IRC log started Fri Jun 14 22:01 Welcome to #GeekSpeak. Before we begin, I'd like to remind you that all channel logs are the copyright of the channel owners: Pankaj Saxena and Tom Wright. Logs may not be redistributed in any form without the prior consent of the channel owners. Tonight's discussion is on Fundamentals of Esthetics. As usual, the discussion will be conducted in keyword-protected mode. If you see someone off-channel whom you think would like to join the discussion and would not be disruptive, please message him or her the keyword to join the discussion. I'll start by asking for the definition of art. Anyone? Selective representation of reality Ousey: Any aspect of reality? Ousey: and in any way? according to the artists metaphysical value judgements. Art is the selective recreation of reality selective recreation of reality according to mans metaphysical value judgements Those aspects of reality in which one finds value Okay. So it's the selective representation of reality in accordance with the artists metaphysical value judgements. Both part of the definition are important. Next question: what's "selected"? By what criteria? Why? The presentation of some aspect of reality. Are you asking about the selection process, or about the aspects selected? selected=choosen as metaphisically important I'm asking what aspects of reality does the artist select? Aspects which stress what? Subetai: His metaphysical value judgements... aspects that reflect what the artist considers important. Subetai: or are you asking about theme? The artist selects those which are relevant to his value judgements, and discards those which are not BG: Okay, so it's what's metaphysically important that's selected. What does that mean? What's "metaphysically important"? Ousey: right Hi, and thank you. art is a concretization of our philosophical abstractions. Can anyone tell me if my connection is lagging please. What he considers to be life enhancing. joe: you're lagged a bit. I think your definition is too broad. What kinds of abstractions? What or how the artist feels the world is. I will try to reconnect. "Art is a selective re-creation of reality according to an artist's metaphysical value judgements." p19 Glenn: Right. You're defining "metaphysical value judgements". Could you be more precise? brb the *subject* of the art work is that which is selected subetai; meta-ethical abstractions? <> Ousey feels dizzy from circular definitions If an artist feels that men are weak and lost in the world he will project that in the way that he creates his work of art. tom: That still doesn't tell me what they're about or what they are. and visa versa. Metaphysical value judgements are those aspects of reality the artists has identified as being crucial to human existence Subetai: I'm not sure what you are asking for...a presentation of man and his relation to existence? that which reflects in some way the artist sense of life perhaps is meta.. important Tom: No, I'm asking for the definition of metaphysical value judgements. Subetai: I just gave it ;) The nature of existence and the nature of man. Tom: You called them "meta-ethical" abstractions. That's defining them in terms of something that's derived from them, not something fundamental to them. It's the "sum of a mans knowledge" Those aspects of which are most important to the artist. A subconscious appraisal of existence Metaphysical value judgements are emotional responses to reality - to metaphysics - or the nature of the universe and man. Art reflects the artists sense of life. emotional responses = evaluations of Okay, what's a "sense of life"? How does it derive from metaphysical value judgements? Subetai: Not exactly...an emotion is not the same thing as an evaluation...the emotional response occurs because an evaluation has occured. Tom: I just changed that. the value the artist places on his own life. It's a man's implicit or explict view of the the world and his ability to live in it. Faye: that's a sense of life? Glenn: held emotionally? Faye: I don't think value can be placed on one's own life. One's own life is one's standard of value A sense of life is a pre-conceptual appraisal of man and his place in existence. Tom's just gave the standard definition. Okay, so how is it formed? An appraisal of man and existence subconciously held Ousey: No, one's own life is not a proper standard of value. It could be sub-conscious or conscious, depending on whether a man had introspected and consciously tried to change it or not. Glenn: The point you left out what that a sense of life is an emotional response. Other than that, I like your definition fine. MikeH: What, then, is? How is a sense of life formed? Subetai: a sense of life is formed by integrating things according to the emotional reaction they have to the individual. oops...the emotional response an individual has to things. Tom: meaning by subconsciously categorizing things according to the emotions they evoke? Subetai: Something like that ;) Something? Subetai: I thought a sense of life would cause a particular emotional response, rather that it being an emotional response. :) Ousey: The life of a rational being *qua* rational being. One's own life is the *purpose* of rational values, but the standard is determined by the type of creature you are - a human being. Tom, Sub: isn'nt SOL built up automatically, not consciously Glenn: No, a sense of life is the result of having emotional responses and integrating those subconsciously. Glenn: A sense of life is held as an emotional response. It's your response to the world, based on your metaphysical value judgements, which are a preconceptual metaphysics. joe: Yes, that's why we're talking about its mechanism being subconscious. joe: suer, it's a subconscious integration. sure ok MikeH: I don't live for just any rational being, I live for this one So what kind of sunconscious mechanism leads to a sense of life? Subetai: A radiant one? ;) Ousey: Exactly. Your own life is your *purpose*. could we say SOL is the fundamental emotion underlying all others. ? joe: yes. joe: It's that, but that's not defining it in terms of essentials. The subconscious genarlizes emotions by categorizing them as Tom mentioned. The sense of life is a huge emotional generalization. generalizes Subetai: i already answered that question: a subconscious integration of things/events according to the emotions they evoke. Does everyone agree with that so far? The way I think of a "sense of life" is as an implicit answer to the question, "What's the use of living?" mikeH: sure - that is a metaphysical question. Rand called the subconscious the "merciless recorder of man's deeds", and the sense of life the "record". What's that mean? Subetai: The nature of the mind is to integrate data. Cause and effect His stored emotional evaluations. I think she means that it's the nature of the subconscious to constantly integrate and generalize emotions, and that every emotion you feel leaves its mark on your sense of life, since the sense of life is the most generalized emotion that .. is an integration of all others. Sub: your mental habits result in your having a certain emotional outlook. Evade and fear takes over. Be rational and you will have self confidence. Sube: That which one fails to integrate will integrate itself not in terms of rational evaluations, but emotional ones Subetai: Actually, the mind integrates everything, not just emotions...you either take control of this or integrate haphazardly. That's putting what you all have said in somewhat different words, not changing te substance much. Do you agree? joe, Ousey: I agree "integrate" seems to be overused here Tom: Yes, the mind does lots of things. I'm looking at the direct basis of the sense of life. there are two types of integraton involved. The psychic economy cannot be shortchanged 1. cognition, and 2. SOL Subetai: bottom line is you can't hide from yourself. (Psychic, meaning, pertaining to the mind) joe: sense of life is implicitly cognitive. Okay. We've covered the definition of art, metaphysical value judgements, and sense of life. Given that context, what is the purpose of art? Sube: It is to give you the _experience_ of your values. It is emotional fuel. It gives man the means to see his philosophic value judgements in a concrete form. I like Betsy's definition, because it means that just about anything one does can be considered art, to the degree one's values are expressed in it "Art is the indispensable medium for the communication of a moral ideal." AR Okay. So the purpose of art is psychoepistemological? part of the purpose of art is to satisfy man's need for philosophy. Subetai: Art concretizes those abstractions/integrations. Art to the artist is the actualizing of values; to the audience, the validation that values are possible To give a man a direct or perceptual grasp of his concepts. Ousey: That's far too broad. usey: That's TOO broad a definition of art. I was talking about the purpose of art. Oh, well Ousey: as long as you *intend* it to be art :) Ousey: I'm not sure if that's what betsy meant, but i disagree that "just about anything one does can be considered art to the degree one's values are expressed in it" <> Ousey thinks good Visual Basic code can be art, but it takes another VB programmer to appreciate it There are three questions here: the purpose of art, the goal of art, and the end of art. I make distinctions between those three. I'm asking the first question, about purpose. Betsy said it's purpose it to let you experience the concretization Ousey: that's not what gave Visual Basic its reason for being tho. of your values. I agree with that. I'm asking ..... Since a man can't hold all of his concepts and values in focus at once, art gives that experience. Is architecture art, then? art allows man to grasp concepts directly as id they were percepts if everyone sees that that is a psychoepistemological purpose? Ousey: yes...please read _The Romantic Manifesto_. <> Ousey will have to re-read it Thr artists's purpose is different from his audience's purpose re: art. The work of art allows a man to concretize and see his values in a perceptual form. Glenn: Why is that of value to man? Subetai: re: Betsy's comment...are we talking about qua artist or qua observer? Glenn: How does that benefit you? BetsyS why is the purposes different? Architecture is *not* art - please read FH and RM. It is emotional feul. fuel. joe: What??? Tom: I haven't gotten to the goal of art yet. When I do, I'll qualify. Right now, I'm asking about purpose which is the same for artist and viewer. The artist wants to _concretize_ his values. The audience wants to _experience_ their values in concrete form. Architecture is a mixture. It has a function, but much of the design is irrelevant to the workings of the building. You can make a building that is a minimalist box, but who would *want* to live there? Because of the nature of consciousness. A man can not hold or see all of his values. A work of art allows him to confirm his values (if it reflects them) directly. Subetai: Concretization of broad metaphysical/ethical abstractions has already been mentioned. p. 20 the psycho-epistemological function of art is that it allows man to grasp concepts directly as if they were percepts Tom: I'm asking: *why* is that a value? Subetai: Partially because of the crow epistemology. Tom: we've had the architecture as art discussion a few times before. perhaps we should hold off here so as not to interfere with Sube. joe: Sure. Tom: explain, please Subetai: One can only hold so much in one's conscious mind at any given time...what art does is take a braod reange of abstractions and concretizes those to be experienced at once. It is a value because it lets you make the "in here" into and "out there" and an abstract ideal into a concrete which CAN be experienced. (You can't experience an abstractiom). Tom: So it's taking something that you *can't* be aware of consciously, and relying upon the integrating mechanism of the subconsious to allow you to experience the result of those abstractions? Subetai: I wouldn't put it that way...it could be done without art, but it would be very difficult...and time consuming. I don't think it could be done. Anyone else? I think love does the same thing. Tom: actually, Dr. P says philosopy alone is not enough to satisfy man's need for philosophy - that's why art is necessary. Okay, we'll move on. Next question's already been partially answered: what's the goal of art for the artist and the viewer? joe: I agree...what I'm saying is that without art, one could have broad abstractions, but these may come across somewhat vague without art. I like the way Rand puts what Betsy said: it permits man to contemplate his absttractions outside his own mind, in the form of existential concretes. tom: analagous to the objective/personal values split discussed last week. A romantic partner does that too, which is what visibility is about. joe: I don't see that connection ight off. right off The work of art can give the viewer or listener a positive "refueling" if it confirms his benevolent since of life. The goal of art for the artist is to concretize his metaphysical ideal, and for the viewer to experience *his* metaphysical ideal. Glenn: right Next question: is there an "end" to art? I understand abstactions outside your own mind...but I still don't see how it could be different being an artist or observer. Sube art (for a viewer) is an "end in itself". The experience is what it's all about. Sorry...thanks Subetai Betsy: okay sube: what do you mean by "end" ? Art answers the question "what's important?" That's an evaluation. Evaluations belong to the field of ethics, in general. What's the connection between art and ethics, if any? The "end" for the artist is to project the world "as it should an ought to be". I think the end for the artist is the pleasure of the creation. Subetai: Glenn just made that connection. Glenn: That's the goal. Great art gives you the experience of your values achieved. Short of actually achieving all your values, it's as good as it gets. Subetai: I see that as the goal and the end. I'd like to point out that while "what matters" is an evaluation, it's not an ethical evaluation. Why not? What kind of evaluation is it? Sube: What matters" is an epistemological evaluatiom (of importance in a given context). Tom: I think of art as an end in itself. It does have a goal - to concretize a metaphysical ideal. The end is the answer to "why aim for that goal?" Betsy: I call it a metaphysical evaluation, that is, it's an evaluation of your most fudamental beliefs about the nature of reality. The end of art (for the viewer) is an emotional state that results from observing a concretized (and stylized) instance of your values. Subetai: tha's metaphysical value judgements. that's and man's place in it. Tom: And that's exactly what art presents. Subetai: Sure. That's why it's a metaphysical evaluation, not an epistemological evaluation. (Unless I misunderstand what Betsy meant). As an artist myself, i have to add that the artist experiences it as he composes. Miss RAnd related it as one of the best experiences ever, and I have to agree. Sube: I think you're right. Okay. I was asking about the connection between art and ethics. The esthetic abstraction ("what matters") is not an ethical evaluation. So what's the connection to ethics? Subetai: I think you are confusing things...all evaluations are done epistemologically, none ar done metaphysically. esthetic abstraction = esthetic evaluation Sube: ethics comes in as far as whether you have a benevolent or malevolent universe premise. Tom: "Metaphysical evaluation" meaning an evaluation of reality. Not in terms of being "good" or "bad", but in terms of what it *is* (what's essential or important about it). the end of art is the experiencing a moment of metaphysical joy -- a moment of love for existence. AR ...i.e. if you have the latter it may be an ethical problem. I'm afraid I have to go now. (darn! this is interesting). Tym: Ethics is thus derived from your metaphysical evaluation? bye betsy Subetai: Are you getting at the point that since man has volition, he needs an artistic guide to living the moral life? Tom: quite the contrary Subetai: you will need to explain that, because my point is Rand's. Sube: ethics are derived from the facts of reality. If yr "universe premise" isn't in accord with that, yr in trouble :/ Tom: Art teaches nothing. The purpose of art is not to educate. Rand says that specifically. And I say it. :) Subetai: Ok, misswording...it shows one how to live a moral life. Great art could show to a Kira living in terrible conditions that her vision of reality is possible, although not prevalent in her niche of the world existentially in those artforms capable of doing that. That still assumes education, Tom. Tym: meaning that if you have the malevolent universe premise, your ethics is bound to be different from if you didn't. goodnight, all night tom Jay: Nope...the concretization of moral abstractions (say in a character) shows, not teaches, a viewer how to live in the world 9according to the artist). Sube: or it could mean yr ethics and yr sense of life are conflicted. -9 +( Art presents a view of the world. That view is not automatically correct. To validate it, you have to analyze it. Tom: I disagree. It affirms one view of the world. That is its main purpose - now to show you *how* to do anything. Subetai: sure...that is where an explicit philosophy comes in. one == one's Can someone withj an irrational philosophy produce good art? How do you appraise art and determine if it's good? A character in, say, a novel shows how a moral man would act in many situations...that's one of the purposes of that art form. (I'm moving on quickly since we're running late). Victor Hugo's explicit philosophy was bad but he created great art His sense of life conflicted with his explicit premises Sube: 1. sure 2. stylisation and sense of life. Phil: What's that indicate? A great man trapped in a bad philosophy? :) Subetai: Hugo was a great artist because he made his metaphysical value judgements very vivid. Tym: "sense of life" like in "sense of life comes across clearly" or as in "that's a good sense of life"? Tom: That's not the way I approach art. I *know* the how. I go to art to see it concretized, to give me fuel. Subetai: the latter. Stylisation is the clarity part. why aim for the goal of concretizing a metaphysical ideal? "to give one the sense of living in a universe where his values have been successfully achieved." AR Tom: Okay. Meaning that the metaphysical value judgement that's concretized should come across clearly. Tym: Then I'd disagree. In the esthetic appraisal of art, I think that judging the philosophy behind it is irrelevant. Subetai: yes...the more clearly the better the artist. Another example: Dali. He made some great art but his premises were awful, I'm sure What's important (in esthetic, not philosophical) appraisal is that (1) there is *some* metaphysical value judgement, (2) it comes across to the viewer clearly and powerfully. Also: Some of the Soviet art was actually "noble", albeit done for propaganda reasons Last question: what's the distinction between subject and style? What does each of them represent about the artist? Subetai: Subject is what is important to the artist...style is psycho-epistemological. subject reflects artist's metaphysics, style reflects his epist. The object stands alone. The artist's conception of reality may be compartmentalized -- he may think that the beautiful woman is unlikely or unattainable (he may be wrong in both) but he feels that this is what is the best that can be portrayed. We don't know the conflicts -- we contemplate the object in itself joe: psychoepistemology, not epistemology, right? sube: despite many redings, I am still a bit fuzzy on the concept of P-E Actually, I guess one could say sense of life and psycho-epistemology...palcing both on the same subconscious level. placing. Tom: Okay, so subject is content, and what the artist chooses for content shows what he thinks is important (metaphysics). How about style and psychoepistemology? What's the connection there? Subetai: Can you give brief def. of style? Phil: "The particular, distinctive mode of execution" philtwo: the method by which the subject is presented. subject/style = what the artist chooses to represent/how he does it JeffreyH is an evil man. I know him personally and his conduct is abhorrant. It's too bad he has pulled the wool over everybody again! Huh ? A clear, direct style would suggest a psycho-epistemology with sub-conscious and conscious in sync. Rand says that style represents the psychoepistemological sense of life, meaning the level of mental fucntioning at which the artist feels most comfortable. Glenn: yes, I think so...style can be worked on explicitly and consciously, but must be automatized for the end product to be produced. Got to go. Thanks. great artist, bad sense of life Why's that called a "psychoepistemological sense of life"? anyone? Hola The way I understand it is this ... sadflkjasdflkjasdflkjasdfj Subetai: sense of life is psycho-epistemological, so I don't know where you are going... A sense of life is an emotional appraisal of the world. Depending upon your appraisal, the world is either a place where thinking is potent, or not. That gives you a level of thinking effort that you're comfortable with ..... psycho-epistemology simply means automatized integrations. And the term "comfortable" implies that it's your emotional response to the effort of thinking, and that emotional response is based on your sense of life. That's why it's "psychoepistemological". Any comments? Subetai: Oh, you eman your subconscious appraisal of the efficacy of your own mind? mean Tom: Your subconscious appraisal of thinking as a means of dealing with the world. Subetai: I said that ;) Whether or not it's effective in dealing with the world. Sube: so are you saying the PE SOL is a particular aspect of SOL? Okay, my mistake. :) Joe: It's the psychological effect of your sense of life on your thinking process. Subetai: i wouldn't call it psycho-epistemological sense of life...since sense of life already includes man's place (including his mind) in the concept. Tom: Rand called it that. I'm trying to figure out (1) what she meant, and (2) why she used that term. Subetai: Ok, that makes more sense...but I still wouldn't use the terminology that way. Where did she say that? page 42, RM, top paragraph papaerback? As I understand it, PE has to do with relationships between conscious thinking and the subconsciousness ... characteristic patterns of thinking ... how well someone has integrated their knowledge into their subconscious ... how well they can retrieve it later on demand ... etc yeah Tom: it goes beyond just plain SOL. obviously, SOL is a PE process. But the term PE SOL ithink describes a person's automated thinking process. Phil: right. It's the study of the interaction between the conscious and subconscious elements of the cognitive process. Subetai: Oh, she means that style is a manifestation of automatized mental processes...clear style reflects clear adherence to existence and proper epistemology. Joe: yes, more specifically, the level of mental effort he's comfortable with. i.e. someone can talk about being rational ... but their characteristic thinking patterns may be rationalist or subjectivist ... "faith" vs. reduction to reality, or deductions from abstractions rather than concretization, etc. Tom: Of course. But she says style conveys a psychoepistemological sense of life, then goes on to define it as I stated. Subetai: i just read that...all it emans is that a very clear-cut style can be accomplished only by an artistwho feels at home in clear thinking. Subetai: Versus, say, impressionism. So ... how *well* an artist implements his metaphysical vision is indicative of the clarity of his thinking, eh? And how integrated the theme is ... Subetai: if an artist does not feel at home with his own mind, he will, nhecessarily, have a sloppy style. phil: yes, indeed. "Style conveys what may be called a 'psychoepistemological sense of life', i.e., an expression of that level of mental functioning on which the artist feels most at home". That's the exact quote. She's using the term "psychoepistemological sense of life" to convey the idea of the level of mental functioning at which a man feels most at home. Is the fundamental variable of style in music, the level of complexity of the music, and how integrated the theme is across the piece? phil: Likewise for those who respond positively to the artist's style...if he is sloppy, and the viewer likes it, they are not comfortable with clear thingking (and vice versa). Phil: I'd think the latter. phil: yes. both. A clear thinker will ahve a complex theme...a sloppy thinker will have a narrow focus, since it requires great mental focus to have a broad theme. Complexity could be takes as an indication of how refined the style is. Clarity of style would be a result of clarity of integrations, "comfort with conceptualization". scratch "refined" In other words, two artists could have a benevolent sense of life and write music that's happy, but only one may be "great" -- such as a Rachmaninoff, who can integrate the sense of life with sophistication philtwo: yes and no. level of melodic complexity is the domain of subject. Level of complexity of accompaniment (i.e. orchestration) is the domain of style. ...fully conceptualized elements on some level. joe: Can you elaborate on that? phil: yes...compare Rachmoninoff to "swing music." Both convey a great sense of life, but "swing" is not nearly as complex. TomM: Yeah, that's the sort of thing I was thinking joe: Style is also involved in the leve of complexity. We're done with the discussion formally, but please continue. phil: I work in a pictuer framing shop, and can now assertain the level of thinking complexity of my customers just by knowing what they are framing ;) Tom: I think swing has a less complex *subject*, not style. TomM. I'm not so sure that Rachmaninoff's music convey's a great since of life. There seems to be a unhappy undertone to a lot of it. TomM: I think your customers are being framed then joe: Expalin what you mean by subject as it refers to music. phil: Of course ;) Glenn: Great as in profound...deep melodies and complex themes. Tom: as I said before, subject in music is I think connected to melody (including rythym) joe: A Chopin piano piece can be *very* complex. No accompaniment. Why is style related to accom.? I'd say that since music primarily suggests emotions, the subject of music is the emotions it suggests, and the style is *how* it suggests them. joe: I saw you write that, but I'm not sure why you call taht subject. Subetai: Interesting joe: i think of the subject of music as the abstraction being concretized. Subetai: yes, something along those lines. phil: yes: chopin melody is complex melodicly, simple in terms of accompamniment. Rach is complex in both. the "beter" modernists (vaghn williams, etc.) have complex orchestaton, but dull melody. Subetai: And part of that "how" is the melodies and complexity of the relations of those. Subetai: So if I want to listen to something cheerful but "light" I can listen to Scott Joplin which is intellectually less demanding but enjoyable ... or Tchaivsky or Rachmaninoff if I'm in a mood to listen to something that complex? The melody and its form and complexity are the tools used to suggest emotions. phil: yes, I thinks so...at least that's how I do it. TomM. I agree, Rachmanonoff's music is complex and has great clairty and technique, and is very moving. Tom: Right. Tools are definitely part of style. Phil: yes, I'd agree. Glenn: That's what I meant by great sense of life...it may be malevolent (although I think those are mostly an introduction), but it is still very all encompasidng. Ok, let me add an important point about style in music and art in general style is secondary and subservient to subject. Anyone have Tym Parsons' e-mail address? yeah, I do. Subetai: i ahd completely forgotten about that term psycho-epistemological sense of life. thus, orchestration (accompaniment) is secondary to melody. joe: Sure...just like cause and effect...there are no actions without entities...so there is no style without a subject. tom: riight I'm thinking the subject of music as an art could make an entire scheduled discussion. also, I would add: style operates on the perceptual level of consciousness. it is not integrated beyon that. anyone agree? Subetai: however, I simply incorporated that into "sense of life" ;) Anyone want to volunteer to moderate? Tom: I see. melody, rhythm, harmony & style are parts of music - would emotion response be the subject Subetai: It could. joe: I disagree...the whole point of style is that it concretizes the artist's mental operations...and the viewer respsonds likewise to it. joe: I think style is very conceptual. Joe: you mean one couldn't analyze style consciously? That couldn't be what you mean. subetai: every time we have a music discussion, it degenerates in to the "tonality" discussion. nevertheless, I would be willing to moderate. joe: We could leave that issue aside until after the discussion. joe: It's interesting that Bach is very distinctively Bach regardless of implementation of his melodies Tom: which issue ? :-) It is very hard to say conceptually why a melody moves you. It is easy to point out and analyze stylistic characteristics conceptually. Glenn: I find it easier to focus in on the images I get by listening to the music, then analysing those. My point about style (in painting say) is that you do not analyze it conceptually, like you do with subject. Listening for pleasure and analyzing are two different things. joe: You can, if you know how...I do it all the time. Glenn: Sure...part of the pleasuer of listening to music is the images it "conveys" to the listener...sit back, enjoy *that*...then analyse later. the stylistic elements (color hormonies for e.g.) emphasize the subject, but only at the perceptual level. The fact that you don't need to know anything about color theory to *feel* the colors' effects shows that. joe: from a listening standpoint I agree. joe: True, on that level...but once you grasp the connection between style and psycho-epistemology, each color harmony or disharmony speaks volumns./ any subsequent analysis of color is a secondary, separate intellectual proccess, a process of *appreciation*, which differes from the initial experience of the painting, inwhich the colors are acting on your physiology (i.e. sense-percep level of consciousness). IRC log ended Fri Jun 14 23:47