Fashionable
high status people spent the equivalent of two month's income on
a single garment.
In the industrial age- clothing became less and less important as
other personal and portable things took the place of status
objects- Like Mercedes Benzes and Rolex watches and Montblanc
pens and palm pilots and ever smaller cell phones and platinum
cards.
Clothing has dropped from an indicator of staus to an indicator of
hippness.
This is just one fundemental change- I'm not even going to get into
the exposure to the elements issue.
sculpt...@my-deja.com
doing it because of the context he worked in. He only came up with
the idea because of the context of his times. Modern art! Art for
Art's sake! These were the art movements that encouraged and
validated his thinking and his expression.
He was trying to get to an EVEN MORE ELEMENTAL FORM than
his PREDECESSORS. Had he been born into an Art nouvue
milieu- he would have been puching the boundaries of Deco.
In a prior age-the way he paints would have been laughed at- as
was Van Gogh- for daring to see the world in a way just slightly out
of step with his times. The world eventually came around to Van
Gogh's way of thinking, but how many thousands of artists tried to
express something else out of context and disappeared into
oblivion?
No man is an Island, K.
This is what that means.
christopher
sculpt...@my-deja.com
I mean that ALL ELEMENTS are historically and culturally bound.
They all have history. Name an elemental form that as no context?
Wether you realize it or not, you are tapping into this very history
and context to express yourself. Sharp things are sharp- soft
things are soft- the words that describe them betray their bias.
Like the elements of any language- they all have connotations.
Christopher
sculpt...@my-deja.com
And since how our brains interpret what we see defines what we
experience- how we see HAS changed.
For thousand of years people watched the sun come up in the
morning and thought they were seeing the sun going around the
earth. You can never look at the sun this way and neithter can I
because we can never UNknow that its the other way around.
Prior to Breunelleschi and his pals establishing the rules of
perspective- objects in paintings in the middle ages were sized
according to importance. Kings and Angels were painted as larger
than the buildings they lived in, and peasants were tiny.
When perspective was introduced it created a revolution in thought
that went far beyond painting.
It put everything into perspective- the idea affected the whole
culture in the same way that Darwin's theory led to Communism
and Nazis.
Prior to photography- It never occured to anyone that art should be
anything other than a representation of the world.
After photography- which captured reality pefectly- only then did
artists start trying to render the world in a way that a camera can
not. Impressionism was the revolution brought on by the fact of the
camera lens and how it change our way of seeing reality. This is
why Rothko would have flopped in 1800. No one seeing his work
would have recognized it as art.
To go from realism to impressionism is a small step. We could
never have gone from impresionism to postmodern in one step.
Our legs aren't that long.
Every change in art is predicated on what came before. Context
rules all creation and all expression.
sculpt...@my-deja.com
turban that I am very happy with. Not online anywhere.
Also- one of my older nude pieces entitled 100 strokes.
Only two or three of my injun things would make it into my top 20
pieces I've ever done.
Meeting a great artist- I'd hand him my card.
Its a 3 & a half by 2 resin casting of a nude torso in low bas relief.
Everybody I give one loves it.
ask Debra.
Mostly, db, I do what pays. I've made my entire living as a sculptor
and moldmaker for the 23 years since I left school.
Mostly its commissioned work of a more or less commercial
nature- like the indians.
I do my best to satisfy the client with the best design I can muster.
Kromkowski
>You can never look at the sun this way and neithter can I
>because we can never UNknow that its the other way around.
>
I still call them sunsets and sunrises, even though I know better, because that
is what they look like. What do you call them?
Kromkowski
>Name an elemental form that as no context?
line
color
texture
volume
negative space
sculpt...@my-deja.com
those are not elemental forms- they are categories of forms.
What light? Color is a subset of light.
Which line? curving , straight, languid and organic?, precise and
geometric?
The fact that they can be identified with words proves they are all
common experiences- things we know about already.
You can not render any art using the form "volume". You have to
choose a shape for that volume. Any shape you chose will be
familiar to me.
You can not render any art using the form "negative space". The
Shape you chose for the "volume" will determine the shape of the
negative space.
The principles of negative space and closure are well established
idioms of artistic expression- people understand them because
they are familiar with them-have experienced them before.
That is context.
As an artist, you think in the visual idiom of your age. You have no
choice but to express yourself in that idiom, it is how you make
sense of what you experience.
Your audience understands what you express thru the idiom
called to mind when they view the work.
Those unfamiliar with the idiom of modern art will look at what you
create and think it meaningless crap. They do not recognize the
effort or thought that went into it because they have no shared
experience to indicate to them what place the work takes in the
ongoing dialog of modern art.
This is why previous centuries would not recognize Rothko's work.
It could not be understood any more than they would the words
"groovy". or "far out", or "tubular"
(Unless of course it was accompanied by an artist's statement on
intent- then they might get an inkling of it)
Art is a language because it satisfies every description of how
language conveys meaning.
All human communication has frames of reference.
Context.
Syntax.
Communication of ideas is impossible without them- they are the
codec without which the data is just noise.
Kromkowski
>This is
>why Rothko would have flopped in 1800. No one seeing his work
>would have recognized it as art.
But it still would have been art, if the hypothetical 1800 Rothko said it was.
Whether it would have flopped, is an issue of style and buyer preferences, not
of its instrinic artistic quality. There are "in" colors just like there are
in "styles", but this is a function of aggregate preferences, marketing,
advertising, political propeganda, response to the market, boredom, etc., all
of which are very variable but none of which has to do with whether the art is
"good" or "bad", it just has to do with whether its sold or unsold, burned or
preserve in museums or sold in tourist gift shops.
>>To go from realism to impressionism is a small step. We could
never have gone from impresionism to postmodern in one step.
Our legs aren't that long.<<
"We" and "our" refer to the aggregate taste of the buyers and consumers of art.
Tomatoes took a while to catch on in Europe, but they were always ok to eat.
In other words, their edibility (intrinisic quality) was not changed by
consumer preferences only their saleability.
>Prior to photography- It never occured to anyone that art should be
>anything other than a representation of the world.
Except when they painted Heaven, or Hell, or scenes from mythology. Are you
saying that the Eyptian artists were just bad representation artists? This is
just a kinda of folk science explanation of the history of art. Almost no art
has been devoted to the accurate representation of the world.
> Darwin's theory led to Communism and Nazis.<<
Origin of Species, 1859; Communist Manesto, 1848.
If you had said Comte or the Enlightenment in general, well that's a pretty
good theory (See, Eric Vogelin.)
JDK
Kromkowski
>Kromkowski
>those are not elemental forms- they are categories of forms.
There has been a shift in the words, which perhaps I did not realize. I was
talking about "formal" elements. Now, you are writing about "elemental forms".
Here is how I am using the terms:
Elements -- those constituant parts of any art work, the building blocks if you
will.
So for example, in music, we have pitch, duration, absence of duration, timbre
(depending on what instrument the piece is played or for which it is scored).
In addition, there is rhythm and harmony, theme or melody, pattern/structure.
These elements are what one might call "formal" elements; i.e. those aspects
which are of the pecular elements of the particular media -- in this case
music. There might be other "elements", some of which are cultural or
contextual. We might also group these later two elements in a category of
"conceptual" elements.
For example, in Peter and the Wolf, there is a programatic element because the
themes stand for some particular thing. Hence, the specific melodies are also
contextual elements. I.e., they are building blocks like the formal elements,
but which are building blocks specifically because of their contextual
reference to the story of Peter and the Wolf. A key shift is also a
contextual since its import is derived from the context of the pitch elements
that came before. There also may be a cultural element where a theme or rhythm
or choice of elements has a particular relationship or association, the tango
rhythm with love or a melody with childhood games or peason life or whatever.
For example, if Jimi Hendrix "quotes" the Star Spangled Banner, then that
element (building block of the entire piece) would be a cultural element.
The combination of these elements (formal, contextual, and cultural) create the
piece of music.
You sort of eased into this three part description, so I have tried to retain
it. Although, I have to admit I'd rather prefer a two-part division: formal
and conceptual. The formal would include all of that which I referred to as
"formal" (the building blocks with no naturally inherent reference outside
themselves (line is line, color is color, etc) plus those contextual elements,
which are not culturally or historically bound up, but which derive their
reference and import _internally_ from the piece. The conceptual would include
the contextual elements which are derived _externally_ from outside the work
(these may or may not be cultural) and those elements which are clearly and
intentional cultural/historical and hence, by definition are derived
_externally_ from the work.
In the visual arts (sculpture in particular), the "formal" elements are those
which I previously mentioned in last post -- line, color, texture, shape,
volume, etc.
When these "formal" elements are arranged in a certain way to form a
recognizable thing such as a feather, a knife, a stereotypical native american,
horse, etc; then it may be said that the feather, knife and stereotypical
native american, and horse are "contextual" elements. Likewise, if there is a
repetition of a formal element such as a line, then there is also the
contextual (but not cultural) element of rhythm created. In my two part model,
the feather and knife would be contextual elements that are Conceptual because
of the relationship to the external, but the creation of a visually rhythm
would be a contextual but Formal element, since its import is derived from an
relationship _internal_ to the piece.
On the other hand, these contextual elements also might be cultural elements.
For example, a feather might have a peculiar meaning know only through cultural
reference. Or a knife in proximity to a native american might be a cultural
stereotype used to symbolize, reinforce or by a kind of jujistu to mock a
stereotype of the "savage". Again, in my prefered division, these would be
Conceptual elements.
For example, Joyce Scott has a retrospective of her work at the Baltimore
Museum of Art. There are pieces, which have the colors red and green. These
are "formal" elements. But the colors are also of the particular hue and tone
to suggest watermelon -- hence, they are "contextual" (or perhaps "cultural")
to people who know about that fruit. But also she associates (juxtaposes and
incorporates) these colors with some elements suggesting African-Americans to
mock (and perhaps even to celebrate) the stereotypical association.
We could continue identifying "Formal" elements of other art: e.g. poetry,
drama, fiction, dance, cooking, etc. And these other arts could also have
contextual and cultural elements. We could also divide the elements into
Formal/internal and Conceptual/external
Form --
Although, "form" has a visual sense. I am trying to use the term in its
broadest sense to convey the piece of work. It is the this-world symbol of
the Idea of the piece. FORM is what the artist actually creates to represent
the IDEA that she envisioned or heard or dance or tasted in her mind.
Universality and the Elements of Art.
I submit that the "formal" elements as opposed to the contextual or cultural
elements used in pieces, are clearly in the visual arts universal, because it
is a visual thing related to how human physically see. Except for specific
disorders (e.g. color blindness); lines, colors, shapes, volumes, etc. are seen
as such.
Some "contextual" elements might also be universal. For example, contextual
reference to natural things -- trees and animals and land/seascapes tend to be
universally recognized as trees, animals and scapes), including the human
figure. Also relational contextual elements, for example, child or children,
youth and adult, parent and child, pregnant women, family, home, crying,
laughing, and many other things, including other emotions, tend to be
universally recognized, notwithstanding culture. Likewise, if there is a
repetition of a formal element such as a line, then there is also the
contextual (but not cultural) element of rhythm created. (n.b., see also
previous reference to a two part division.)
Some contextual references, however, are culturally/historically bound.
For example, a combination of line, color and shape will be that combination of
line, color and shape, regards of time. If put in the right place and in the
right way, then the viewer will be compelled to a moment of contemplation, in
the same way that someone looks out at the oceans or up at the stars or down at
a beetle, etc, and says "hey, that's neato, I can't keep from wanting to stare
a little longer".
It will not matter that these "formal" elements also create the appearance or
semblence of an automobile, the contextual element of automobile is cultural
and historically bound because no one would know what a car is 200 years ago.
But that since it is also an contextual and cultural element (i.e., the idea of
a car), it also has the opportunity in a way that all art works to create a
compelling moment of contemplation, that says "hey, that's neato, I can't keep
from wanting to stare a little longer."
I can appreciate the visual art can on any one, two, or all three levels
(formal, contextual, and cultural or Formal and Conceptual, if you choose a two
part model), create that compelling moment of contemplation. Nonetheless, I
submit that what separates out the _great_ VISUAL art (which comes in all
styles), is that it is working best on the formal and contextual level or
Formal rather than Conceptual. That it also is working on some
historical/cultura/external/conceptual level is secondary. Lately, I might even
go so far to suggest that a visual art form/piece that speaks profoundly (and
many do, in my opinion) on a Conceptual level, might actually have been done
even better in a different medium or even art type. I refer to this as the
sculptor or painter who probably should be a playwrite, poet, performer, or
essayist! (I am sure this later comment will cheese some people off, and I am
willing to acknowledge that I might be wrong.)
JDK
sculpt...@my-deja.com
> There has been a shift in the words, which perhaps I did not
> realize. I was
> talking about "formal" elements. Now, you are writing about
> "elemental forms".
Read your posts, dude- in any event it changes not the thrust.
>
> Elements -- those constituant parts of any art work, the building
> blocks if you
> will.
building blocks are not ideas- they are forms- you can see and
touch. The constituent parts of any work of art are MATERIAL. They
exist- they are not the category that describes them. Body Panels
is a category of "formal elements" that must exist on all cars, but
the constituent parts are actually Fender, Quarterpanel, trunk lid."
> These elements are what one might call "formal" elements; i.e.
> those aspects
> which are of the pecular elements of the particular media -- in
> this case
> music. There might be other "elements", some of which are
> cultural or
> contextual. We might also group these later two elements in a
> category of
> "conceptual" elements.
Sorry, they are all categorical. They are words descriptiveof groups
of concrete "things".
> For example, in Peter and the Wolf, there is a programatic
> element because the
> themes stand for some particular thing. Hence, the specific
> melodies are also
> contextual elements. I.e., they are building blocks like the formal
> elements,
> but which are building blocks specifically because of their
> contextual
> reference to the story of Peter and the Wolf. A key shift is also a
> contextual since its import is derived from the context of the pitch
> elements
> that came before. There also may be a cultural element where a
> theme or rhythm
> or choice of elements has a particular relationship or
> association, the tango
> rhythm with love or a melody with childhood games or peason
> life or whatever.
> For example, if Jimi Hendrix "quotes" the Star Spangled Banner,
> then that
> element (building block of the entire piece) would be a cultural
element.
Jimi had parents. that is contextual. He is black, contextual. Jimi is
playing an electric guitar- that is contextual- In rondo form, context,
rhythym and blues-contextual, he is calling the lady "foxy" that is
contextual, he is speaking in American Idiomatic English, that is
contextual, on a color TV,which is contextual, in the U.S., to
rebellious teens, on Earth. Context Context Context.
>
> I submit that the "formal" elements as opposed to the contextual
>or cultural
> elements used in pieces, are clearly in the visual arts universal,
>because it
> is a visual thing related to how human physically see. Except for
>specific
> disorders (e.g. color blindness); lines, colors, shapes, volumes,
>etc. are seen
> as such.
Again- you are confusing description with reality. You can talk all
day about formal elements- but they do not exist- it is just a
category for all the actual elements. You can not create an element
without context.
You give examples where you label an element as formal, but
conceed that it is also contextual. But you cannot point to one work
of art and say there! that elemnt there is purely formal with no
context!
Everything you think and feel is the result of context. You are
making the art you make because you were born when and where
you were born.
No matter how pure you tell yourself you are- you can not help
what you have experienced- the experiences recorded in the
neural pathways of your brain are the context responsible for how
you think and what you create.
Kromkowski- you don;t seem to realize that all of these IDEAS
about art that you spout- ARE THE CONTEXT OF MODERN ART-
its what all the artists of today talk about. It what they have been
talking about for years.
You have still not offered one example of an artwork that has a
"formal element" that is NOT contextual.
> It will not matter that these "formal" elements also create the
> appearance or
> semblence of an automobile, the contextual element of
> automobile is cultural
> and historically bound because no one would know what a car is
> 200 years ago.
But you can be sure that they would recognize the context of the
wagon that is the foundation of every car.
Human beings only make sense of things thru familiar context.
Study a little cognitive science. It may cure this wooly thinking.
> I refer to this as the
> sculptor or painter who probably should be a playwrite, poet,
> performer, or
> essayist! (I am sure this later comment will cheese some
> people off, and I am
> willing to acknowledge that I might be wrong.)
>
Essayist- sure, you are the essayist guy I know. But you are no
poet if you are deaf to the other languages around you.
Kromkowski
>Again- you are confusing description with reality. You can talk all
>day about formal elements- but they do not exist- it is just a
>category for all the actual elements. You can not create an element
>without context.
There is clearly a language problem here. I think that you are putting an
extra-ordinary gloss on my use of the word "formal" to describe "elements" (the
constituant parts of a work).
Probably a better word to call these kinds of elements is "primary" or
"primal". Unfortunately, there is a tradition of call these types of elements
"formal" a la "formalism". Of course, they are "actual" elements. But all the
"elements" of a particular work are not the same.
Let's take something simple: a painting.
Now, on the painting, there will be lines, colors, shapes, brushstrokes. All
actual elements.
Let's say that these above elements form a recognizable human figure, a
feather, and a knife.
The human figure, the feather and the knife are now also elements.
So far we have identified the following elements:
lines
colors
shapes
brushstrokes
a figure (we could break this down further, depending on the detail and/level
of abstraction, but let's not for now)
a feather
a knife
Now, let's say that there is something that makes this figure appear from our
cultural mileu to be recognizable as a native american. This suggest that the
figure is a native american is an element of the piece. Let's also say that
the arrangement of the knife, feather and figure suggests a warrior -- Another
element.
Let's also say that the lines in relation to each other create a visually
rhythmic pattern in the backgrond. This visually rhythmic pattern is also an
element.
Ok, now this is our working list of elements. I've kept it short, to make the
point, not to imply that the are not an unknown and unknowable amount of
elements we could find.
lines
colors
shapes
brushstrokes
a figure
a feather
a knife
the idea that the figure represents a native american
the idea that this is a warrior
the visually rhythmic pattern
Now, these are actual elements of the piece. Who chose the elements (i.e. the
painter) is not an element, and it is irrelevant to our being able to identify
these elements. Moreover these elements are not all the same kind of elements.
I am NOT suggesting that there are no interactions among the elements because
clearly there are. Nor, am I suggesting that Whole work is merely a sum of the
parts, because the interaction of the parts also go into the Whole (sometimes
for the better and sometimes for the worse). Nor am I suggesting that it is
even possible to list all elements or know if all the elements have been
identified.
The lines, for example, have formal or naturally inherent properties in and of
themselves. They are or appear thick or thin, straight or curvy, short or
long, directional north, south, east, west, or whatever. But the qualties
derive directly from the work. I can't go to some art dictionary to look up a
collection of paint and find out, oh that's a curvey line heading
northeasterly. Its qualties are internal and are there for all seeing humans
to discern without reference to anything but the work.
Now, when certain shapes and lines and colors come together to suggest a
figure, that idea or semblence of a figure really comes from outside the work.
Although, it's is not culturally or historical derived. It's just that humans
when certain shapes, etc. come to get will get an idea of figure. The figure
is contextual in the sense that it is from the context (the relation of the
lines and shapes, etc within the piece) that the semblence arises because of
reference to the external idea (known by viewers) of a figure. Again, who the
artist is, is irrelevant to this process that goes on between the collection of
primary/formal elements (the work of art) and the viewers who have a notion
about "human figureness".
The element that encompesses the notion that the figure is a native american,
requires some outside reference that is culturally and historically bound. The
same is true about the "warriorness" element. Cultural elements require that
the viewer have a certain understanding otherwise the property does not emerge.
Again, the artist's background is irrelevant to the process of the viewer's
background knowledge plus the work resulting in the emergence a culturally
bound element. Where the property doesn't emerge, then the element isn't
actually there no matter how much the artist intends it to be there. (Of
course, at some point in the future it might arise, if the audience changes or
is educated.)
Now as the visually rhythmic pattern, this element is contextual in the sense
that its property/quality of rhythm derives from the context/ the relationship
among the lines. However, there really isn't an outside reference like the
idea of a human figure or the idea of a native american figure. The emergent
rhythmic quality is internally derive from the work of art. (We might quibble
about this, but I'd rather not.) Again, the artists background doesn't affect
the emergent quality in the least, it is there (presuming it has been done
well) for the viewer to see.
I maintain that all artist in all ages and in all styles have been dealing with
the choosing and arranging of these kinds of elements -- primary/formal,
contextual (from the arrangement of and relation to both internal things, like
the pattern, and/or external things like the idea of human figure regardless of
history and culture), and cultural, i.e. those things that require a certain
understanding in the viewer for the quality to emerge.
In a two part model of the elements, we could group the elements into Internal
(aka Formal) and Conceptual categories. The primary/formal all being
Internal/Formal; the culturally all being Conceptual; and the contextual being
either depending on whether the reference is internal (e.g. the pattern) and
hence, Internal/Formal or those where the reference is external (e.g., the idea
of a human figure) and hence, Conceptual.
The notion that only Modern art has been consciously choosing and arrange these
elements doesn't seem to ring true over the entirety of history. It may be
that so-called Modern Art has appeared to be less well intergrated in its
devotion to all of the types of elements and thus has tended to focus, in
extremes either on the purely internal elements (which is where my tendencies
lie) or more recently on the Conceptual elements, but there are certainly
counter-examples in the past of a less than balanced approached. For example,
where for historical and cultural reasons all art had to be allegorical, it is
arguable that notwithstanding a "reprensational" style, the art was as overly
Conceptual as anything produced in the conceptual genre in the last 20 years.
Any way, I guess we can agree to disgree or mutually misunderstand; I've spent
way too much time on this whole thread.
JDK
sculpt...@my-deja.com
> Now, these are actual elements of the piece. Who chose the
> elements (i.e. the
> painter) is not an element, and it is irrelevant to our being able to
> identify
> these elements.
You keep writing about the concept of DISCUSSION of art. All this
is merey descriptive- a translation. I can analyze art by categorizing
the "elements" that art has- like I can discuss Theme about a
book.
But none of that relates to the actuality of art.
In fact- all expressed art is contextual- I can talk about it abstractly,
but I can not create it abstractly- even the most abstract artwork
requires me to choose forms, specific colors, actual lines and
everything I choose is chosen from the library of what I already
know. I can't unknow- so I am stuck with this inescapable fact.
Who chose the element is only irrelevant to the non-experiential
analysis of art as a concept.
In looking at the element chosen- you are seeing the the artist's
choice. And it is calling to your mind that with which you are
familiar. -Again- look into cognitive science- how our brain's
understand reality is pretty clear cut. We recognize patterns. They
trigger memory of previous experience.
You claim some understanding of language- I can not believe you
don't comprehend that context IS the meaning.
> I can't go to some art dictionary to look up a
> collection of paint and find out, oh that's a curvey line heading
> northeasterly. Its qualties are internal and are there for all
> seeing humans
> to discern without reference to anything but the work.
Bullshit- you imagine that the viewer has never seen before
looking at the work ? All experience is understood thru reference.
No art stands alone- unconnected to the world of other visual
experience.
You are just essaying here- you are not responsive- show me a
work of art that has no context other than itself.
> Now, when certain shapes and lines and colors come together
> to suggest a
> figure, that idea or semblence of a figure really comes from
> outside the work.
Everything about art comes from outside the work- it did not create
itself.
> Again, who the
> artist is, is irrelevant to this process that goes on between the
> collection of
> primary/formal elements (the work of art) and the viewers who
> have a notion
> about "human figureness".
Again- bullshit- everything that goes on between the viewer and the
work is the reaction to what the artist has said-The artwork itself is
irrelevant to this primary fact. It is no different that these posts. You
say something and I respond. I say something and you evade.
The artist chose the "primary/formal elements" and their
arrangement. He absolutely controls the viewer's experience of the
art. If he has a clue to what he's doing, he is choosing them with
an awareness of their context within his culture so that he can
imagine how the viewer will react to the experience of the work. In
this way he is attempting to get across his meaning, trying to elict
the response he wants, by tapping into the context he shares with
the audience.
Dude the rest of this post was purest intellectual masturbation-
having no relation whatever to actual experience.
People are the only focus of art because people are the only ones
interested.
You really need to feel a little more and think a little less if you
hope to be an artist or a writer. If you aren't touching me with your
expression- mind to mind, then I have no interest in it. And neither
will anyone else.
Kromkowski
>>I can analyze art by categorizing the "elements" that art has- like I can
discuss Theme about a
book.>>
Yeah, exactly. And recognizing, even on an intuitely level (without discussion
but as one reads), the themes of a book, is how we appreciate and understand
the art form we call literature!
>Again- bullshit- everything that goes on between the viewer and the
>work is the reaction to what the artist has said-The artwork itself is
>irrelevant to this primary fact.
I really wanted to quit. But, now we can see, where the bullshit lies. (By
the way, using "bullshit" as an ad hominum is really bullshit.) Art for you is
primarily and solely egotistical exercise. You go so far as to call the
artwork irrelevant! I for one don't understand what sort of artist thinks
that the "artwork" is irrelevant.
If it's so irrelevant, why even let anyone know that you are doing it. Spare
us the pollution and waste involved in casting, just write a post about what
you want to say. Indeed, you even go on to claim:
> It (artwork) is no different that these posts. You say something and I
respond. <
But not satisfied to suggest that the artist (YOU) is the most important aspect
of art (more important that the work itself), YOU also claim that even when YOU
are the audience its all about YOU:
>>If you aren't touching me with your expression- mind to mind, then I have no
interest in it.<<
Of course, it's hard for me to take anything that seriously from someone who
uses the appellation "Dude" to refer to people, but you are also the one who
begged to not be judged by your "commercial" art. Well, dude, if we buy your
notion that art is primarly about the artist and not the work, then I why
should we make an exception. But, I don't buy your portrait of an artist as an
egomanic theory.
You further claim that I am >>not responsive- show me a work of art that has no
context other than itself<<
Didn't we discuss Rothko. Moreover, I have never said that most artwork has no
elements that do not have external references. I have always maintained that
there is a blending of different kinds of elements. Hence, you keep setting up
a strawman (Right up there with the ad hominums, in terms of discussion style.
It would be like me bringing up the fact again and again that you think Darwin
lead to Communism, notwithstanding a tiny historical problem in you theory).
However, in my view, the more culturally and historically bound elements and
the more that these kinds of elements are the central focus of the piece, the
less likely the piece will stand the test of time as a great piece. Feeling,
by the way, is not culturally or historically bound up, although it is
externally referential.
For example, http://members.aol.com/kromkowski/Flowscape.html. (I'm still
feeling out this new web media as a vehicle, not sure that its really ready for
sculpture, yet.) Yes, I chose all of the elements and of course there may be
some externally contextual aspects, but I don't think the chosen volume/shape
has an external reference. And I specifically chose/crafted that element (and
others) to avoid an external context which often gets in the way of creating
the contemplative moment.
You view art as being a dialog between the artist and the audience, if I
understand you point.
I view art as being two separate interactions. 1. between the artist and the
intuitive vision of the Idea in order to create the work (the making of art)
and 2. between the work itself and the audience (the experiencing of art).
What you are saying means that if you don't like the artwork then you don't
like the artist and that if you like the art, who must like the artist. That,
just isn't right.
JDK
sculpt...@my-deja.com
Kromkowski is a lawyer!
> Yeah, exactly. And recognizing, even on an intuitely level (without
discussion
> but as one reads), the themes of a book, is how we appreciate
and understand
> the art form we call literature!
Sorry, fella- how we appreciate it is if its well written and SAYS
something we respond to- theme is just a category - it ain't a story.
Any true writer understands that theme is a tool you use- not the
story you write.
> I really wanted to quit.
And we all wanted you to. but I'm game if you are.
> But, now we can see, where the bullshit lies. (By
> the way, using "bullshit" as an ad hominum is really bullshit.)
Whyever then did you just use it? perhaps becasue it conveys an
idea more eloquently than the 8 paragraphs of art critic drivel you
posted last?
Kromkowski- your a damn lawyer- make an argument! If you use
"Primal elements without context" to make your art, then show me
one! Give me an example to support your belief system!
> Art for you is
> primarily and solely egotistical exercise. You go so far as to call
> the
> artwork irrelevant! I for one don't understand what sort of artist
> thinks
> that the "artwork" is irrelevant.
>
> If it's so irrelevant, why even let anyone know that you are doing it.
> Spare
> us the pollution and waste involved in casting, just write a post
> about what
> you want to say.
Here is why you can't form an effective argument. You don't listen.
The reason why I make art is to 'say' things that spoken language
is inadequate to express.
What I have to say is what matters to me, the art as artifact is just a
vehicle to that end. Any affinity I have for the object itself is pure
nostalgia. Its the idea that matters.
In this sense I am far less egotistical than you.
I understand what I am doing and why and what I hope to achieve
by it.
You think you're the infinite unknown creating ideal forms whose
only context is themselves. You honestly BELIEVE that something
YOU create for your own reasons can be egoless.
This is the most narcissistic form of egotism going.
> But not satisfied to suggest that the artist (YOU) is the most
> important aspect
> of art (more important that the work itself), YOU also claim that
> even when YOU
> are the audience its all about YOU:
What? you never talk to yourself? Bet you reread that last post of
yours. Bet you felt pretty self-satisfied in reading it, too.
> Of course, it's hard for me to take anything that seriously from
> someone who
> uses the appellation "Dude" to refer to people, but you are also
> the one who
> begged to not be judged by your "commercial" art. Well, dude, if
> we buy your
> notion that art is primarly about the artist and not the work, then I
> why
> should we make an exception.
To attack my use of idiomatic English is a cheap and vain subtitute
for an argument. Believe me, I could write in the same self
aggrandizing and condescending language as you- and write it
better- but I don't carry that kind of ego involvement into
communicating with others using words. I am not out to impress
them with my vocabulary- I am trying to be understood by them.
As to your comment regarding my commercial work- well, you
nailed that one square on the head- you got me, I conceed the
point. Go ahead and judge me by my commercial work. Even if its
stuff I was hired to do- its still my vision of what they wanted.
> But, I don't buy your portrait of an artist as an
> egomanic theory.
Gawwwd. That's not MY theory, that's yours! Acknowledging the
role of the self in creating art does not make the artist an
egomaniac. All humanity express themSELVES in one way or
another. We happen to do it with art.
What makes an artist egomaniacal is the belief that he is creating
pure forms without ego. The egomaniac never recognizes his own
ego.
> I have never said that most artwork has no
> elements that do not have external references.
I never said you did. you claimed that YOUR work had no external
references. (as would be expected of an egomaniac)
You are non responsive. When confronted you evade and change
your definitions and rework you phraseology. You do not offer
example, you offer rhetoric.
> Hence, you
> keep setting up
> a strawman (Right up there with the ad hominums, in terms of
> discussion style.
> It would be like me bringing up the fact again and again that you t
> hink Darwin
> lead to Communism, notwithstanding a tiny historical problem in
> you theory).
If you don't understand the importance of Social Dawinism in the
Soviet revolution and the Fascist movement and Manifest Destiny
Then you know nothing about history. Without Social Dawinism-
the concept of communism would never have been anything but
debate.
> However, in my view, the more culturally and historically bound >
>elements and
> the more that these kinds of elements are the central focus of
>the piece, the
> less likely the piece will stand the test of time as a great piece.
Nice belief system- but what evidence have you?
Art history shows that the the art that survives is the art that
captures the Context of its times.
> You view art as being a dialog between the artist and the
audience, if I
> understand you point.
>
> I view art as being two separate interactions. 1. between the
artist and the
> intuitive vision of the Idea in order to create the work (the making
of art)
> and 2. between the work itself and the audience (the
experiencing of art).
Art can be aimed at anyone depending on the artist's intent. I may
be speaking to the general public, I may be responding to another
artist . I may even be talking to myself.
Yes Art can be evaluated abstractly as well as experientially- but no
amount of hyperbole about art alters the fact that art is first and
last-a communication. That means people are involved.
A telephone system has NO RELEVANCE without people holding
the receivers.
> What you are saying means that if you don't like the artwork then
> you don't
> like the artist and that if you like the art, who must like the artist.
> That,
> just isn't right.
No- again., I never said the art IS the artist. I said the art is
something the artist SAID.
I can hate something you say without necessarily hating you.
Which, by the way- I do not. This has been, at least, an effective
exercise in clarifing to myself what I really think about these
issues.
Kromkowski
>Here is why you can't form an effective argument. You don't listen.
>The reason why I make art is to 'say' things that spoken language
>is inadequate to express.
>What I have to say is what matters to me, the art as artifact is just a
>vehicle to that end. Any affinity I have for the object itself is pure
>nostalgia. Its the idea that matters.
I think I do listen. You have said again what you said before: that the
artwork is just an artifact. This is precisely where we disagree. I don't
think of the artwork as a mere by-product of an attempt by the artist to
"communicate" something. Rather, I see the artwork as the symbol for the
idea/vision chosen by the artist. You have acknowledged as much when you
correctly, in my view, pointed out that the Art is the Idea.
When you write that "it's the idea that matters", I agree with you. I just
disagree that it's the artist's idea, which is what I thought you were implying
by you personalization of art.
Here's how I would view the process:
There are such a things as Truth, Beauty, etc, (Noumena) that objectivity exist
but for the most part outside our experiential world (Phenomena). The Artist
is tapping into the human capacity to intuit and therefore envision (envision
(a noumenal activitiy as opposed to vision (a phenomenal activity) these Ideas.
Having envisioned the Idea, he creates a piece of art which acts as a symbolic
mechanism for that noumenal thing, the Idea.
The Art-symbol allows the audience not to "get in the artist's head", which is
a personal notion implying that "but for" the artist's head the idea wouldn't
exist, but rather the Art-symbol allows the audience to get at and envision for
themselves the objective existance of those noumenal things, the ideas, which
exist notwithstanding and regardless of artist.
What I am also saying is that art is not "communicating" an idea, which is what
language does by the building up process. The Artwork, in toto, is a symbol
for the idea which creates a vehicle for the audience (by compelling through
its elements and their interactions a contemplative moment) to envision the
idea for themselves in the same way that the artist did when he intuited or
envisioned the idea.
We are in agreement that language is an inadequate form of symbolic activity
for the transmission of the Idea into this actual world which must be known by
experience; hence, the need for Art. But again we have this disagreement about
art as another form of language. English is a language. I may communicate
something in it to someone. German is a another language, I may translate
something from English into German. But we are unable to translate something
from Art into English, nor something in English into Art. Why because, as you
say, language is inadequate for what is happening in an Artwork. The
inedequancy of language shows that Art is not a language.
>>Go ahead and judge me by my commercial work. Even if its
stuff I was hired to do- its still my vision of what they wanted.<<
First, you are not the art.
Second, when you get down to saying that the commercial stuff is your "vision
of what they wanted", I think you might be acting as a merely as a craftsman or
a manufacturer, because you may have abandoned the creation of the thing as a
symbol for the Idea you are able envision regardless of the medium which
creates a vehicle for the audience (by compelling through its elements and
their interactions a contemplative moment) to envision the idea for themselves
in the same way that the artist did when he intuited or envisioned the idea.
Since only you can know your own intention, then whether you have abandoned art
is your call. Nothing wrong with that, just like there's nothing wrong with
being a lawyer.
Here are Langer's thoughts which I thought were somewhat interesting and
appropo:
"A person who is by intuition an artist cannot shape a pot, or make up a song
for a festive occasion, without feeling the artistic possibilities of the
project. If the pot is ugly or the song banal, that is not because an artist
made the pot for the dime store, or the song for " magic" purposes; it is
because the maker was not an artist but a vulgar person, who thought the ugly
pot "pretty" or the banal song "grand,"' or perhaps did not think of perceptual
values at all, so long as his pot held twelve ounces, or his song was accepted
by the program commmittee."
Third, I am not saying, nor did I say notwithstanding your intentional or
unintentional misunderstanding, that any artwork, in toto, bears no
relationship to our experiential world. It has to if it is to exist. I am
saying that some constituant parts of art are derived from the noumenal world
directly. Yes, all artists are effected by their relation in the world and
that effect spill into the Artwork; but I am arguing for a relationship that is
something greater than a your theory of direct personal expression assumes.
Cf. Langer, F&F at 390.
JDK
sculpt...@my-deja.com
> I think I do listen. You have said again what you said before: that
> the
> artwork is just an artifact. This is precisely where we disagree. I
> don't
> think of the artwork as a mere by-product of an attempt by the
> artist to
> "communicate" something. Rather, I see the artwork as the
> symbol for the
> idea/vision chosen by the artist. You have acknowledged as
> much when you
> correctly, in my view, pointed out that the Art is the Idea.
idea. I said it was the expression of the artist's Idea.
Get out your dictionary and follow along with the real definitions of
these words:
You say the Art is Symbolic of the Idea.
A Symbol can not "Become" the thing it Symbolizes. Otherwise it
would not be symbolic.
The Representation of Ideas thru Symbols to other human beings
is "Communiction".
There is no flaw in this logic.
If the art is symbolic of an idea- and you showed it to someone- its
a communication of the idea represented by the symbol.
If you choose a symbol that you think I will recognize as being
symbolic of the same idea that you have in mind- then you are not
only communicating to me, you are doing so thru a "LANGUAGE",
because the only way that can happen is if we share a common
frame of symbolic reference.
Art is the vehicle for conveying the Idea- it does not BECOME the
idea itself.
When you send a package to a friend via courier- the courier does
not BECOME the package. (that's called argument thru analogic
example- try it sometime, it helps you to think clearly)
> When you write that "it's the idea that matters", I agree with you. I
>just
> disagree that it's the artist's idea, which is what I thought you
>were implying
> by your personalization of art.
Who's Idea, then?
Ideas are the product of conscious thought- and people are the
only conscious creatures capable of expressing complex ideas.
Therefore the subset of all Ideas we can express are the products
of human consciousness.
Essentially- these last two passages of yours say that the artist
'chooses' the idea he will symbolize, and that the idea is not the
artist's.
Since all ideas were created by people, you are saying you create
art expressing other people's Ideas.
You thief!
( take a course in the philosophy of logic, it will teach you how to
figure out what the heck you're saying)
> There are such a things as Truth, Beauty, etc, (Noumena) that
> objectivity exist
Show me one! gahead, I dare ya!
> but for the most part outside our experiential world
> (Phenomena). The Artist
> is tapping into the human capacity to intuit and therefore envision
> (envision
> (a noumenal activitiy as opposed to vision (a phenomenal
> activity) these Ideas.
> Having envisioned the Idea, he creates a piece of art which acts
> as a symbolic
> mechanism for that noumenal thing, the Idea.
Kromkowski- your philosophy is only 300 years out of date.
Modern physics has helped to settle many of the more silly notions
of metaphysics.
TRUTH- like everything else in the universe- is entirely relative to
your frame of reference.
BEAUTY- is nothing more than a function of human perception, a
product of the human mind. If there were no minds to hold the
idea- there would be no beauty.
There is NO SUCH THING as idea existing objectively. Idea only
exists within the conscious mind. If you think an idea is "out there"
you are wrong. The largest space you can perceive is just an
illusion (idea) fabricated by your brain, inside your skull.
When you as an artist create a "symbolic mechanism" for
conveying an Idea- you are making sentences in a language.
Again- the symbol cannot BECOME the thing it represents.
The noumenal does not transform into the phenomenal. The
phenomenal merely points at the noumenal in hopes that I will
intuit the connection.
> The Art-symbol allows the audience not to "get in the artist's
> head", which is
> a personal notion implying that "but for" the artist's head the idea
> wouldn't
> exist,
I can not believe that you wrote this and thought it made sense.
If not for the artist's head- there would have been no idea to
symbolize. If not for the viewer's head, there would be no mind to
percieve the symbol of the idea.
Without conscious minds- there ARE NO IDEAS. Really, man,
catch up on modern philosophy.
> but rather the Art-symbol allows the audience to get at and
> envision for
> themselves the objective existance of those noumenal things,
> the ideas, which
> exist notwithstanding and regardless of artist.
Noumenal things,by definition, do NOT "exist" objectively. As ideas,
they reside and are dealt with by the mind, which is always
Subjective.
What the audience is allowed is to percieve an object symbolic of
the idea- not the idea itself. The envisioning you mention is a
subjective perception- not objective.
> What I am also saying is that art is not "communicating" an idea,
> which is what
> language does by the building up process. The Artwork, in toto,
> s a symbol
> for the idea which creates a vehicle for the audience (by
> compelling through
> its elements and their interactions a contemplative moment) to
> envision the
> idea for themselves in the same way that the artist did when he
> intuited or
> envisioned the idea.
Kromkowski- this all goes back to your error of thinking of words
as actually being ideas.
get out the dictionary again- If you use a symbolic vehicle to convey
an idea from your mind to another's- THAT IS COMMUNICATION!
The artwork DOES NOT "create a vehicle". The artwork creates
nothing- its an artifact of creation. IT is the vehicle that the ARTIST
creates.
Words are just as much a vehicle. I write them here as symbolic of
my ideas, but it is up to you to "envision the idea" that I am trying to
convey, for yourself. The ink on the paper does not become the
idea. It 'carries' it across to you.
All languages present ideas in toto. I have a bookshelf full of
written "artworks" in toto. The fact that it takes an hour to read a
book and 15 seconds to read a sculpture is inconsequential to the
question of language.
You are not Daniel Webster- stop making up your own definitions
for words.
> We are in agreement that language is an inadequate form of
>symbolic activity
> for the transmission of the Idea into this actual world which must
>be known by
> experience; hence, the need for Art.
No we aren't in agreement. I don't accept your definition of the word
language. I would agree if you inserted the word "spoken" in front
of the word "language".
>But again we have this
>disagreement about
> art as another form of language. English is a language. I may
>communicate
> something in it to someone. German is a another language, I
>may translate
> something from English into German. But we are unable to >
> translate something
> from Art into English, nor something in English into Art. Why
> because, as you
> say, language is inadequate for what is happening in an Artwork.
> The
> inedequancy of language shows that Art is not a language.
You still haven't a clue as to my argument.
I have established thru deductive reasoning supported by example
that all spoken languages (the only thing you recognize as
language) are all speech, in kind. Together they form one method
of communicating via cogent symbolism.
You have never offered an argument in refutation that was
supported by example. I won that point-or weren't you paying
attention.
I have also established via supported reasoning that there are
other forms of cogent symbolism than speech that do, in fact,
convey other forms of ideas than does speech. I have further
demonstrated referential frames in operation in every other
method of cogent symbolism- the primary criterion for forming a
syntax.
All of your rhetoric, tho intended in refutation, has supported my
arguments.If you re-read this post of yours alone, you will see
yourself conceding every point I have made. Art is symbolic of an
Idea. Language is symbolic of an idea. the artist chooses the idea
to symbolize and the symbols he will use. The art acts as a vehicle
for those ideas. The audience envisions the idea the artist chose
by perceiving the artwork.
The only thing lacking is the your ability to connect all the dots you
yourself drew. If you did, the resulting picture would agree entirely
with me.
>>Go ahead and judge me by my commercial work. Even if its
>> stuff I was hired to do- its still my vision of what they wanted.<<
> Second, when you get down to saying that the commercial stuff
> is your "vision
> of what they wanted", I think you might be acting as a merely as a
> craftsman or
> a manufacturer, because you may have abandoned the creation
> of the thing as a
> symbol for the Idea you are able envision regardless of the
> medium which
> creates a vehicle for the audience (by compelling through its
> elements and
> their interactions a contemplative moment) to envision the idea f
> or themselves
> in the same way that the artist did when he intuited or envisioned
> the idea.
That has got to be the worst sentence I have ever read. Lets see if I
can untangle it.
Listen, I gave to you this point. Now either judge me by my
commercial work, or don't judge me by my commercial work- BUT
MAKE UP YOUR MIND. Pick one or the other.
I would agree that I am acting as a crafteman when someone
hands me a drawing and says, "make me a sculpture of this".
Mostly, though- I am hired to design what I think will work best.
What they say to me is, "create for us a line of Native American
sculptures", All other choices regarding the project are mine. That
is exercising my abilities as an artist far more than as a craftsman.
If not- then every portrait by Rembrant fails to qualify as art.
>Nothing wrong with that, just like there's nothing wrong with
> being a lawyer.
No there is nothing wrong with being a lawyer- it just explains a lot
about the way you write.
> "A person who is by intuition an artist cannot shape a pot, or
> make up a song
> for a festive occasion, without feeling the artistic possibilities of
> the
> project. If the pot is ugly or the song banal, that is not because
> an artist
> made the pot for the dime store, or the song for " magic"
> purposes; it is
> because the maker was not an artist but a vulgar person, who
> thought the ugly
> pot "pretty" or the banal song "grand,"' or perhaps did not think of
> perceptual
> values at all, so long as his pot held twelve ounces, or his song
> was accepted
> by the program commmittee."
Langer is an idiot. This would mean that an "artist" is incapable of
producing an ugly object. And that the creator of an ugly object is,
by her definition, vulgar, and not an artist.
Since the concept of ugly is entirely subjective, then whether you
are an artist or not would depend entirely on the viewer,
disregarding both the creator and the artwork itself.
She keeps on talking, but she makes no sense.
Do youself a favor and buy another book by another author.
> Third, I am not saying, nor did I say notwithstanding your
> intentional or
> unintentional misunderstanding, that any artwork, in toto, bears
> no
> relationship to our experiential world. It has to if it is to exist. I am
> saying that some constituant parts of art are derived from the
> noumenal world
> directly.
So what? All ideas are noumenal. Art represents ideas. But, it
does so entirely thru a vernacular of phenomenal experience we
hold in common. There are no constituent "parts" that are
noumenal because you can't cut one of these parts off and show it
to me. You are again mistaking the analysis of art for the reality of
it. The idea itself, for the expression symbolic of it.
The word "theme' is an idea descriptive of a concept in story
telling. But it is not the story, it is just a mental construct referring to
something about the story.
> I am arguing for a relationship that is
> something greater than a your theory of direct personal
> expression assumes.
Boy oh boy--- here is what the problem is-- you have this imaginary
reality wherein there is something greater than the personal.
You have no direct evidence of it , so its a belief system; your
personal religion.
Your position regarding language may float in the parochial world
view of Linguists, but the entire current field of cognitive science
disagrees. All methods of communicating ideas thru cogent
symbolism are language.
Similarly- while the ancient Greeks conjured up all kinds of
objective concepts like TRUTH and BEAUTY, again, the current
field of philosophy finds such notions ridiculously passe.
It is now well understood that all ideas are the product of
consciousness and have no existence outside of consciousness.
Thought can be expressed, but cannot live on its own. The
greatest books ever written have no meaning without conscious
minds to experience them.
People have conscious minds. Everything thought and felt by every
individual is, by definition, personel. There is NO experience that is
not personal experience.
Ergo- viewing art is personal.
Creating art is personal.
Believing that it is otherwise is either ignorant or delusional.
Kromkowski
ereH) writes:
>however, I think it's admirable that a
>lawyer takes such an interest in art. I wish that more people outside the
>usual arts' sphere had such inclinations. Good for you.
I know you meant the statement kindly but .....
it's not any more admirable than anyone being interested. I do law when I'm
not doing art; some people teach, others are independently wealthy, sell
insurance, make over priced coffee mugs, wait tables, make toys, design web
pages, work as secretaries, fund raise for art groups, photgraph weddings, etc.
The number of people making a living solely from sculpture (i.e. no trust fund,
no spouse income, no income from making molds for someone else or from casting
someone else's work) is extremely small.
JDK
sculpt...@my-deja.com
I will give you this Kromkowski- you are a tenacious son of a gun.
Bet your a terror of a lawyer.
Christopher.
Kromkowski
>Bet your a terror of a lawyer.
Yes, I am. And I approach my art with the same seriousness.
Kromkowski
>Kromkowski- your philosophy is only 300 years out of date.
>Modern physics has helped to settle many of the more silly notions
>of metaphysics.
>TRUTH- like everything else in the universe- is entirely relative to
>your frame of reference.
>BEAUTY- is nothing more than a function of human perception, a
>product of the human mind. If there were no minds to hold the
>idea- there would be no beauty.
>There is NO SUCH THING as idea existing objectively. Idea only
>exists within the conscious mind. If you think an idea is "out there"
>you are wrong.
We disagree. But as to how "out of date" I am and modern physics, Roger
Penrose, a Nobel prize winning physicist (of Black Hole fame) is as much of a
Platonist as I am. See, The Emperor's New Mind. Moreover, there isn't any
noteworthy physicist that says modern physics has settled "silly notions" of
metaphysics, i.e. that which is beyond physics.
>If not for the artist's head- there would have been no idea to
>symbolize. If not for the viewer's head, there would be no mind to
>percieve the symbol of the idea.
I acknowledge am a Platonist, you apparently are a Solipsist. I do believe
that Truth and Beauty and other Ideas actually do exist; whether or not we can
actually get at them perfectly (which we can't) is another story.
>Noumenal things,by definition, do NOT "exist" objectively. As ideas,
>they reside and are dealt with by the mind, which is always
>Subjective.
No, this is backwards. Noumenal things by definition are objective. It is the
phenomenal things, those in the perceptual world that are subjective, because
our imperfect minds have to intuit what our limited and imperfect senses
perceive. Let's say we have some object, and we send it to a 1000 people to
measure to an extremely high degree of accuracy. We are going to get a lot of
different readings of the dimensions, for all sorts of reasons involving the
imperfections of our minds and our perceiving facilities. But the object does
have actual and finite dimensions, even if we cannot get at them with the
limited phenonomenal capacities. Those actual and finite (although not
knowable) dimensions, exist regardless of whether any one measured the object
and regardless of whether tommorrow all possible measurers ceased to exist.
Those actual and finite, and hence objective, dimensions of the object are the
noumenal qualities. (As an aside, it can be said that the actual act of
measurement obscures the actual objective thing.)
As far as the whole "is" question and symbolism:
X = 3, X is a symbol for 3 and we might as well say and do say "x is 3". You
latched on to a sloppiness in how I was writing (but this is the Internet, not
a peer review journal), big deal.
>Boy oh boy--- here is what the problem is-- you have this imaginary
>reality wherein there is something greater than the personal.<<
Do you really mean to say that there is nothing greater than the personal? Are
you a figment of my imagination or am I a figment of yours? I don't think that
a reality which is greater that the personal is imaginary, at all.
>There is NO experience that is
>not personal experience.
I believe that there are communal experiences. I also believe that the
research shows that there are feelings and emotions are amazing stable over
cultures. Yes, we are earch unique individuals (although, I think that your
philosophy appears to reject the notion that there is anyone but yourself).
But, I don't think that our individual uniqueness is all that special in light
of the commonalities.
So yes "viewing art is personal", in a sense, and "Creating art is personal",
but its personalness is not what is all that important. It is is the
universalness that makes art important.
>Your position regarding language may float in the parochial world
>view of Linguists, but the entire current field of cognitive science
>disagrees. All methods of communicating ideas thru cogent
>symbolism are language.
>Similarly- while the ancient Greeks conjured up all kinds of
>objective concepts like TRUTH and BEAUTY, again, the current
>field of philosophy finds such notions ridiculously passe.
>It is now well understood that all ideas are the product of
>consciousness and have no existence outside of consciousness.
You think all symbolic activity is language, I don't. We need not bring up
this topic, again.
I believe that you really do not know as much as you think you know about
cognitive science and about what you think is "passe" in the current field of
philosophy. But this is just a belief; so we need not argue about it. If you
would like to cite me some specific recent (within last 10-15 years) peer
review journal articles or some books by some acknowledge experts, I'd be happy
to expand my education. Moreover, that something is passe doesn't make it
wrong, does it?
I suppose that since this is all about you personally, you will need to have
the last word. Go ahead, knock yourself out.
JDK
Chic McGregor
Sorry to but in, I haven't contributed to this group for about a year,
although I have received it for all that time.
>In article <8evaec$mro$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, sculpt...@my-deja.com writes:
>
>>Kromkowski- your philosophy is only 300 years out of date.
>>Modern physics has helped to settle many of the more silly notions
>>of metaphysics.
>>TRUTH- like everything else in the universe- is entirely relative to
>>your frame of reference.
>>BEAUTY- is nothing more than a function of human perception, a
>>product of the human mind. If there were no minds to hold the
>>idea- there would be no beauty.
>>There is NO SUCH THING as idea existing objectively. Idea only
>>exists within the conscious mind. If you think an idea is "out there"
>>you are wrong.
>
>We disagree. But as to how "out of date" I am and modern physics, Roger
>Penrose, a Nobel prize winning physicist (of Black Hole fame) is as much of a
>Platonist as I am. See, The Emperor's New Mind. Moreover, there isn't any
>noteworthy physicist that says modern physics has settled "silly notions" of
>metaphysics, i.e. that which is beyond physics.
>
I agree with you Mr Kromkowski, as a physicist and now artist.
'Modern' physicists are as much at loggerheads on metaphysical issues
as ever.
However, we can be a lot clearer, I believe, on the key metaphysical
issue. It is the same issue which has dominated, although not at all
overtly, philosophical history, as well as the more coherent episodes
of art. In other words, the essence of Western culture itself.
Namely, it is the question as to whether the future is entirely
predetermined, or whether there exists genuinely alternative futures,
(and more specifically w.r.t, humanity, the mechanism of Free Will).
Basically, in one camp you have those who believe that everything is
predetermined due to simple extrapolation of cause and effect
principles. So that from the instant after the Big Bang everything
was already determined, your entire life in minutae was decided
billions of years before you were born. You can do nothing to change
your life and Free Will is just an illusion.
In the other camp, people believe that Free Will or rgenuine random
processess do exist, that one can change or select the future, That
the future is genuinely undecided, with various possibilities
existing, right up to the moment some randomly based decision is made.
In other words, that an individual can make a difference.
Penrose looks for that genuine process of quantum randomness in the
human thought process that would spell the possibility at least of
Free Will.
The battle currently rages on in the field of physics as to whether
things are, as they put it, 'deterministic' or 'non-deterministic'.
Essentially, the battle centers on quantisation versus homogenous
cause and effect.
Interestingly, philosophy confronted this issue 1500 years before
physics, with Celtic belief in Free Will ideas as epitomised by
Pelagius and Celstius, versus the predestinational fatelism of
Meditterania, with it's Oracles etc.
This raged on for over a thousand years, with Thomists asnd Scotists
slugging it out, but eventually, the Free Will model came to
predominate in Western Culture. Individuals CAN make a difference,
therefore ARE responsible for their moral behaviour,etc.
Good guys always win, bad guys always get squirted.
CMG
sculpt...@my-deja.com
but I just can't let nonsense stand unchallenged.
(its a character flaw, I know)
> We disagree. But as to how "out of date" I am and modern
> physics, Roger
> Penrose, a Nobel prize winning physicist (of Black Hole fame) is
> as much of a
> Platonist as I am. See, The Emperor's New Mind. Moreover,
> there isn't any
> noteworthy physicist that says modern physics has settled "silly
> notions" of
> metaphysics, i.e. that which is beyond physics.
I never meant to suggest that you wree the only soul on earth with
out of date beliefs. Lots of mathematicians like Penrose are
Platonists- they would love to believe that mathematics has some
reality other than as a mental construct- (but it doesn't, the
universe was born without knowing any math)) or that mental
constructs are somehow more "real" than reality (which I almost
would agree with in the sense that the only reality we know of is, in
fact, a mental construct))
But, Hey- discoveries that reveal that the state of mind of an
obsever affects the results of an experiment have definitely pulled
much of Metaphysics and Physics together (read the dancing
wu-wei masters- Hawking)
Time was once relegated to the metaphysical but we now know it
to be a fourth dimension in space.
And every day we make discoveries de mystifing the process of
thought.
Zeno's paradox was settled once and for all by quantum theory
which revealed that space and time are NOT infinitely divisible
when it comes to motion.
Most of the questions that troubled the Platonists have been
definitively settled. Including the fact that no serious philosopher
today regards platonic solids to "exist" outside of our
consciousness. If you want to know about modern philosophy-
read philosophy, not Penrose.
In, fact- the primary problem of modern philosophy is whether
ANYTHING AT ALL 'exists" outside of conscious experience.
You are wrong wrong wrong- any and all physical properties are
phenomenal. That is why it is called the phenomenal world.
It is only our Ideas about the world that are noumenal.
Platonists believe that the noumenal has more "reality" than the
phenomenal because of their belief in perfect ideals, and that
everything else is some lesser reflection of these ideals.
But this branch of philosophy has fallen from favor as others
pointed out that the old "prove it" test cuts thru a remarkable
amount of malarky.
We can imagine the idea of perfect forms, but thinking doesn't
make them so any more than imagining immortality will make you
live forever.
And, by the way- It is WELL established that no object has actual
objective dimensions. Just the way you hold it in relation to earth's
gravity and its direction of motion alters its shape, and the shape
of whatever you use to measure it. Einstein and Planck proved it-
EVERYTHING in the universe is subject to frames of reference.
There is no universally right answer to the question of dimension.
> As far as the whole "is" question and symbolism:
>
> X = 3, X is a symbol for 3 and we might as well say and do say "x
is 3". You
> latched on to a sloppiness in how I was writing (but this is the
Internet, not
> a peer review journal), big deal.
Dude- x and 3 are both symbols- Show me 3. There is no such
thing as 3. 3 is just a symbol and x is just a symbol.
Now I can write "three legged camera mount" to symbolize a
tripod. But the phrase (symbol) IS NOT the tripod, because I can't
mount my damn camera on it. Get it?
>
> >There is NO experience that is
> >not personal experience.
>
> I believe that there are communal experiences. I also believe
>that the
> research shows that there are feelings and emotions are
>mazing stable over
> cultures. Yes, we are earch unique individuals (although, I think
>that your
> philosophy appears to reject the notion that there is anyone but
>yourself).
> But, I don't think that our individual uniqueness is all that special
>in light
> of the commonalities.
I agree that there are communal experiences- but each and every
member of the 'commune' had a PERSONAL experience. And the
"amazing" stability of emotions across cultures...we are all the
same damn species, we are practically identical in every respect,
Where's the "amazing" part?
And, hey, I am the one saying that it is our common experience that
allows for communication thru art. That makes it a language.
> So yes "viewing art is personal", in a sense, and "Creating art is
> personal",
> but its personalness is not what is all that important. It is is the
> universalness that makes art important.
The "universalness" of art is derived from the visual syntax that
allows us to all make much the same sense of it.
You have again conceeded without embracing it.
> Moreover, that something is passe
> doesn't make it
> wrong, does it?
I can find you folks who believe the earth is flat-
are they wrong?
Kromkowski- the biggest difference between us seems to be that
all your ideas are borrowed from others, whereas I don't need
someone else to do my thinking for me.
My postulates are well reasoned and well supported by example
and experiment. They make more sense and the result has been
that you have grudgingly conceeded every point in detail but still
refute the premise.
This is as best as can be hoped for from a platonist, I guess.
Oh, and by the way- I am not a solipsist. I am a Taoist.
sculpt...@my-deja.com
> Basically, in one camp you have those who believe that
> everything is
> predetermined due to simple extrapolation of cause and effect
> principles. So that from the instant after the Big Bang everything
> was already determined, your entire life in minutae was decided
> billions of years before you were born. You can do nothing to
> change
> your life and Free Will is just an illusion.
>
> In the other camp, people believe that Free Will or rgenuine
> random
> processess do exist, that one can change or select the future,
> That
> the future is genuinely undecided, with various possibilities
> existing, right up to the moment some randomly based decision
> is made.
> In other words, that an individual can make a difference.
I am not suggesting that Physics has eliminated all issues of
metaphysics- But many things that were once in the realm of
metaphysics are now understood or at least being investigated
scientifically. I.E. time and motion.
As a physicist you know that experimentation shows that particle
interactions have "probabilites" of certain results, but are NOT
deterministic. It takes literally thousands of collisions just to
determine which outcomes are more likely than others.
Some argue that this apparent randomness is due to our
imperfect understanding of the forces involved- But the general
consensus is that probability functions are the very Nature of
matter itself.
So- free will rules.
As you point out, many ancient philosophical traditions show a
revealed understanding of this aspect of being. Celtic- Sufism-
Taoism- Hinduism- all these traftions anticipated the modern
discoveries of physics regarding the elusive nature of being.
My fundemental premise is to try and see things as they are and
not as I would like to believe they are.
You can tell me there is such a thing as an invisible monkey sitting
on your desk, and that, since it is unaffected by matter such as my
hand, that I can not feel it either. You can claim that this is True but
you have no way to prove that this is anything other than an idea in
your mind.
Whereas, I CAN disprove it to a high degree of certainty by
applying reason and knowledge of how things are.
I can point out that if the invisible monkey has some kind of
Nethermass but is unaffected by matter that there is no way it
could "sit" on your desk, which is matter. It would, rather, fall to the
center of earth's gravitational field.
If the invisible monkey is truely unaffected by all matter and gravity,
then the spinning of the earth would leave the monkey off in space
somewhere in the wake of earth's motion thru the cosmos.
Either way- it ain't sitting on your desk- so your belief that it is
indicates that there is no such monkey other than your idea of it.
Ideas are thought- and thought is the true meat of metaphysics.
While thoughts exist as such- they are demonstrably the result of
the conscious brain's proper functioning. Without consciousness-
there is no thought.
The main problem in metaphysics today is not free will.
It is the realization that reality itself is my conscious mind's
interpretation of signals sent to my brain by my senses. In this
sense- everything I CAN know of "reality" is my mind's pure
invention, everything I perceive is no more than an Idea in my
mind.
In this sense, the only things we can determine to be "real" with
any true meaning are those things that, the experience of which,
we can collectively discriminate reliably.
If I perceive that this item is a different color than that item, and you
perceive them to be different also, then we can give each color a
name and discuss it as if we are seeing the same thing. BUT we
can never know if your experience of "BLUE" and mine are actually
the same; all we can know is that we are both able to discrimintae
similarly.
The idea that thought or ideas exist prior to conscious
apprehension is just an invisible monkey sitting on your desk.
We can imagine traveling at the speed of light- but Einstein proved
that we weigh too much.
We can similarly imagine that mathematics or Plato's perfect
forms have an existence prior to our imagining them- But this, too,
is just imagination at work and has no relation to that which we
can collectively discriminate. (reality)
While mental gymnastics is fun- we have come far afield from the
questions at hand.
So- I ask you, new friend- In your mind--Is art a communication of
the artist to the viewer? Is art a form of language? Can an artist
create something that is not their personal expression? What is
art?
Is your art personal?
Christopher
P.S. I entered into this debate with Kromkowski for three reasons.
First- I didn't like the condescension he showed to the group by
likening, and limiting, our discussions to "Cocktail Party" status. I
think it now established that a lively and in depth debate is
certainly possible on the Internet.
Second- I am irresistably drawn to mess with those who take
themselves too seriously. You should see what I do to those poor
Jehovahs unlucky enough to knock on my door.
Third- anyone who intuits from these discussions that we are all
full of shit has understood me perfectly.
kad...@itouch.net
Katherine Dewey
In article <39174d26...@news.screaming.net>,
--
http://www.itouch.net/~lgdewey
Elvenwork
Chic McGregor
>Mr. McGreagor, are you saying that art is an emergent property?
>
If Deja still carries my original posts, you may see that I in fact
argue for the cultural responsibility of art.
I take it by 'emergent' you mean culturally innovative?
I believe that art has a cultural responsibility both in reporting
things as they are, and in suggesting what they might be.
Free Will I see as an essential pre-requisite for the meaningfulness
of either.
regards
chic
Chic McGregor
>Y'know- I nearly didn't respond because of that last crack of yours,
>but I just can't let nonsense stand unchallenged.
>(its a character flaw, I know)
>
>> We disagree. But as to how "out of date" I am and modern
>> physics, Roger
>> Penrose, a Nobel prize winning physicist (of Black Hole fame) is
>> as much of a
>> Platonist as I am. See, The Emperor's New Mind. Moreover,
>> there isn't any
>> noteworthy physicist that says modern physics has settled "silly
>> notions" of
>> metaphysics, i.e. that which is beyond physics.
>
>I never meant to suggest that you wree the only soul on earth with
>out of date beliefs. Lots of mathematicians like Penrose are
>Platonists-
I must take issue with both of you here. Penrose has actually stated
that he does not regard himself as being particularly Platonist. I
quote:-
'Mathematical proofs are concerned with abstract ideas - ideas which
can be conveyed from one person to another, and which are not specific
to any one individual. All that I require is that it should make sense
to speak of such "ideas" as real things (though not in themselves
material things), independent of any particular concrete realization
that some individual might happen to find convenient for them. This
need not presuppose any very strong commitment to a "Platonistic" type
of philosophy. '
>they would love to believe that mathematics has some
>reality other than as a mental construct- (but it doesn't, the
>universe was born without knowing any math)) or that mental
Personification of the Universe doesn't help here, all Penrose is
saying is that there are mathematical truths which 'exist' and existed
before man discovered them and will exist after man does not.
>constructs are somehow more "real" than reality (which I almost
>would agree with in the sense that the only reality we know of is, in
>fact, a mental construct))
He is not saying that they are material, or more real than reality.
In fact if you study what Penrose IS saying,(e.g. 'Shadows of the
Mind') he is actually highly critical of mathematics to the point
where he believes that consciousness will never be computational,...
almost the antithesis of Platonism.
>But, Hey- discoveries that reveal that the state of mind of an
>obsever affects the results of an experiment have definitely pulled
>much of Metaphysics and Physics together (read the dancing
>wu-wei masters- Hawking)
>Time was once relegated to the metaphysical but we now know it
>to be a fourth dimension in space.
>And every day we make discoveries de mystifing the process of
>thought.
>Zeno's paradox was settled once and for all by quantum theory
>which revealed that space and time are NOT infinitely divisible
>when it comes to motion.
I disagree with most of this e.g. 'Paradox' means an apparent
dichotomy upon cursory perusal, but which is reconcileable in
actuality. i.e. nothing to 'settle'. Quantum Theory is a
mathematical construct, not a physical reality (i.e. it is VERY
Platonist), it has not proven anything, no theories ever do, only
experiment proves something.
In particular, there are many determinists who would argue that
that infinite divisability and therefore an infinite manifestation of
cause and effect is possible, that an area of quantum uncertainty
does not preclude further subdivision but merely defines OUR ability
to resolve it, not NATURE'S. (On balance I disgree with this, I am
an indeterminist, I merely point out that things most definitely are
not settled)
>Most of the questions that troubled the Platonists have been
>definitively settled. Including the fact that no serious philosopher
>today regards platonic solids to "exist" outside of our
>consciousness. If you want to know about modern philosophy-
>read philosophy, not Penrose.
>
>In, fact- the primary problem of modern philosophy is whether
>ANYTHING AT ALL 'exists" outside of conscious experience.
>
I don't think that is primary at all, indeed is is virtually
semantics.
At the end of the day, what difference does it make whether
we are 'imagining' everything or whether there is some hard reality to
it? It would only simply be a redefinition of reality.
The really Primary questions are:-
1) Are the phenomena I create and/or witness and or interact with
predetermined?, or can I create and/or influence and/or choose
alternative futures?(IOW is there genuine FW?)
2) What are the rules governing these phenomena?(To optimise
influence, just in case the answer to 1) is Yes!)
But metaphysical arguments are by definition not testable.
>We can imagine the idea of perfect forms, but thinking doesn't
>make them so any more than imagining immortality will make you
>live forever.
>And, by the way- It is WELL established that no object has actual
>objective dimensions. Just the way you hold it in relation to earth's
>gravity and its direction of motion alters its shape, and the shape
>of whatever you use to measure it. Einstein and Planck proved it-
>EVERYTHING in the universe is subject to frames of reference.
>There is no universally right answer to the question of dimension.
>
>> As far as the whole "is" question and symbolism:
>>
>> X = 3, X is a symbol for 3 and we might as well say and do say "x
>is 3". You
>> latched on to a sloppiness in how I was writing (but this is the
>Internet, not
>> a peer review journal), big deal.
>Dude- x and 3 are both symbols- Show me 3. There is no such
>thing as 3. 3 is just a symbol and x is just a symbol.
>Now I can write "three legged camera mount" to symbolize a
>tripod. But the phrase (symbol) IS NOT the tripod, because I can't
>mount my damn camera on it. Get it?
>
I'm confused. You seem to be arguing sometimes that only reality is
real and that abstractions are at best trivial and at other times you
suggest EVERYTHING may be an abstraction.
I say, either way, it doesn't matter a toss, what really matters is
whether we can interact with our environment meaningfully. The
material nature of that environment is not important.
Descarte, Hume and Kant are all guilty of advanced navel watching in
this respect, in my book.
>
>>
>> >There is NO experience that is
>> >not personal experience.
>>
>> I believe that there are communal experiences. I also believe
>>that the
>> research shows that there are feelings and emotions are
>>mazing stable over
>> cultures. Yes, we are earch unique individuals (although, I think
>>that your
>> philosophy appears to reject the notion that there is anyone but
>>yourself).
>> But, I don't think that our individual uniqueness is all that special
>>in light
>> of the commonalities.
>I agree that there are communal experiences- but each and every
>member of the 'commune' had a PERSONAL experience. And the
>"amazing" stability of emotions across cultures...we are all the
>same damn species, we are practically identical in every respect,
>Where's the "amazing" part?
>And, hey, I am the one saying that it is our common experience that
>allows for communication thru art. That makes it a language.
Here we agree. Art has two main cultural roles to play, to reflect
and clarify how things currently are and to suggest what they might be
become.
Unfortunately many artists become completely egocentric, not just to
the point where they give no regard to cultural antecedents but even
to the point of positively rejecting anything they perceive to be
aligned with those antecedents, and often for that reason alone.
The result is that they're work is invariably ignored from a cultural
perspective. (i.e. their suggestions are not taken up).
Effectively, they do not participate in cultural development, which is
a great pity. (Ironically, they may well be classified as Culturally,
with a capital C, relevant, but I of course am talking about real
cultural contribution, i.e. trying to shape the shared values and
benchmarks of their culture).
>
>> So yes "viewing art is personal", in a sense, and "Creating art is
>> personal",
>> but its personalness is not what is all that important. It is is the
>> universalness that makes art important.
>The "universalness" of art is derived from the visual syntax that
>allows us to all make much the same sense of it.
Like Penrose's never-ending staircase.
>You have again conceeded without embracing it.
>
>
>> Moreover, that something is passe
>> doesn't make it
>> wrong, does it?
>
>I can find you folks who believe the earth is flat-
>are they wrong?
>
>Kromkowski- the biggest difference between us seems to be that
>all your ideas are borrowed from others, whereas I don't need
>someone else to do my thinking for me.
|----------------------------------------------------------^
|
|
|
| >My postulates are well reasoned and well supported by example
| >and experiment. They make more sense and the result has been
| >that you have grudgingly conceeded every point in detail but still
| >refute the premise.
| >This is as best as can be hoped for from a platonist, I guess.
| >
| >Oh, and by the way- I am not a solipsist. I am a Taoist.
| > ^
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
>Christopher
>
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
regards
chic
sculpt...@my-deja.com
his word that Penrose was a platonist. Many mathematicians
throughout history were and are. Your quotation seems to be the
final word regarding that.
> I disagree with most of this e.g. 'Paradox' means an apparent
> dichotomy upon cursory perusal, but which is reconcileable in
> actuality. i.e. nothing to 'settle'.
This is not the meaning of the word paradox. No definition I have
ever read used the words "cursory perusal". The definiton is: "1. A
statement that appears to contradict itself or to be contrary to
common sense but that MAY be true. " "MAY" be true- not actually
is true.
In the study of philosophy- there are no true paradoxes- paradoxes
always point to a flaw in reasoning or interpretation because no
two mutually exclusive explanations can both be true. This is
fundemantal to all logical processes. There are no mathematical
proofs that can prove 2 plus 2 is both 4 and not 4.
The paradoxical nature of light being both a particle and a wave
points to the fact that both interpretations are inaccurate. Light has
a reality that tranascends both descriptions.
Zenos' Paradox refers to the concept of motion, and that motion
can not be fluid because, time and space both being infinitely
divisible, to move from A to B would require you to move thru an
infinite number of points in a finite time. This paradox has been
effectively debunked both logically and thru Quantum
experimentation.
>Quantum Theory is a
> mathematical construct, not a physical reality (i.e. it is VERY
> Platonist), it has not proven anything, no theories ever do, only
> experiment proves something.
Exactly my point. I refer to results of experimentation. Quantum
Theory is not only a mathematical construct, however; as do all
theories in science, It aspires to "model" reality, that is, reliably
predict and therefore reveal something about the fundemental
nature of being. We have a theory of gravity, an way of looking at it
that may be inaccurate- but gravity itself is a fact.
> I am
> an indeterminist, I merely point out that things most definitely are
> not settled)
As regards motion- yes they are- experiment has revealed that
electrons do not "move" to higher orbits because they do not
traverse the interveneing space. Time has also been shown to be
relative as has dimesion. All of these, properties that metaphysics
once held to have Platonic ideals, are now understood to have no
determined ideal.
> At the end of the day, what difference does it make whether
> we are 'imagining' everything or whether there is some hard
>reality to
> it? It would only simply be a redefinition of reality.
>
> The really Primary questions are:-
>
> 1) Are the phenomena I create and/or witness and or interact
with
> predetermined?, or can I create and/or influence and/or choose
> alternative futures?(IOW is there genuine FW?)
>
> 2) What are the rules governing these phenomena?(To optimise
> influence, just in case the answer to 1) is Yes!)
I have to say the same to you. What difference does it make if
everything is predetermined or not?
Reality appears to allow us to determine events. To question that
is meaningless. I can act or not act, and that is up to me. To
suggest that every subatomic event is pre-ordained is just another
invisible monkey. You have no way to prove it, yet I can prove that I
have choice. In debate, your position loses.
> But metaphysical arguments are by definition not testable.
This is incorrect. Metaphysics is founded upon first principles and
metaphysical concepts are "tested" thru the lens of reason.
If an argument does not make sense, it is likely to be untrue. Logic
and deduction are the tools used to cut thru the crap in
metaphysics.
Additionally, we keep coming up with instrumentalties that open
new areas to direct empirical testing. Many of the concepts that
were entirely within the realm of metaphysics 2000 years ago are
now routinely the subject of direct experimentation.
The only area left fairly intact so far is thought. If the Artificial
Intelligence guys keep at it, even thought may become
experimentally apprehensible.
> >> As far as the whole "is" question and symbolism:
> >>
> >> X = 3, X is a symbol for 3 and we might as well say and do
>>>say "x
> >is 3". You
> >> latched on to a sloppiness in how I was writing (but this is the
> >Internet, not
> >> a peer review journal), big deal.
> >Dude- x and 3 are both symbols- Show me 3. There is no such
> >thing as 3. 3 is just a symbol and x is just a symbol.
> >Now I can write "three legged camera mount" to symbolize a
> >tripod. But the phrase (symbol) IS NOT the tripod, because I
>>can't
> >mount my damn camera on it. Get it?
> >
>
> I'm confused. You seem to be arguing sometimes that only
>reality is
> real and that abstractions are at best trivial and at other times
>you
> suggest EVERYTHING may be an abstraction.
Your Eyes do not "see" the world. They react to a very narrow
range of electromagetic energy and send "information" to your
brain.
You Ears, your tongue and all other senses similarly sample a
small amount of external stimuli and send "data" to your brain.
Your brain takes all this data and creates for you the "experience"
of the world around you. This experience is entirely the subjective
interpretation of your brain based upon inaccurate and incomplete
information. For example- you have a blind spot- but you can not
"SEE" it. Your brain just creates a visual reality without the hole
that is actually there.
So- in this sense, everything we THINK we KNOW about reality IS,
in fact, an abstraction. A mental construct. Everything we think we
understand about reality is no more than our brain's "model" of
reality, based upon our brain's evolved assumptions about how to
interpret the data it receives.
Dreams can seem vividly real because they are created by the very
same mechanism that generates our world view when awake.
All of this is demonstrably true. In the light of this knowledge, reality
can be defined as that experience which we can collectively
discriminate alike.
As I said before, if you and I both have a different experience of red
and green, we can label these experiences symbolically and act
as if we are having the same experience. We can discuss redness
and greeness. However- a red/green colorblind individual does
not have this experience of discrimination. For him there is no red
and green and our conversation will always remain meaningless
to him. His reality does not include red or green.
The thing is, reality exists, but our knowledge and understanding
of it is limited to that which we can experience as identifiable and
distinct. THAT is up and THAT is down; THIS is hot and THIS is
cold.
For millenia, humanity had all kinds of metaphysical and mystical
explanations for ordinary experience because individual
experience was SO subjective
In the technological age- we can create instruments that assist us
in calibrating our discriminations in a repeatable fashion. So we
can generate a model of color and use an instrument to prove to a
color blind man that there is a diference between red and green,
that they do exist.
These models are based upon logic and reasoning.
So- reality is nothing more than that which we can collectively
discriminate, because anything else simply can not be discussed
with any comprehension.
> I say, either way, it doesn't matter a toss, what really matters is
> whether we can interact with our environment meaningfully. The
> material nature of that environment is not important.
>
> Descarte, Hume and Kant are all guilty of advanced navel
watching in
> this respect, in my book.
>
Of course we can interact meaningfully. The statement alone is
proof. Decartes settled it with Cogito ergo sum. That fact that I think
is proof of my existence, The fact that I act is proof of my will. The
fact that I find meaning is proof that I can interact meaningfully.
In modern philosophy- those that dispute this are considered
anachronistic.
> >> >There is NO experience that is
> >> >not personal experience.
> >And, hey, I am the one saying that it is our common experience
>>that
> >allows for communication thru art. That makes it a language.
>
> Here we agree. Art has two main cultural roles to play, to reflect
> and clarify how things currently are and to suggest what they
>might be
> become.
I concur.
> Unfortunately many artists become completely egocentric, not
>just to
> the point where they give no regard to cultural antecedents but
>even
> to the point of positively rejecting anything they perceive to be
> aligned with those antecedents, and often for that reason alone.
>
> The result is that they're work is invariably ignored from a cultural
> perspective. (i.e. their suggestions are not taken up).
> Effectively, they do not participate in cultural development, which
>is
> a great pity. (Ironically, they may well be classified as Culturally,
> with a capital C, relevant, but I of course am talking about real
> cultural contribution, i.e. trying to shape the shared values and
> benchmarks of their culture).
I agree with you to a certain extent, however, experimental art is
always perpendicular to present culture. When culture turns to
follow, it is called avant guarde, those experiments that culture
ignores are simply forgotten.
I see the artists rejecting antecedents as the epitome of self
delusion. The rejection of antecedents is still being influenced by
antecedents
In the psychology of hypnosis, people are characterized as being
suggestible, or anti-suggestible. A knee jerk reponse against
suggestion is still a response TO suggestion. Both suggestible
and anti-suggestible types are not exercising free will, but are
slaves to their perception of suggestion.
Only the NON-suggestible actually act of their own volition.
> >The "universalness" of art is derived from the visual syntax that
> >allows us to all make much the same sense of it.
>
> Like Penrose's never-ending staircase.
Excuse me?- I am not familiar with this. Please explain.
The gist I get from your response is that you think art is a language
and that your art is personal.
Eh?
Chic McGregor
>First of all, I will defer to your view of Penrose. I took Kromkowski at
>his word that Penrose was a platonist. Many mathematicians
>throughout history were and are. Your quotation seems to be the
>final word regarding that.
>
>> I disagree with most of this e.g. 'Paradox' means an apparent
>> dichotomy upon cursory perusal, but which is reconcileable in
>> actuality. i.e. nothing to 'settle'.
>
>This is not the meaning of the word paradox. No definition I have
>ever read used the words "cursory perusal". The definiton is: "1. A
>statement that appears to contradict itself or to be contrary to
>common sense but that MAY be true. " "MAY" be true- not actually
>is true.
Oh dear...it's always a bad sign when one has to reach for the
dictionary. The nearest one to hand says:-
paradox n statement apparently inconsistent or absurd yet really
true...
Q.E.D.
>In the study of philosophy- there are no true paradoxes- paradoxes
>always point to a flaw in reasoning or interpretation because no
>two mutually exclusive explanations can both be true.
The paradox does not concern explanations but observations.
Explanations can never be proved to be true, they may only be proved
to be logically consistent from a set of premises. Premises can
ALWAYS be challenged. Logical consistency does not necessarily equal
truth although logical inconsistency is much less likely to result in
truth, and doing so only by accident.
>This is
>fundemantal to all logical processes. There are no mathematical
>proofs that can prove 2 plus 2 is both 4 and not 4.
Mathematics is not the sole domain of logic.
>The paradoxical nature of light being both a particle and a wave
>points to the fact that both interpretations are inaccurate.
Logically not correct, it MAY only point to ONE of them being
inaccurate. Also this is an oft missused example of 'paradox'.
>Light has
>a reality that tranascends both descriptions.
I know of theories that support the wave or particle theory and still
explain phenomena like Young's Slits.
>Zenos' Paradox refers to the concept of motion, and that motion
>can not be fluid because, time and space both being infinitely
>divisible, to move from A to B would require you to move thru an
>infinite number of points in a finite time.
Not if you believe that space is infinitely divisable, which many do.
Besides, as I said, Zeno's paradox, does not require even that concept
to be true.
>This paradox has been
>effectively debunked both logically and thru Quantum
>experimentation.
>
As an emotional indeterminist, i.e. I would love to see proof that
Quantum indeterminacy was of a truly random and spontaneous nature.
That there exist regions of space andf time, however small, even if
smaller than the indeterminacy defined by Planck's constant, it
doesn't matter, over which interaction may be random or where
evolution is spontaneous. Unfortunately, this evidence cannot be
forthcoming.
Since you seem to be unaware of Penrose's work on this, I suggest that
you read either 'The Emperor's New Clothes' or 'Shadows of the Mind',
preferably both. You will discover that he is claiming that quantum
effects may lead to consciousness or even Free Will and that those two
will not be culculible or reproducible using AI.(using arguments based
on Goedel's theorem)
As to whether Predestination(Determinism) or Free Will(Indeterminism)
will ever be concretely proven, it seems very unlikely.
For instance, both time travel and prophecy are logically inconsistent
at the fundamental level. By this I mean, that if either were proven
possible, then the logical fabric of the Universe would collapse.
The commonest example given is the one where you could go back in time
and kill your Grandfather, therefore you would not have been born,
therefore how could you go back in time to kill your Grandad?
This gives the lie to time travel, if rationality is to be preserved.
Similarly, a 'Grandson' scenario may be constructed to demonstrate
that the same destruction of rationality would be required to
accurately forsee the future.
>>Quantum Theory is a
>> mathematical construct, not a physical reality (i.e. it is VERY
>> Platonist), it has not proven anything, no theories ever do, only
>> experiment proves something.
>
>Exactly my point. I refer to results of experimentation. Quantum
>Theory is not only a mathematical construct, however; as do all
>theories in science, It aspires to "model" reality, that is, reliably
>predict
Theories should indeed make predictions, but regarding the reliability
of those predictions, experiment must remain the sole arbiter.
>and therefore reveal something about the fundemental
>nature of being. We have a theory of gravity, an way of looking at it
>that may be inaccurate- but gravity itself is a fact.
>
>> I am
>> an indeterminist, I merely point out that things most definitely are
>> not settled)
>As regards motion- yes they are- experiment has revealed that
>electrons do not "move" to higher orbits because they do not
>traverse the interveneing space.
As someone who worked as a semiconductor physicist for more than 20
years I can assure you that it is possible to create many energy
levels within the so-called forbidden energy gap. Whether there is a
continuum, however, I would doubt, and the Pauli exclusion to which
you allude exists certainly, but there remain other theories of which
it would be inappropriate to discuss on this NG.
>Time has also been shown to be
>relative as has dimesion. All of these, properties that metaphysics
>once held to have Platonic ideals, are now understood to have no
>determined ideal.
>
What do you mean by 'metaphysics once held to have Platonic ideals'?
>
>> At the end of the day, what difference does it make whether
>> we are 'imagining' everything or whether there is some hard
>>reality to
>> it? It would only simply be a redefinition of reality.
>>
>> The really Primary questions are:-
>>
>> 1) Are the phenomena I create and/or witness and or interact
>with
>> predetermined?, or can I create and/or influence and/or choose
>> alternative futures?(IOW is there genuine FW?)
>>
>> 2) What are the rules governing these phenomena?(To optimise
>> influence, just in case the answer to 1) is Yes!)
>
>I have to say the same to you. What difference does it make if
>everything is predetermined or not?
But these are of immense cultural importance.
Take for instance, the concept of moral judgement.
If someone's life is laid out in minutae before they are even born, if
in fact, there is nothing whatsoever that anyone can do to change
their lives one iota, then what is the point of moral outrage at all?
If someone is a murdering. lying power-mad megalomaniac, so what?
There's nothing he could do about it even if he wanted to, so what is
the point in casting moral judgement upon him?
OTOH, if we have Free Will, the ability to influence which of an
infinite number of futures might unfold, then one price for this is
clearly moral responsibility. One can, in a meaningful sense, be
judged moralistically by one's peers.
There are other examples that stem from this central question, however
this is possibly the key manifestation of both camps.
In Europe (Western Culture), this has been the big intellectual debate
for 2 millenia at least. Often, cunningly disguised by doctrine and
dogma, it is the common underlying theme which may be discerned
whether one is discussing Augustine versus Pelagiius or Aquinas versus
Duns Scotus or Calvin or Voltaire or Locke or Adam Smith or Hume or
Kant or Bentham or Mill or Marx or Sartre.
Western Culture would be entirely different today if either of the two
main predestionationally based cultures (Meditteranic or Germanic) had
'won out' compared to the Free Will model of Celtic culture which we
now take for granted. (People can make a real difference and are
morally responsible, bad guys always get squirted good guys always
win)
>Reality appears to allow us to determine events. To question that
>is meaningless. I can act or not act, and that is up to me. To
>suggest that every subatomic event is pre-ordained is just another
>invisible monkey. You have no way to prove it, yet I can prove that I
>have choice. In debate, your position loses.
>
My 'position' IS that we have choice, but I cannot prove it. If you
can, then please, show me the proof. There are thousands if not
millions of others who would also like to see it.
>
>> But metaphysical arguments are by definition not testable.
>This is incorrect. Metaphysics is founded upon first principles and
>metaphysical concepts are "tested" thru the lens of reason.
Uh uh! They are hypothesised via the mechanism of logic, but tests
require experiment. In fact the two are synonymous.
>If an argument does not make sense, it is likely to be untrue. Logic
MORE likely to be untrue.
>and deduction are the tools used to cut thru the crap in
>metaphysics.
As I said before, logic can at best only operate on what it is given.
IOW it is GIGO, just like a computer program.
Some, like Penrose, argue that logic is itself flawed (e.g. Russell)
>Additionally, we keep coming up with instrumentalties that open
>new areas to direct empirical testing. Many of the concepts that
>were entirely within the realm of metaphysics 2000 years ago are
>now routinely the subject of direct experimentation.
i.e. have become physics.
>The only area left fairly intact so far is thought. If the Artificial
>Intelligence guys keep at it, even thought may become
>experimentally apprehensible.
>
With which Penrose would disagree. I'm 'open' on this one.
Oops we're back to Hume again.
>So- in this sense, everything we THINK we KNOW about reality IS,
>in fact, an abstraction. A mental construct. Everything we think we
>understand about reality is no more than our brain's "model" of
>reality, based upon our brain's evolved assumptions about how to
>interpret the data it receives.
>Dreams can seem vividly real because they are created by the very
>same mechanism that generates our world view when awake.
>
Once again. So what? I don't care if my reality is really real or
not, really I don't.
I do care about
1) Are the 'rules' I perceive(the logic) rigorously consistent?
2) Can I influence what is about to happen?
>All of this is demonstrably true. In the light of this knowledge, reality
>can be defined as that experience which we can collectively
>discriminate alike.
>As I said before, if you and I both have a different experience of red
>and green, we can label these experiences symbolically and act
>as if we are having the same experience. We can discuss redness
>and greeness. However- a red/green colorblind individual does
>not have this experience of discrimination. For him there is no red
>and green and our conversation will always remain meaningless
>to him. His reality does not include red or green.
This cognitive stuff was done to death in 18th C Scotland during what
we call the Scottish Enlighrtenment. (see A Broadie, 'The Scottish
Enlightenment').
>
>The thing is, reality exists, but our knowledge and understanding
>of it is limited to that which we can experience as identifiable and
>distinct. THAT is up and THAT is down; THIS is hot and THIS is
>cold.
>For millenia, humanity had all kinds of metaphysical and mystical
>explanations for ordinary experience because individual
>experience was SO subjective
>
>In the technological age- we can create instruments that assist us
>in calibrating our discriminations in a repeatable fashion. So we
>can generate a model of color and use an instrument to prove to a
>color blind man that there is a diference between red and green,
>that they do exist.
>These models are based upon logic and reasoning.
>
>So- reality is nothing more than that which we can collectively
>discriminate, because anything else simply can not be discussed
>with any comprehension.
>
cannot be discussed easily, one can be clear in definition, even about
one-offs.
>
>> I say, either way, it doesn't matter a toss, what really matters is
>> whether we can interact with our environment meaningfully. The
>> material nature of that environment is not important.
>>
>> Descarte, Hume and Kant are all guilty of advanced navel
>watching in
>> this respect, in my book.
>>
>Of course we can interact meaningfully. The statement alone is
>proof. Decartes settled it with Cogito ergo sum. That fact that I think
>is proof of my existence, The fact that I act is proof of my will. The
>fact that I find meaning is proof that I can interact meaningfully.
>In modern philosophy- those that dispute this are considered
>anachronistic.
One again, despite being a believer in Free Will, I feel I must, in
the interest of the pursuit of truth, point out that both camps still
exist and probably will do forever. Using words like 'anachronism'
whilst apparently so heavily reliant on 18th C concepts invites
wryness if not ridicule.
Hmmm....but has 'experimental' art, in I suspect they way you
mean.'always' existed?
>When culture turns to
>follow, it is called avant guarde, those experiments that culture
>ignores are simply forgotten.
>I see the artists rejecting antecedents as the epitome of self
>delusion. The rejection of antecedents is still being influenced by
>antecedents
good point, a wee bit like how intelligent parents get their
rebellious adolescent kids to do what they want by suggesting the
opposite.
>In the psychology of hypnosis, people are characterized as being
>suggestible, or anti-suggestible. A knee jerk reponse against
>suggestion is still a response TO suggestion. Both suggestible
>and anti-suggestible types are not exercising free will, but are
>slaves to their perception of suggestion.
>Only the NON-suggestible actually act of their own volition.
>
IFF Free Will exists.
>
>> >The "universalness" of art is derived from the visual syntax that
>> >allows us to all make much the same sense of it.
>>
>> Like Penrose's never-ending staircase.
>
>Excuse me?- I am not familiar with this. Please explain.
>
Yes, I just felt that the Penrose reference here, by alluding to the
start of the post gave a nice conclusion.
Penrose, in the 50's explored the principles of perspective. Amongst
his many 'clarifications' was the concept of the never-ending
staircase which amongst other of his suggestions was taken up by
Escher and made mildly famous.
I should just point out at this juncture, that I am NOT a Penrose
groupie, much as I admire the man's sincerity and ability.
It is only that I disagree with him rather less than with some others.
>The gist I get from your response is that you think art is a language
>and that your art is personal.
>Eh?
>
I fancy that when we indulge in what is loosely called 'creativity'
whether it be in visual arts, or literature or music etc. we go into a
mode which by some yet unknown mechanism, enhances the potential for
Free Will type thinking. i.e. unpredictablity.
However the parameters which form the boundary conditions of our range
of thought, for most of us, ensure that the result is at least
partially aligned with our own particular culture.
So personal(Free Will), yes! Linguistic(Communication), yes!
but also deferential(Community responsibilty).
chic
sculpt...@my-deja.com
> > The definiton is: "1. A
> >statement that appears to contradict itself or to be contrary to
> >common sense but that MAY be true. " "MAY" be true- not
> >actually
> >is true.
>
> Oh dear...it's always a bad sign when one has to reach for the
> dictionary. The nearest one to hand says:-
>
> paradox n statement apparently inconsistent or absurd yet really
> true...
>
> Q.E.D.
Here is a famous paradox: I go back in time to before I was born
and kill my father. How could I kill my father? The moment I kill him
I would never have been born to go back and kill him, so he would
be alive, but then I would be born to go back in time and.....
Now- explain how this paradox is "really true".
The fact that this paradox cannot be resolved is often cited as proof
that any time travel that allows information to be altered must be
impossible.
Or how about one from physics- : The twin paradox. One twin
remains on earth while another gets into a spacecraft that travels
first away from the earth and then back toward it at 90% of the
speed of light, for some length of time.
When reunited we see that the traveling twin has hardly aged at all
while the twin on earth had aged ten years.
The paradox is, if, as Einstein says, everything is relative to your
frame of reference, then there is no difference between the
spacecraft traveling away from earth at 90% of C and the earth
(and everything else) traveling away from the spacecraft at 90% of
C. Why would one age any differently than the other?
The formulation of this paradox does not illustrate something that
is contrary to common sense but true. Rather, it pointed out that,
since one twin does, in fact, age slower, the theory of relativity
needed a little tweaking to explain how the two frames of reference
were not interchangable. This resulted in the inclusion of Inertial
considerations into frames of reference. The difference in time
was the difference in the inertia between the two perspectives. The
whole universe has a lot more inertia than one little spaceship.
So- there is NO paradox.
> >In the study of philosophy- there are no true paradoxes-
> >paradoxes
> >always point to a flaw in reasoning or interpretation because no
> >two mutually exclusive explanations can both be true.
>
> The paradox does not concern explanations but observations.
> Explanations can never be proved to be true, they may only be
>proved
> to be logically consistent from a set of premises. Premises can
> ALWAYS be challenged. Logical consistency does not
>necessarily equal
> truth although logical inconsistency is much less likely to result
>in
> truth, and doing so only by accident.
I agree- but you see my point- paradoxes are never "true" because,
logically, nothing can be two mutually exclusive things at once,
therefore paradoxes reveal flaws of logic in reasoning.
In philosphy and physics, paradoxes are not "truths", they are
problems to be resolved, mistakes in our mental model of how
what we are perceiving works.
Philosophy is derived from first principles and must not allow
paradox. The purpose of formulating pardoxes is to test a mental
construct for internal consistency.
Often, the only solution to a paradox is to throw out the premise
entirely.
> >This is
> >fundemantal to all logical processes. There are no
> >mathematical
> >proofs that can prove 2 plus 2 is both 4 and not 4.
>
> Mathematics is not the sole domain of logic.
No, it isn't, but this IS an example of a logical system that can not
allow paradox.
All systems of logic are based on the same principles and the
core of it all is that two mutually exlusive statements can not both
be true. This is not to say that one of them must BE true, more
often, paradox reveals that neither is true, and that the argument
needs reformulating.
> >The paradoxical nature of light being both a particle and a wave
> >points to the fact that both interpretations are inaccurate.
>
> Logically not correct, it MAY only point to ONE of them being
> inaccurate. Also this is an oft missused example of 'paradox'.
It is not "misused". Read your own definition; It IS a paradox as
YOU defined it, i.e. a statement apparently inconsistent or absurd
yet really true".
Light does, in fact, have both properties. Neither property as stated
allows the other to be true simultaneously, yet they are.
> I know of theories that support the wave or particle theory and
>still
> explain phenomena like Young's Slits.
All current theories of light are attempts to RESOLVE the paradox.
When we come up with a model that truely allows both aspects of
light to co-exist without conflict- THEN WE HAVE ELIMINATED THE
PARADOX!
Ergo- I am correct. Paradox points to a logical flaw in reasoning. It
is used to test philosophical and other mental constructs which,
being founded on logic, can not abide paradox.
> >Zenos' Paradox refers to the concept of motion, and that motion
> >can not be fluid because, time and space both being infinitely
> >divisible, to move from A to B would require you to move thru an
> >infinite number of points in a finite time.
>
> Not if you believe that space is infinitely divisable, which many >
> do.
> Besides, as I said, Zeno's paradox, does not require even that
>concept
> to be true.
The resolution of Zeno's paradox was the realization ( thanks to
Einstein) that space and time are not independent but are instead
a continuum. Becasue they are a continuum, any infinite division of
space is ALSO an infinite division of time. Therefore, there IS NO
movement thru an infinite number of spatial points in a finite time.
In dividing the space infinitely you divide the time just as infinitely
and so the equation balances out.
This is a perfect example of physics resolving a metaphysical
puzzle. Prior to relativity theory, metaphysics assumed that space
and time were separate.
>
> As an emotional indeterminist, i.e. I would love to see proof that
> Quantum indeterminacy was of a truly random and spontaneous
>nature.
> That there exist regions of space andf time, however small, even
>if
> smaller than the indeterminacy defined by Planck's constant, it
> doesn't matter, over which interaction may be random or where
> evolution is spontaneous. Unfortunately, this evidence cannot
>be
> forthcoming.
YET! I see it this way, Chic- the universe appears to be random
and we appear to have free will. Prove otherwise! You can not.
No matter how probabilistic wave functions are proven to be thru
experimentation there will always be someone who claims that if
we dig just a little deeper we will find how it is ALL predetermined,
all just a game of billiards with one initial stroke of the cue.
But- experiment suggests that outcomes are random. That what
we perceive as "matter" is just the strange attractor for the chaotic
behavior of probability waves.
Experiments suggest that the frame of mind of the viewer affects
the outcome of the experiment.
In short- your position on indeterminacy is well supported,
whereas the determinists are all pointing at invisible monkeys on
their desks.
> Since you seem to be unaware of Penrose's work on this, I
>suggest that
> you read either 'The Emperor's New Clothes' or 'Shadows of the
>Mind',
> preferably both. You will discover that he is claiming that
>quantum
> effects may lead to consciousness or even Free Will and that
>those two
> will not be culculible or reproducible using AI.(using arguments
>based
> on Goedel's theorem)
I am unfamiliar with the "staircase" you mention other than
Ecsher's. I am well versed in the concept of quantum effects
regarding consciousness, but did not make the association with
Penrose. (thanks for the titles)
While I tend to agree with the notion that quantum effects are
involved in our consciousness- I also think it possible to create
other kinds of consciousness. After all, quantum effects are
everywhere and in all matter.
>
> >>Quantum Theory is a
> >> mathematical construct, not a physical reality (i.e. it is VERY
> >> Platonist), it has not proven anything, no theories ever do, only
> >> experiment proves something.
> >
> >Exactly my point. I refer to results of experimentation. Quantum
> >Theory is not only a mathematical construct, however; as do
all
> >theories in science, It aspires to "model" reality, that is, reliably
> >predict
>
> Theories should indeed make predictions, but regarding the
> reliability
> of those predictions, experiment must remain the sole arbiter.
I agree- when it comes to this, I don't care what you believe, show
me what you can prove.
> As someone who worked as a semiconductor physicist for more
>than 20
> years I can assure you that it is possible to create many energy
> levels within the so-called forbidden energy gap. Whether there
>is a
> continuum, however, I would doubt, and the Pauli exclusion to
>which
> you allude exists certainly, but there remain other theories of
>which
> it would be inappropriate to discuss on this NG.
Many of which I probably would be unable to follow.
As you point out, theories are just our idea of what is actually
happening and our ideas are limited by our minds. I agree with the
observation (bohr?) that "reality is not only stranger than we
imagine, it is stranger than we CAN imagine."
>
> What do you mean by 'metaphysics once held to have Platonic
>ideals'?
Sorry, bad grammer, I meant that time and spatial dimensions
were once believed to have platonic Ideals.
Just as Plato imagined the noumenal to include perfect spheres
and cones and parabolas that had an independent and superior
reality all their own- so also was it believed, as Kromkowski
pointed out, that any given phenomenal object had absolute
dimensions that could never be known and that time had an
absolute rate that could never be known. Yet that both actually
existed.
Relativity has shown that time and space have no set dimension
nor rate, but are dependent upon your frame of reference.
> >I have to say the same to you. What difference does it make if
> >everything is predetermined or not?
>
> But these are of immense cultural importance.
> Take for instance, the concept of moral judgement.
> If someone's life is laid out in minutae before they are even born,
>if
> in fact, there is nothing whatsoever that anyone can do to change
> their lives one iota, then what is the point of moral outrage at all?
>
> If someone is a murdering. lying power-mad megalomaniac, so
>what?
> There's nothing he could do about it even if he wanted to, so
>what is
> the point in casting moral judgement upon him?
> OTOH, if we have Free Will, the ability to influence which of an
> infinite number of futures might unfold, then one price for this is
> clearly moral responsibility. One can, in a meaningful sense, be
> judged moralistically by one's peers.
I would have to say that I see no point in moral outrage at all, even
tho I am, like you, an indeterminst.
I believe the State should not have the power to "punish" people
for their behavior. Instead, we should try an view it as our right to
simply "put away" anyone who simply will not agree to a code of
conduct observed by the majority.
We don't need to "get back" at criminals, we merely need to
separate them from those who agree to behave themselves. The
only justification we need is that there are more of us than them-
we HAVE the power to have our way.
In large part, I feel recitivism is the result of societal "judgement" in
toto of a man by what may be the single worst thing he's ever
done. I think it would be more effective to simply tell every convicted
criminal, "look here, we can't MAKE you understand that your right
to swing your foot ends just shy of our ass, however, if you insist
on kicking us in the ass, we CAN fix it so you can't swing your foot
at all."
No anger, no outrage is needed. Just simple cause and effect and
a dose of this is how it is, pal.
> In Europe (Western Culture), this has been the big intellectual
>debate
> for 2 millenia at least. Often, cunningly disguised by doctrine
>and
> dogma, it is the common underlying theme which may be
>discerned
> whether one is discussing Augustine versus Pelagiius or
>Aquinas versus
> Duns Scotus or Calvin or Voltaire or Locke or Adam Smith or
>Hume or
> Kant or Bentham or Mill or Marx or Sartre.
>
> Western Culture would be entirely different today if either of the
>two
> main predestionationally based cultures (Meditteranic or
>Germanic) had
> 'won out' compared to the Free Will model of Celtic culture which
>we
> now take for granted. (People can make a real difference and are
> morally responsible, bad guys always get squirted good guys
>always
> win)
I agree, but must point out that for 300 years in the west,
determinism was in the acsendency as science seemed to point
more and more to a universe ruled by laws with ballistic precision.
How shocking it was in the first decades of the 1900s to find that
as we got closer and closer, things appeared more and more
random and probablistic.
In today's world- determinism is in full rout as science leans more
and more toward wave function to describe reality.
> My 'position' IS that we have choice, but I cannot prove it. If you
> can, then please, show me the proof. There are thousands if not
> millions of others who would also like to see it.
Chic, you prove it everyday. The great bulk of high energy
experiments support free will. You make choices. You exercise
will. The determinists have absolutely no evidence other than
argument, while you have ample evidence of choice and
randomness. Occam's razor, friend. Free will wins hands down
until the determinists can come up with a model that does better
than probability predictions.
> >metaphysical concepts are "tested" thru the lens of reason.
>
> Uh uh! They are hypothesised via the mechanism of logic, but
>tests
> require experiment. In fact the two are synonymous.
The actual citation from Spinoza was that metaphysics is
examined thru the lens of philosophy.
You stated that metaphysics was untestable. While physics is
tested thru experiment because it is the science of reality.
Metaphysics, being an entirely mental construct, is tested solely
thru the appliction of logic.
If you read philosophy, you will find a dialog of postulate and
refutation with the only criterion for critcism being logical
consistency.
As you said- the grandfather paradox reveals that any time travel
that would allow prior information to be changed MUST be
impossible.
This IS "testing" the concept of time travel with nothing but logic.
Einstein did it , too, in his 'thought experiments", which were no
more than the exercise of logic.
Once technology enables any metaphysical concept to be
experimentally tested, it ceases to be metaphysics and becomes
physics. Prior to that- the only test is logic.
> >If an argument does not make sense, it is likely to be untrue.
>
> MORE likely to be untrue.
Semantically the same phrase.
> >logic and deduction are the tools used to cut thru the crap in
> >metaphysics.
>
> As I said before, logic can at best only operate on what it is given.
> IOW it is GIGO, just like a computer program.
> Some, like Penrose, argue that logic is itself flawed (e.g.
Russell)
I would agree- there is much to the experience of life that is not
reducible logically. However- metaphysics is entirely the product of
logic. As is math. As is science.
> > Many of the concepts that
> >were entirely within the realm of metaphysics 2000 years ago
> >are now routinely the subject of direct experimentation.
>
> i.e. have become physics.
Like I said as well.
> >The only area left fairly intact so far is thought. If the Artificial
> >Intelligence guys keep at it, even thought may become
> >experimentally apprehensible.
> >
>
> With which Penrose would disagree. I'm 'open' on this one.
Me too.
> >> I'm confused. You seem to be arguing sometimes that only
> >>reality is
> >> real and that abstractions are at best trivial and at other times
> >>you
> >> suggest EVERYTHING may be an abstraction.
> >
> >Your Eyes do not "see" the world. They react to a very narrow
> >range of electromagetic energy and send "information" to your
> >brain.
> >You Ears, your tongue and all other senses similarly sample a
> >small amount of external stimuli and send "data" to your brain.
> >Your brain takes all this data and creates for you the
> >"experience" of the world around you. This experience is entirely
> >the subjective
> >interpretation of your brain based upon inaccurate and
> >incomplete information.
>
> Once again. So what? I don't care if my reality is really real or
> not, really I don't.
>
> I do care about
>
> 1) Are the 'rules' I perceive(the logic) rigorously consistent?
Most of them, yes. (we have proved it)
> 2) Can I influence what is about to happen?
Yes, you can. Pop a zit and see what happens.
There, doesn't that make you feel better?
I agree with you that the fact that reality is a mental abstract is
essentially a non-issue (as long as I am aware of the fact)
because it is the only reality available to me.
Yet you fail to apply the same reasoning to the issue of
determinism.
What possible difference does it make? You appear to exercise
free will; that , too, is the only reality you truly have available. How
can an answer either way affect your actions? You must still chop
wood and carry water. If you decided it was all predetermined,
would you sit on the couch forever figuring that was your destiny?
or would you raise an army and overthrow a government because
that was your destiny? Or would you do either because you chose
to by choosing to believe one destiny or the other?
It is all equally ridiculous and insignificant. Like the creationists
who believe god put fossils in the deep rocks to test our faith. Why
believe in a divine deception? If god wrote us a story in the rocks,
why not read the story he wrote?
There is far more hard evidence insupport of free will than in
oppostion. Occam's razor cuts them out, but then, they should
have known it was coming.
> >All of this is demonstrably true. In the light of this knowledge,
> >reality can be defined as that experience which we can
> >collectively discriminate alike.
> >As I said before, if you and I both have a different experience of
> >red and green, we can label these experiences symbolically
> >and act as if we are having the same experience. We can
> >discuss redness and greeness. However- a red/green
> >colorblind individual does not have this experience of
> >discrimination. For him there is no red
> >and green and our conversation will always remain
> >meaningless to him. His reality does not include red or green.
>
> This cognitive stuff was done to death in 18th C Scotland during
>what
> we call the Scottish Enlighrtenment. (see A Broadie, 'The
>Scottish
> Enlightenment').
Yes- and this revolution in philosophy has become the
cornerstone of all modern philosophy. And Western culture and
politics.
> >So- reality is nothing more than that which we can collectively
> >discriminate, because anything else simply can not be
> >discussed
> >with any comprehension.
> >
>
> cannot be discussed easily, one can be clear in definition, even
>about
> one-offs.
No you can't-
without resorting to an instrument to calibrate our discriminations,
define redness in a way that is clear to a man blind from birth. you
cannot. Without the ability to discriminate in common- there are no
symbols you can use that will be comprehensible to the blind
man.
In today's world of rampant instrumentalities, it is amost
impossible to imagine how limited we once were. For example.
Prior to the advent of photography there raged a thoudand year
debate as to whether a galloping horse ever had all four feet off the
ground simultaneaously. Despite centuries of watching horses
gallop, human vision just wasn't capable of giving all witnesses
the ability to discrimibnate the same things.
A few photgraphs settled the matter by calibrating all of our
experience with a reliably repeatable standard.
> One again, despite being a believer in Free Will, I feel I must, in
> the interest of the pursuit of truth, point out that both camps still
> exist and probably will do forever. Using words like
>'anachronism'
> whilst apparently so heavily reliant on 18th C concepts invites
> wryness if not ridicule.
Look- I am not relying on 18th century philosophy- name a modern
philosopher that disputes what you call the "cognitive stuff". From
existentiallism to nihilism, all subsequent philosophical works
acknowledge the indisputable truth that our experience of reality is
a mental abstract.
This, and the weight of modern science, are why determinism is
no longer a "hot" topic in philosophy, and precisely why the current
"hot" topic is whether there IS any such thing as time and space
outside of the concious perception of it. The Key question being-
suppose reality is a FUNCTION of CONSCIOUSNESS. What then?
This puts a spin on determinism. If reality is a function of
consciousness, how MUCH influence does the consciousness
exert on reality? Just how plastic is it?
As I pointed out- both camps will always exist, just as platonists
and flat earthers are still out there. But their believing doesn't make
it so. There are people who still make boats out of wood. And the
boats they make are beautiful and nostalgic, but fiberglass boats
demontrably perform better for less money.
Newton had some very good ideas that helped us out a lot, but, as
they helped, we learned that he was a leeeettle off.
> >I agree with you to a certain extent, however, experimental art is
> >always perpendicular to present culture.
>
> Hmmm....but has 'experimental' art, in I suspect they way you
> mean.'always' existed?
Good question. What we call experimental art is only as old as the
photgraphic process. Prior to that time no one questioned the
purpose of art. It was to capture reality in ever more incredibly real
detail. The history of art up to the mid 1800s is the history of
becoming better and better at imaging the world accurately.
Photography destroyed all that and rendered that 'reason' for art
obsolete. That is when art started the long road to becoming art for
art's sake, and when avant guarde experimentation began.
At least, that's what my art history teacher would say.
> >I see the artists rejecting antecedents as the epitome of self
> >delusion. The rejection of antecedents is still being influenced
> >by antecedents
>
> good point, a wee bit like how intelligent parents get their
> rebellious adolescent kids to do what they want by suggesting
>the opposite.
>
> >In the psychology of hypnosis, people are characterized as
being
> >suggestible, or anti-suggestible. A knee jerk reponse against
> >suggestion is still a response TO suggestion. Both suggestible
> >and anti-suggestible types are not exercising free will, but are
> >slaves to their perception of suggestion.
> >Only the NON-suggestible actually act of their own volition.
> >
>
> IFF Free Will exists.
Perhaps you have no choice but to qualify your own opinion- but I
do have a choice and I choose not to. Free will does exist!
> >The gist I get from your response is that you think art is a
language
> >and that your art is personal.
> >Eh?
> >
>
> I fancy that when we indulge in what is loosely called 'creativity'
> whether it be in visual arts, or literature or music etc. we go into a
> mode which by some yet unknown mechanism, enhances the
potential for
> Free Will type thinking. i.e. unpredictablity.
> However the parameters which form the boundary conditions of
our range
> of thought, for most of us, ensure that the result is at least
> partially aligned with our own particular culture.
> So personal(Free Will), yes! Linguistic(Communication), yes!
> but also deferential(Community responsibilty).
>
> chic
I'm with you, Chicky baby!
Kromkowski
>Quantum
>Theory is not only a mathematical construct, however; as do all
>theories in science, It aspires to "model" reality, that is, reliably
>predict and therefore reveal something about the fundemental
>nature of being. We have a theory of gravity, an way of looking at it
>that may be inaccurate- but gravity itself is a fact.
I don't think quatuum theory "really aspires to "model" reality", at all. In
fact, (although I won't even attempt to claim to understand more that the
tiniest parts of it) one view of it says to heck with "modelling reality",
let's just figure out a really accurate way to predict things.
JDK
Kromkowski
chi...@mcgregors.screaming.net (Chic McGregor) writes:
>Personification of the Universe doesn't help here, all Penrose is
>saying is that there are mathematical truths which 'exist' and existed
>before man discovered them and will exist after man does not.
>
I was using Platonist in this sort of way. I was not suggesting that they
(truths, ideas) were "material", although I do believe that because they exist
they are real. I don't think Plato, nor Augustine, nor Kant, actually insisted
that they are "material", but that whole word is frought with problems of
operational definition.
As to the more ""real" than reality", well that is a kind of strawman that
sculptingman was building up, because I thought I was careful not to say that.
I did by analogy attempt to make an operational distinction between objective
and subjective, but I did not use those terms to be synonyms for real and less
than real, but rather as those quality which are universal on one hand and on
the other, those charistics which are subject to the common cause variation
involve in the day to day.
For example, in law, some states follow an objective test for the defense of
assumption of risk while others follow a subjective test. The objective test
asks would a "hypothetical" reasonable person have assumed the risks (the exact
prongs of the test I'm skimming over because they are not important to the
point). The subjective test on the other hand asks did the actual person in the
case assume the risks.
>In fact if you study what Penrose IS saying,(e.g. 'Shadows of the
>Mind') he is actually highly critical of mathematics to the point
>where he believes that consciousness will never be computational,...
>almost the antithesis of Platonism.
Well, the idea that "consciousness will never be computational" is not the
antithesis of Platonism, in my view. Platonism is not the same as Pythagorean,
which would believe in a computational consciousness. Ultimately, the idea
that you can actually get from the cave and shadows, the phenominal world, to
the objective world simple by walking out there (computation) must be rejected
by the Platonist also because you'd just go blind walking out into the
daylight. Although we can "intuit and thus know" the existence (and maybe even
catch a quick glimpse without too much significant damage) of this objective
world from which the subjective shadows are cast, we are limited in our
capacties from actually leaving the cave.
I see the art object as the created symbol for that which the artist intuits or
glimpses of the objective ideas, like Beauty and Truth. The art object once
made then depending on its degree of success helps the viewer remember, intuit,
glimpse the normally obsured objective idea in the way the artist originally
was able to intuit or glimpse that objective idea as a source of inspiration
for the creation.
Nature and naturally objects act the same way for the careful or thoughtful
observer. By observing nature we are reminded of, or are able to glimpse, or
are able to intuit, the Truth and Beauty and other universal and lasting ideas.
In this way, Art is like nature writ small, and albeit imperfectly by human
creators.
I'd like your thoughts on sculptingman's notion of a "visual syntax" which I
reject (i.e., I maintain that art is symbolic thought but not language). In my
view, "syntax" implies a computational notion which I think has to be rejected.
At best, "visual syntax" might amount to "style", so that indeed we might
develop programs that would paint or compose or sculpt in a certain style, but
as "style" does change that there are truths and ideas which 'exist' and
existed before man discovered them and will exist after man does not, and that
art is about symbolizing those truths and ideas.
As to free will: the only solution is to act "as if" it exists.
JDK
sculpt...@my-deja.com
actually reflective of reality.
As you say, they really need be no more than an accurate predictor
of results.
However, in the sense that all modern physics models are dealing
with aspects of reality that we can have no direct experience of,
these models can be considered the only "picture" of reality that
we can comprehend.
The more accurate our overall model of reality is, the more
accurately we are "seeing" reality itself.
Keep in mind that what we experience of the world is just a model
created by our brain using our noy-very-accurate senses as
instruments.
sculpt...@my-deja.com
> I was using Platonist in this sort of way. I was not suggesting
>that they
> (truths, ideas) were "material", although I do believe that
>because they exist
> they are real. I don't think Plato, nor Augustine, nor Kant, actually
>insisted
> that they are "material", but that whole word is frought with
>problems of
> operational definition.
The word "exist" has a definition, apply it to your platonic forms.
They do not exist.
> As to the more ""real" than reality", well that is a kind of strawman
>that
> sculptingman was building up, because I thought I was careful
>not to say that.
> I did by analogy attempt to make an operational distinction
>between objective
> and subjective, but I did not use those terms to be synonyms for
>real and less
> than real, but rather as those quality which are universal on one
>hand and on
> the other, those charistics which are subject to the common
>cause variation
> involve in the day to day.
Einstein and others have proven beyond doubt that nothing is
universal, not even the universe. An Idea has no existence
independent from the thought of it. I can think of an infinite number
of things that are impossible- and thinking don't make them exist.
If you are going to call yourself a platonist, then embrace it. My
"straw dog" as you call it was an accurate reading of platonic
philosophy, I just used less obfuscating language. Your
adhereance to the "existence" of universal forms outside of our
imagining them is proof that , for you, the dog is not straw.
> >In fact if you study what Penrose IS saying,(e.g. 'Shadows of the
> >Mind') he is actually highly critical of mathematics to the point
> >where he believes that consciousness will never be
>>computational,...
> >almost the antithesis of Platonism.
>
> Well, the idea that "consciousness will never be computational"
>is not the
> antithesis of Platonism, in my view. Platonism is not the same
>as Pythagorean,
> which would believe in a computational consciousness.
>Ultimately, the idea
> that you can actually get from the cave and shadows, the
>phenominal world, to
> the objective world simple by walking out there (computation)
>must be rejected
> by the Platonist also because you'd just go blind walking out into
>the
> daylight. Although we can "intuit and thus know" the existence
>(and maybe even
> catch a quick glimpse without too much significant damage) of
>this objective
> world from which the subjective shadows are cast, we are
>limited in our
> capacties from actually leaving the cave.
So, let's extend your analogy of the cave- your platonic forms are
nothing but a bunny shadow you are casting on the cave wall with
your own hands. The presence of the shadow cast by your hands
does not "create" an objective bunny outside the cave.
> I see the art object as the created symbol for that which the artist
>intuits or
> glimpses of the objective ideas, like Beauty and Truth. The art
>object once
> made then depending on its degree of success helps the viewer
>remember, intuit,
> glimpse the normally obsured objective idea in the way the artist
>originally
> was able to intuit or glimpse that objective idea as a source of
>inspiration
> for the creation.
Its Still the artist's mind doing the intuiting- which, by the way is still
a thought process, it simply bypasses internal dialog.
> Nature and naturally objects act the same way for the careful or
>thoughtful
> observer. By observing nature we are reminded of, or are able to
>glimpse, or
> are able to intuit, the Truth and Beauty and other universal and
>lasting ideas.
> In this way, Art is like nature writ small, and albeit imperfectly by
>human
> creators.
All ideas we intuit are created by us. Where else could they come
from? Since all experience is a mental abtract, any interpretation
comes from the mind alone.
>but
> as "style" does change that there are truths and ideas which
>'exist' and
> existed before man discovered them and will exist after man
>does not, and that
> art is about symbolizing those truths and ideas.
You keep pointing to that invisible monkey but have no evidence in
support of it.
> As to free will: the only solution is to act "as if" it exists.
Finally, a cogent conclusion.
WoN ereH
>You will discover that he is claiming that quantum
>effects may lead to consciousness or even Free Will and that those two
>will not be culculible or reproducible using AI.(using arguments based
>on Goedel's theorem)
...if humans could solve Godelian impossible problems and do so because of
their quantum-computing ability, that still does not restrict quantum computing
from machines. The opposite is the case. If the human brain exhibits quantum
computing, this would only confirm that quantum computing is possible, that
matter following natural laws can perform quantum computing....Machines use
quantum effects--tunneling--in trillions of devices (that is, transistors)
today. There is nothing to suggest that the human brain has exclusive access
to quantum computing." From Kurtzweil in The Age of Spiritual Machines.
Debra
Debra
Chic McGregor
>In article <391e50c5...@news.screaming.net>,
>chi...@mcgregors.screaming.net (Chic McGregor) writes:
>
>>Personification of the Universe doesn't help here, all Penrose is
>>saying is that there are mathematical truths which 'exist' and existed
>>before man discovered them and will exist after man does not.
>>
>
>I was using Platonist in this sort of way. I was not suggesting that they
>(truths, ideas) were "material", although I do believe that because they exist
>they are real. I don't think Plato, nor Augustine, nor Kant, actually insisted
>that they are "material", but that whole word is frought with problems of
>operational definition.
Well I think Kant came close.
I still agree with Penrose that the acknowledgement of another
independent and absolute realm for mathematical truth does not
necessarily mean that human (or any other salient entity's) usage and
even 'ownership' of these truths is obviated.
It is possible to believe that logic and mathematical truth functions
independently of humanity without believing in it's superiority over
intuition or that humanity somehow only glimpses a tiny subjective
subset of that truth or that human thought processes are in some way
alienated from it.
In other words, I think one can find the assertion that mathematical
truths are entirely the invention of the human mind silly, yet without
being a Platonist.
>
>As to the more ""real" than reality", well that is a kind of strawman that
>sculptingman was building up, because I thought I was careful not to say that.
>I did by analogy attempt to make an operational distinction between objective
>and subjective, but I did not use those terms to be synonyms for real and less
>than real, but rather as those quality which are universal on one hand and on
>the other, those charistics which are subject to the common cause variation
>involve in the day to day.
>
>For example, in law, some states follow an objective test for the defense of
>assumption of risk while others follow a subjective test. The objective test
>asks would a "hypothetical" reasonable person have assumed the risks (the exact
>prongs of the test I'm skimming over because they are not important to the
>point). The subjective test on the other hand asks did the actual person in the
>case assume the risks.
>
>>In fact if you study what Penrose IS saying,(e.g. 'Shadows of the
>>Mind') he is actually highly critical of mathematics to the point
>>where he believes that consciousness will never be computational,...
>>almost the antithesis of Platonism.
>
>Well, the idea that "consciousness will never be computational" is not the
>antithesis of Platonism, in my view.
;-)
Well of course you've picked out the bit which is Platonist.
I was referring to the 'highly critical of mathematics' bit, which
would irritate most Platonists, who believe that mathematical truth is
not only detached from human existence, but superior.
>Platonism is not the same as Pythagorean,
>which would believe in a computational consciousness. Ultimately, the idea
>that you can actually get from the cave and shadows, the phenominal world, to
>the objective world simple by walking out there (computation) must be rejected
>by the Platonist also because you'd just go blind walking out into the
>daylight. Although we can "intuit and thus know" the existence (and maybe even
>catch a quick glimpse without too much significant damage) of this objective
>world from which the subjective shadows are cast, we are limited in our
>capacties from actually leaving the cave.
>
>I see the art object as the created symbol for that which the artist intuits or
>glimpses of the objective ideas, like Beauty and Truth. The art object once
>made then depending on its degree of success helps the viewer remember, intuit,
>glimpse the normally obsured objective idea in the way the artist originally
>was able to intuit or glimpse that objective idea as a source of inspiration
>for the creation.
>
>Nature and naturally objects act the same way for the careful or thoughtful
>observer. By observing nature we are reminded of, or are able to glimpse, or
>are able to intuit, the Truth and Beauty and other universal and lasting ideas.
> In this way, Art is like nature writ small, and albeit imperfectly by human
>creators.
>
>I'd like your thoughts on sculptingman's notion of a "visual syntax" which I
>reject (i.e., I maintain that art is symbolic thought but not language). In my
>view, "syntax" implies a computational notion which I think has to be rejected.
> At best, "visual syntax" might amount to "style", so that indeed we might
>develop programs that would paint or compose or sculpt in a certain style, but
>as "style" does change that there are truths and ideas which 'exist' and
>existed before man discovered them and will exist after man does not, and that
>art is about symbolizing those truths and ideas.
I think there are two absolute requirements for an object to be an art
object.
1) That it's existence is owed to the artist.
2) That the artist perceived meaning in the work.
The creative process is one of experiment and selection to varying
degrees and with or without preconception.
The meaning may be simple and linguistic or subtle and symbolic and
all shades in between.
How important it is that the meaning is communicable is up for debate.
>
>As to free will: the only solution is to act "as if" it exists.
>
Amen to that.
regards
chic
sculpt...@my-deja.com
> Well I think Kant came close.
> I still agree with Penrose that the acknowledgement of another
> independent and absolute realm for mathematical truth does not
> necessarily mean that human (or any other salient entity's)
>usage and
> even 'ownership' of these truths is obviated.
> In other words, I think one can find the assertion that
>mathematical
> truths are entirely the invention of the human mind silly, yet
>without
> being a Platonist.
Please, silly?
I am not saying that mathematical "truths" are entirely the invention
of the human mind. I am saying mathematics itself is. There is a
difference.
Mathematics is nothing other than a technological language
developed to dicuss and discriminate certain aspects of our
experience of reality.
As such, it can certainly be used to say things about that reality that
are demonstrably true. 2 of anything added to 2 of anything makes
4 of somethings. This is a property of reality. I can prove it.
As I have said before, reality does exist, and it does have
properties that exist outside of our consciousness. (i think)
Mathematics was created, slowly and painfully over a thousand
years to be a language dealing with these observable properties.
Entirely new branches and diciplines were created and added on
whenever the Old Math wasn't up to describing something
accurately enough for us.
Like any language, it refers to reality, but only symbolically.
As such, while it refers to reality, the language itself has no
existence outside of our consciousness. We invented it.
The reality it attempts to describe remains as it was and is with or
without description.
However- like any language, it can also be used to discuss
concepts and mental abstracts that have no basis in reality.
While I can mathematically describe a perfect sphere- that
desciption does not create a perfect sphere. Nor does my ability to
describe one imply that "perfect sphereness" must have some
existence independent from my imagining of it.
Mathematics, like any other language, can be used to lie. Dozens
of internally consistent mathematical systems and theories have
been developed throughout the years that turned out to be
inaccurate models of reality.
Only thru experimentation have they been shown to have little or no
relevance to reality.
These are mathematical falsehoods. They, too, create no TRUTH
independent from our imagining them.
What is silly is to think that because we can think of something that
it has some existence outside of our thinking of it. You can say it till
your blue in the face and I will keep saying that if it has existence
outside our imagination, then show me the evidence.
I can show you evidence of everything that demonstrably exists
independent of our consciousness.
You can't show evidence of platonic ideals outside of our
consciousness- so you're wrong.
People once liked the perfection of perfect circles and decided the
perfect reality would have all planets move in perfect circles- it
certainly looked that way, until a better instrument came along and
it became obvious that it wasn't true.
Newton's laws of motion sure seemed to give us the perfect clarity
we all seem to hanker for until, again, better instruments revealed
that his mathematical "truth" was also something of a lie.
The mistake you are both making is your inability to recognize that
the noumenal is the realm of thought itself. Noumenal IS MIND.
Mind is the ultimate ground of all experience, and all reality we
percieve is an abstract within that mind.
As we attempt to learn what reality is, in reality, like, we are forced
to modify this mental abstract to reflect a more accurate source of
information about reality.
The only things we can point to that exist are those things we can
PROVE to exist thru experimentation.
However- perfect spheres and platonic solids and invisible
monkeys DO have a kind of existence WITHIN THE MIND.
Because they are mental abstracts- without conscious mind they
cease to be- as does mind itself.
Mathmatical truth has existence outside of mind only to the extent
that it describes some property of reality accurately.
The "independent and absolute realm" to which you, above, refer
is the ONLY OTHER realm there is - the mind.
That is where all ideas "exist"- and the only realm in which they
exist.
You guys seem to think little of consciousness. Like its some kind
of poor cousin to "other realms".
What you are missing is that consciousness IS the ultimate realm.
It is the realm of platonic solids and invisible monkeys. It IS the
realm of absolute truths and abstract ideals.
It is the divine and the human and the source oif all meaning.
It is you.
Chic McGregor
>
>
>> I was using Platonist in this sort of way. I was not suggesting
>>that they
>> (truths, ideas) were "material", although I do believe that
>>because they exist
>> they are real. I don't think Plato, nor Augustine, nor Kant, actually
>>insisted
>> that they are "material", but that whole word is frought with
>>problems of
>> operational definition.
>The word "exist" has a definition, apply it to your platonic forms.
>They do not exist.
>> As to the more ""real" than reality", well that is a kind of strawman
>>that
>> sculptingman was building up, because I thought I was careful
>>not to say that.
>> I did by analogy attempt to make an operational distinction
>>between objective
>> and subjective, but I did not use those terms to be synonyms for
>>real and less
>> than real, but rather as those quality which are universal on one
>>hand and on
>> the other, those charistics which are subject to the common
>>cause variation
>> involve in the day to day.
>Einstein and others have proven beyond doubt that nothing is
>universal, not even the universe.
Evidence?
>An Idea has no existence
>independent from the thought of it.
>I can think of an infinite number
>of things that are impossible- and thinking don't make them exist.
But what of the things you think of or observe which you believe do
have existence materially or with material consequences? Do they not
deserve a classification? What is so wrong with using the word
'reality' to describe those.?
The rules of logic have been discovered as being those rules which
govern the real(material) world. If you believe the Universe existed
before any sentient beings came along, then they were already there,
whether recognised or not.
Logically consistent ideas are certain to be continually rediscovered
wherever there are sentient entities.
Nonsensical ideas, by definition having no logical cohesion, only
survive as long as there are sentient beings to hold and propagate
them, so in that sense their existence is less valid, but transient
existence is still existence.
Anyway, mathematics is not of the nonsensical variety, for the most
part, and therefore will certainly be discovered over and over again
throughout the extent and lifetime of the Universe.
>If you are going to call yourself a platonist, then embrace it. My
>"straw dog" as you call it was an accurate reading of platonic
>philosophy, I just used less obfuscating language. Your
>adhereance to the "existence" of universal forms outside of our
>imagining them is proof that , for you, the dog is not straw.
>
If you define Platonism as SOLELY the acceptance of certain universal
and persistent TRUTHS, then fine yes.
>> >In fact if you study what Penrose IS saying,(e.g. 'Shadows of the
>> >Mind') he is actually highly critical of mathematics to the point
>> >where he believes that consciousness will never be
>>>computational,...
>> >almost the antithesis of Platonism.
>>
>> Well, the idea that "consciousness will never be computational"
>>is not the
>> antithesis of Platonism, in my view. Platonism is not the same
>>as Pythagorean,
>> which would believe in a computational consciousness.
>>Ultimately, the idea
>> that you can actually get from the cave and shadows, the
>>phenominal world, to
>> the objective world simple by walking out there (computation)
>>must be rejected
>> by the Platonist also because you'd just go blind walking out into
>>the
>> daylight. Although we can "intuit and thus know" the existence
>>(and maybe even
>> catch a quick glimpse without too much significant damage) of
>>this objective
>> world from which the subjective shadows are cast, we are
>>limited in our
>> capacties from actually leaving the cave.
>
>So, let's extend your analogy of the cave- your platonic forms are
>nothing but a bunny shadow you are casting on the cave wall with
>your own hands. The presence of the shadow cast by your hands
>does not "create" an objective bunny outside the cave.
>
>> I see the art object as the created symbol for that which the artist
>>intuits or
>> glimpses of the objective ideas, like Beauty and Truth. The art
>>object once
>> made then depending on its degree of success helps the viewer
>>remember, intuit,
>> glimpse the normally obsured objective idea in the way the artist
>>originally
>> was able to intuit or glimpse that objective idea as a source of
>>inspiration
>> for the creation.
>Its Still the artist's mind doing the intuiting- which, by the way is still
>a thought process, it simply bypasses internal dialog.
>
>> Nature and naturally objects act the same way for the careful or
>>thoughtful
>> observer. By observing nature we are reminded of, or are able to
>>glimpse, or
>> are able to intuit, the Truth and Beauty and other universal and
>>lasting ideas.
>> In this way, Art is like nature writ small, and albeit imperfectly by
>>human
>> creators.
>All ideas we intuit are created by us. Where else could they come
>from? Since all experience is a mental abtract, any interpretation
>comes from the mind alone.
From above
'An Idea has no existence
independent from the thought of it.'
So what are you saying? That the universe does not exist outside the
human thought process? That it does exist but bears no relation to
human consciousness? That it exists but was chaotic until humans came
along and thought about it? What?
You seem determined to confuse the issue of ideas and truth.
Logic (Truth) exists and persists and is constant
Ideas are constructs of sentient entities.
Ideas which are illogical but purport to be logical exist transiently,
probably not even surviving as long as the beings which spawned them
themselves.(except for lawyers:-))
Ideas which are logical also exist transiently, but will recur
throughout the Universe and time with much more frequency than the
illogical variety.
Ideas which are aesthetic/emotional/artistic will exist transiently
but I cannot say how frequently they will recur since they are
inconsistent with regard to their truth content.
Now you can argue all you like about whether material reality exists
or is just the figment of your's or mine or everyone's imagination, I
don't give a sh*t, just so long as the the rules for what 'happens'
stay the same and are the same for all observers.
I attach part of a recent post of mine to another group:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Anyone interested in the process of cognition should read Hume's
Treatise on Human Nature.
A key emphasis he makes, is different subliminal labels the mind
creates for similar, or indeed discriptively identical, thoughts or
visualizations or recollections.
For example, one may witness a car accident and somehow 'know' that it
is really happening right now, one may remember it later and 'know'
that it is then just a memory of something which has happened, one may
only dream of it happening and on recalling the dream 'know' that it
never really happened. Whether that information is conveyed by the
strength or vividness of the memory, as Hume suggests is not too
important, what is important is that thoughts do seem to be
'processed' and categorized, with an appropriate 'invisible' label
attached.
(Analogous I would suggest, to file attributes, or object properties
perhaps, in computing.)
This can be acknowledged as being true (except in cases of fever or
some other cause of delusional episode) without needing to know the
precise mechanism involved.
The key thing about these attributes is that they, in some way, define
different levels of existence of the thoughts involved.
In a previous thread, I tried to extend this idea to the idea of
orginality of thought. One seems to 'know' when one is dealing with
an 'original' idea (i.e. not necessarily a truly original idea, simply
one that has been formulated by one's own mind).
I feel, that these 'attributes' could well figure in the phenomena of
self awareness, especially the 'originality' example.
Of course we all know that the brain is not infallible in it's
labelling, and can occasionally get it wrong. For example, one may
occasionally have recollections of something such that one is not sure
if it really happened or was in fact the product of a dream.
Fortunately these seem to be very rare, (in my case at least :-)) but
I feel if they were more frequent, one's self identity might begin to
suffer.
The originality label, does seem to be errant on more occasions, but
this I think is understandable when one considers that as one, reads,
say, through the development of the argument to support some
particular conclusion, that sometimes one may arrive at the conclusion
oneself, ahead of actually reading it. This must be very difficult or
impossible and even perhaps undesireable, to differentiate from
original thought and frequently people genuinely think they have
originated ideas or art or music, when they have in fact absorbed
them. However, notwithstanding, I doubt if self awareness would be
possible if 'mine' labels did not exist.
This also raises the issue of whether Free Will, i,e, a truly random
thought generation process, is also required to trigger that 'mine'
labelling.
Do you think a self aware machine could be created without genuine
randomness in it's thought creation process?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>>but
>> as "style" does change that there are truths and ideas which
>>'exist' and
>> existed before man discovered them and will exist after man
>>does not, and that
>> art is about symbolizing those truths and ideas.
>You keep pointing to that invisible monkey but have no evidence in
>support of it.
>
>> As to free will: the only solution is to act "as if" it exists.
>Finally, a cogent conclusion.
>Christopher
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
chic
sculpt...@my-deja.com
> >Einstein and others have proven beyond doubt that nothing is
> >universal, not even the universe.
>
> Evidence?
conceived- as close to a universal property as we have come, yet
Hawking and others have revealed that within black holes, not
even relativity holds completely true.
We also know to a high degree of certainty that the universe has
both a beginning (prior to which the term prior has no relevance)
and a certian limit to its dimension- so- not being infinite it fails to
live up to the word "universal".
All current attemps at a 'theory of everything' have had to deal with
the plastic nature of universal "laws" under different extremes
known to exist in the universe. Beyong the schwartzchild radius of
a black hole all reality begins to break down; some have even
theorized that when matter collapses into a black hole it becomes
the big bang of new universe with entirely different properties. This
would mean that our universe is studded with holes into other
universes with different universal properties.
> >An Idea has no existence
> >independent from the thought of it.
> >I can think of an infinite number
> >of things that are impossible- and thinking don't make them
> >exist.
>
> But what of the things you think of or observe which you believe
>do
> have existence materially or with material consequences? Do
>they not
> deserve a classification? What is so wrong with using the word
> 'reality' to describe those.?
testable, so that I can be certain that what I perceive is not just an
artifact of my mind.
Given that my whole experience is an abstract- the only possible
test of whether I am deluding myself or not is to determine- thru
symbolic communication with what I perceive to be other
consciousnesses- whether or not others can discriminate the
same experience I believe I am having, and then to formulate a
test of what we think we are seeing in order to determine if we can
agree on the results.
This is the only method available to us to determine what is most
probably real from what is not.
It is the reason our understandings of reality are always termed
"therories"- because everything we think we know is only that
which we believe we can discriminate alike and that means that
there is always the possibility of finer discrimination revealing to
us aspects we were previously unaware of.
> The rules of logic have been discovered as being those rules
>which
> govern the real(material) world.
>If you believe the Universe >existed
> before any sentient beings came along, then they were already
>there,
> whether recognised or not.
formal logic as a mental abstract to cut thru the fog of subjective
perception. We have no way of knowing if the real world is logical
or not and it doesn't matter either way.
History is full of perfectly logical mental abstractions as to the
nature of reality that turned out to be wrong. They sure seemed to
work given the world we had the capability to perceive at the time,
yet were wrong. For example:
For millenia we watched the sun come up and KNEW we were
seeing the sun go in a circle aound the earth. The Greeks proved it
was "true" with logic just as they proved the earth was spherical 16
centuries before Columbus.
One of these logical proofs turned out to be true, the other turned
out to be false.
Both were PERFECTLY logical given the data at hand.
Therefore- logic is not a rule that "governs the material world"
because its veracity is entirely dependent upon the accuracy of
what we think we perceive.
Logic is, however, an elaboration of a belief we have about reality-
that no two mutually exclusive statements can be both true.
So far, this premise (and it is a premise) has proven out to an high
degree of certainty, however, the dual nature of light has certianly
put that idea to the test.
Our response is to try and warp and twist and contort our own
vision of the world so that our understanding of light will agree with
our assumtion that it must have a logic.
Our conscious perception of reality is a blizzard of sensory data
and our brains are tasked with making sense out of this data.
So our brains generate a mental "grid" and search for patterns, but
the patterns we percieve are based upon the template our mind
uses to search for them.
For example- because of instrumentalties, we know visible light to
consist of a narrow slice of the linear scale of electromagnetic
frequency. One end is high, the other is low.
But our mind can not deal with that open ended model of color- so,
our brain bends the ends around so that red blends into blue and
creates a color "wheel" a closed circle of experience complete
unto itself. This method of making sense of color blinded us for
millenia to the idea that there was light we could not see. Light
seemed to make perfect sense as a closed loop.
This is why I stated that our perception of reality tells us far more
about the nature of consciousness than it does about the nature of
realtiy itself.
> Logically consistent ideas are certain to be continually
>rediscovered
> wherever there are sentient entities.
> Nonsensical ideas, by definition having no logical cohesion, only
> survive as long as there are sentient beings to hold and
>propagate
> them, so in that sense their existence is less valid, but transient
> existence is still existence.
> Anyway, mathematics is not of the nonsensical variety, for the
>most
> part, and therefore will certainly be discovered over and over
>again
> throughout the extent and lifetime of the Universe.
I agree with qualification- nonesensical ideas will survive only as
long as there are sentient beings to hold and propagate
them-true- but this applies to ALL ideas, since consciousness is
what holds and propagates ALL ideas.
I agree that the universe has properties that are its own- that reality
exists; like convergent evolution, any consciousness trying to
make sense of reality will probably come up with similar ideas to
explain it to themselves. Like us- they will first come up with gods
and magic and voodoo and ghosts and all manner of different
methods of making sense of the world. Eventually- they may hit
upon something like logic and find it a far better method of
generating explanations-
The universe is as it is, with or without us, regardless of what we
think of it. It needs no explanation of itself- But we do.
> >If you are going to call yourself a platonist, then embrace it. My
> >"straw dog" as you call it was an accurate reading of platonic
> >philosophy, I just used less obfuscating language. Your
> >adhereance to the "existence" of universal forms outside of our
> >imagining them is proof that , for you, the dog is not straw.
> >
>
> If you define Platonism as SOLELY the acceptance of certain
>universal
> and persistent TRUTHS, then fine yes.
That remark was aimed at Kromkowski- not you Chic.
Platonism is the belief that universal truths and perfect ideals have
an existence independent from our consciousness of them. And
that reality is an imperfect and lesser reflection of these ideals and
truths. The analogy of the cave Kromkowski invoked.
What you, Chic, appear to believe (to me) is that whatever
properties reality itself has ARE the universal truths.
This is "materialism". (not the political construct, the philosophical
one) which it that philosophy shared by the majority of
experimental scientists.
This philosphy allows for the existence of perfect ideals- but only
as mental abstractions that we can use to measure reality against.
The Mental "grid" we create and impose on reality to see how it
deviates from it.
We can concieve of a perfect circle, we can invent a mathematical
language to describe it- yet we have never observed one in reality.
Reality seems completely indifferent to our concept of perfection.
To a materialist- there are only two realms we have any evidence
of. The realm of thought and the realm of reality. EVERYTHING can
be demonstrated to belong to one or the other.
>
> From above
>
> 'An Idea has no existence
> independent from the thought of it.'
>
> So what are you saying? That the universe does not exist
>outside the
> human thought process? That it does exist but bears no relation
>to
> human consciousness? That it exists but was chaotic until
>humans came
> along and thought about it? What?
First; I keep using the word consciousness because I do not limit
it to humanity. Animals and even plants perceive reality, they just
don't question their perception of it.
Second: Read each word. I am saying that any Idea we have about
the universe has no existence outside our minds.
Because our image of the universe is an abstraction within our
minds- our ideas about it SEEM universal, but they are not.
Third. The hot topic of philosophy delves into the concept that the
universe -as we know it- has no existence outside of our
perception of it.
Let's run with that a little.
A photon is the only thing that travels at the speed of light- because
Einstein proved that nothing with mass can travel the speed of
light and photons have no mass. (cept that of energy)
How- they cried- can anything BE without having mass?
Well Einstein's equations showed how- because photons don't
really have being.
You see- at the speed of light, there is no time, and since time and
space are a continuum there must also be no space.
So- from our perspective a star a thousand light years away
generated a photon and it traveled thru space for a thousand years
until it hit our retina and its probability function collapsed into an
event. We perceived it.
HOWEVER- from the perspective of the photon, traveling at
lightspeed, from the moment of its creation to the moment it hit our
retina, NO TIME ELAPSED AND NO SPACE WAS TRAVERSED.
From the perspective of the speed of light- all events happen all at
once at the same point .
So- the only difference between the two realities is that we are
conscious,and the photon is not.
Ergo- reality, as we experience it, may be nothing but an artifact of
consciousness.
> You seem determined to confuse the issue of ideas and truth.
I am not confused. I can tell one from the other. I can prove there
is no universally true dimension for any object. So it is only an
idea- I can prove an invisible money is not sitting on your desk-
also an idea only. When you are dead- what will you think of all
this? What Idea you ever had will be left behind other than those
you passed on to other minds?
> Logic (Truth) exists and persists and is constant
The sun moves in a circle around the spherical earth. The motion
of the visible planets are perfect circles with epicycles. Without
information from a telescope, prove me wrong with logic. Logic is
not truth. Logic is an internally consistent explanation of that which
we perceive.
The only truth is reality as it is- everything we can know about
reality is only an approximation in our minds based upon imperfect
information. Reality has no idea of itself.
That no two mutually exclusive statements can both be true is an
idea that is "true"- but as an idea- it resides entirely within the
mind. Prove me wrong with logic. Gahead, try.
> Ideas are constructs of sentient entities.
Yes.
> Ideas which are illogical but purport to be logical exist transiently,
> probably not even surviving as long as the beings which
spawned them
> themselves.(except for lawyers:-))
Ha haha ha, good one. Again- not so- logical ideas that are wrong
persist for millenia- until technology allows a discrimination that
provides evidence to the contrary. Then we create a new logical
construct, equally likely to be wrong in the light of later
developments.
> Ideas which are logical also exist transiently, but will recur
> throughout the Universe and time with much more frequency
>than the
> illogical variety.
I disagree- our history shows far more illogical ideas occuring and
recurring than otherwise. Logic itself as an idea has occured only
once, that we know of. Because logic is an effective tool for
clarifying and testing thought, we assume that any other sentient
beings that may or may have or will exist will eventually also come
up with it. But this is an assumption- we know of no other sentient
beings.
> Ideas which are aesthetic/emotional/artistic will exist transiently
> but I cannot say how frequently they will recur since they are
> inconsistent with regard to their truth content.
You can not logically relegate all types of ideas to transience
EXCEPT certain special ideas. If any Idea is transient- then ALL
ideas are transient.
> Now you can argue all you like about whether material reality
>exists
> or is just the figment of your's or mine or everyone's imagination,
> don't give a sh*t, just so long as the the rules for what 'happens'
> stay the same and are the same for all observers.
This is how we determine that the rules are the same for all
observers. We argue over our discriminations and attempt to prove
or disprove them in reference to reality.
My argument is logically consistent and refers entirely to what CAN
be observed and , correctly, relegates all that can not be observed
to the province of the mind.
I create NO unsustainable and untestable "realms" other than
those which can be demonstrated. I am on solid logical ground.
> I attach part of a recent post of mine to another group:
A good post. I must say, Chic that you argue far more effectively
than Kromkowski.
The only comment I can offer on your attached post is that we also
rely heavily (thru comunication) on other person's labeling to
determine if we or someone else is delusional or not.
Society can be veiwed as the consensus of these labels and
anyone not in agreement can be considered delusional by the
majority.