You said people view art objectively based on their own circumstances. Since everyone has different circumstances, there is no universal standard for art and hence it is indeed subjective to the individual. You post such convoluted nonsense that you don't even realize what you are posting.</strong><hr></blockquote>something just happened to my post.
but I'll try again
anyway.
subjectivity is an illusion. We are not isolated absolutely self-sovreign subjects.
what I said is that people evaluate art based on experience whish is profoundly communal. .. that experience itself is inter-subjective.
the dichotomy of subjective/objective is facile. experience is more like a fantasm formed through the agragate that is culture, history and self.
If you care to read closely before you assume that you have it figured out then you might find that it isn't merely convoluted thought
The point that you miss about my statement is that the medium of understanding, the medium that then constructs the model projected out into the world is itself language . . . language that is made up of shared experience . . . meaning that our understandings are actually made up of other's experiences: other knowledges . . .
subjectivity is an illusion. We are not isolated absolutely self-sovreign subjects.
what I said is that people evaluate art based on experience whish is profoundly communal. .. that experience itself is inter-subjective.
the dichotomy of subjective/objective is facile. experience is more like a fantasm formed through the agragate that is culture, history and self.
If you care to read closely before you assume that you have it figured out then you might find that it isn't merely convoluted thought</strong><hr></blockquote>
Feh. The illusion of free will is just as good as free will itself. Your point is moot. For all intents and purposes, art is subjective. You just caught a (pointless) technicality.
I'm still not getting the full connection. Is there a conclusion to be made? I'm not trying to be facetious, it's just that I think I might be onto what you're saying, but if there is a conclusion to it, or a question you could ask to encourage further thought... I'd like to hear it...
The point that you miss about my statement is that the medium of understanding, the medium that then constructs the model projected out into the world is itself language . . . language that is made up of shared experience . . . meaning that our understandings are actually made up of other's experiences: other knowledges . . .
anyway, must sleep its late</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think I do understand what you are trying to say, however, those other experiences, which I assimilate into my own understanding of things, is what makes it subjective to me.
In other words, your definition of subjective is one which you have formed based on your experiences, and those that have influenced you.
Your statement that subjectivity is an illusion, is an opinion.
Feh. The illusion of free will is just as good as free will itself. Your point is moot. For all intents and purposes, art is subjective. You just caught a (pointless) technicality.</strong><hr></blockquote>I'm not sure if its needless to say so I'll say it anyway . . . what I said had nothing to do with the whole free-will thing.
If you think that it is a technicality then that is up to you. I think that the notion of subject ivity has had a long history but for the most part when people use the term they are thinking about the 'self' as some ghost in the machine, absolute rational center . . . I don't think that that is the case, the self itself is this dialogue, through the medium of language with the world and within a context . . . not outside and above experience.
My conclusion and the whole point of this thread (which originally started in the patriotism thread) was because someone said that art is just subjective....and that he didn't like serrano because, well, he just didn't like it.
the conclusion from my lengthy post is that people's 'subjective' likes and dislikes are not subjective but are the product of specific situatedness, their context . . .in fact their very selves are part of this flow of language and context and culture . . .
like I said before: someone likes Kincaid or Serrano because they have lived in such a way and with such an environment that they see nothing terrible in his work, they can grow to see it differently but they need to expand their horizons and understandings of different valuations their selves will need to have knew values grafted onto them
<strong>I'm not sure if its needless to say so I'll say it anyway . . . what I said had nothing to do with the whole free-will thing.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Like many others people here Pflamm, i have some problems to get your point.
Art is subjective, because it deals with our own culture and background. Subjective means, subject to individual appreciations. And i agree 100 % with that : taste and color.
Art is becoming objective or universal, when it call upon the background of everyone.
An art is strong when the feelings of a people seeing it are strong, even if only a low percentage of the population seing it appreciate it, or react to it.
An art is weak, when the feelings of people saying it are very moderate (well it's not bad, instead of Woww !)
A masterpiece of art is universal and strong.
A mastershit of art interest only a minoritie and is weak
I think that you wanted to say that is subjectivity is not random, and can be explained throught our own background and personal experiences. What is not random, is logical and thus objective. . Thus collective subjectivity is based on various single objectivity ( if i follow your thinking)
Human reaction is always subjective. And when talking about Art, that?s essentially what we?re talking about. Thus for example, my personal deference is for modern painters in the style of Tom Thomson, having a complete indifference for ?classic? painters such as Rafael and others of the renaissance era. Same with Architecture. I much prefer modern design over the others. I would find living in an old European city totally alienating and even eerie. It would be like living in a cemetery. Even in music, though I like all types of music, when listening to classical music, I find with the exception of some Bach, it?s mostly a diet of late 19th and 20th century music for me.
So, in a sense you?re right. Our reaction is fashioned by our environment, and thus so is our taste in Art. Perhaps this is what you mean by the objectivity of Art.
<strong>My conclusion and the whole point of this thread (which originally started in the patriotism thread) was because someone said that art is just subjective....and that he didn't like serrano because, well, he just didn't like it.
the conclusion from my lengthy post is that people's 'subjective' likes and dislikes are not subjective but are the product of specific situatedness, their context . . .in fact their very selves are part of this flow of language and context and culture . . .
</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is what I wanted all along, now it makes sense. I didn't even notice there was a Patriotism thread. I'm going to re-read all of this with that in mind when I get back tonight..
<strong>Art is not subjective though it appears that way because there is such an incredible variety of kinds of art that you can like or dislike . . . truck stop art, sci-fi art, comic book art, landscapes, Museum High Mosernism, paintings of villas in the south of France, dogs playing poker, etc etc
no one of these arts are more 'art' then any other form . . . in other words Kincaid *cough gag* is as valid as 'art' as is Duchamp . . . or as Rembrandt *heehee*
there is a difference as to what those different kinds of arts, (the different 'self institutionalizing forms' of art) addresses and dialogues with. And, there is a dialogue (a 'self institutionalizing form' of art) that is called art where the questions posed by and through it are on an ontological, self critical scale . . . this usually is what is called "high art" and is what is concentrated on in the institutions of Museums, Contemporary Galleries, Art Magazines, Art Schools . . . . often there is some measure of knowledge or acquaintanceship necessary to engage in this dialogue (though not if the work is very very strong and crosses over boundaries with ease) and oftten forms of art in this diaogue are dismissed without engagement.
Anyway, art is not subjective: you find yourself liking one of these 'self institutionalizing forms' of art, because it fits your knowledge and your background and your expectations: what you are familiar with as 'art' . . . all of these are a function not of mere decisions but of where you live, how you live and who you are in daily dialogue with . . . there is a reason that Fellowship likes Kincaide, because his expectations have been conditioned so by his daily living. . . his "comfort zone" has been established so that Kincaide makes sense and feels right . . . he also goes to church to get his ontological/cosmological introspection and doesn't need to get it from the art in his life. So he is not interested in engaging in the dialogue with works such as Andres Serrano and would not bother to work at it . . . to talk with it
(I have, and frankly, Serrano didn't have the insight to pull the famous Piss christ out of mere provocation and decent photography . . . so, strangely enough, I agree with a critique of him . . though it could have been possible to see that piece as itself a perfect symbol for the power of christ in this pisser of a world . . but alas he talks about it with the intelligence of a moron so it was his intention that now colors the reception of the work for me now)
By the way, these 'self institutionalizing forms' of art, become 'institutions' because of the people that 'dialogue' with them: who purchase them, who talk about them who hang them in their homes offices or etc . . . that is, in fact what I mean by 'institution' . . .
Is this thread aimed at me? I do not like Kincaide as you state. I have a problem with people who have to make it their goal in life to spit on a contemporary Christian painter. Kincaide is a successful seller of prints of his original paintings. Yes it is widely available and for some that cheapens the value of the art. I am really not a fan of this greed factor of how exclusive art is or is not. I don't trade baseball cards either for the same reason. I could care less if something of an art nature is in great supply or if it is very rare. Art is art none the less and yes it is captured in the eye of the beholder. I have no room for academic types who try to frame an entire concept within a set of limits. Life is not that black and white my good academic friends. As for "High Art" I live in in a suburb of a mid-city of Dallas / Fort Worth and I enjoy a wide variety of "high art" and I enjoy and appriciate every bit of it.
I do not own a single piece of Kincaide and I never will. Because I see it as no crime that people enjoy Kincaide and I defend such a notion does not make me a Kincaide nut.
pfflam it is nice of you to think of me but let's move on shall we?
you said: [quote]<strong>there is a reason that Fellowship likes Kincaide, because his expectations have been conditioned so by his daily living. . . his "comfort zone" has been established so that Kincaide makes sense and feels right . . . he also goes to church to get his ontological/cosmological introspection and doesn't need to get it from the art in his life. So he is not interested in engaging in the dialogue with works such as Andres Serrano and would not bother to work at it . . . to talk with it<hr></blockquote></strong>
All I can say is that you don't have a clue who I am or what I enjoy or do not enjoy. If you are going to tell me who I am and what I am all about take a pause and Don't.
You're right Fellowship . . . none of this was meant to insult you . . . I chose you because we had a thread about Kincaid where you defended him to high heaven.
In this thread I am in no way denigrating Kincaid . . . I stated that several times . . . I am saying, in fact that there is no kind of art that does not accede to the level of art if people say that it is art.
However there is a discourse that calls itself "high art" . . . that's what it thinks itself as being . . . it of course may very well be absolutely deluded as to the 'highness' of the work that falls under that rubric. Although one of the qualities, besides the established groups of peope who focus on it from their positions within institutions, is that the art attempts to address ontological/theological/cosmological (the "big Questions") issues. I said that you are happily a member of a church, your big questions seem to be addressed by your faith in God and his church . . . the "questions" posed within the realm of "high art" I assumed are allready answered for you by the Gospels
am I right about that?!? that's what I meant to say
Now.... powerdoc, I am trying to problematize the notion of 'subjectivity' vs objectivity.
Inter-subjectivity seems like it is merely a broader form of subjectivity, however it is not. It is the notion that the self is a nodal point in the history of culture; a part of a flowing tradition that moves through language, by moving through us, as our relating to the world.
Our experiences, what we think are merely subjective, and therfore soley private and our own, actually partake of a process of sharing . . . our valuations (that means what we like and don't like, what we hold as valuable) are part of teh meanings and understanding of the world which are teh same as the meanings and understandings of language . . .and these are not private
its difficult to grasp, but what it means is that taste is not private and isolated but shared and a process of influenced and influencing
that means not subjective but rather inter-subjecctive
perhaps the culture is Isolate . . . but there are clearly the objective factors of other people's mode of valuating that influence the individual within that culture . . .
pfflam, are you suggesting that subjectivity as an acquired/environmental influence of cultural dynamics and interoperative language acts as a channel for the development of artistic sense?
ie: that proverbial identical twins raised in the same cultural environment and exposed to the same 'standards' and artistic influences would logically evolve the same taste in art due to the interplay of subjective perceptions and linguistic discourse in their (semi-closed) environment
in contrast, say, to the same proverbial identical twins who if separated to east coast art school and west coast art school would logically have unique subjective interpretations of art?
while not a twin, i know several sets... some grew up in the same environment (art on walls, visits to the same galleries, same classes, similar friends, common movies and books) yet have quite different tastes when it comes to what they consider "art"
certainly with more points of common cultural reference it might be easier to find shared interests and artistic tastes despite different sources... emerson and thoreau both expressed a preference for the pastoral over the technological... so did tolkien...
more than one mid-60s liverpuddlian found an outlet in music that led to beatlemania
except for the recent death of maurice, the brothers Gibb seemed to play similar music when together... (but solo careers differ)
at the same time, canadians can also point to families with widely discordant outcomes despite similar starting points...
from the frozen yukon came the Nielsen family... one -Eric- became a famous politician in Canada (recently retired after 30+ yrs of serious service)... his brother, Leslie, is best known for absurdity in the Naked Gun series of movies... and don't call him surely
sorry for the seemingly off track references, but i'm not sure if your implications are intended to question where in the mental/social process we differentiate our own subjectivity from the peer group, from abstractions to objectivity, or if the necessity for approval and flock behaviour tends to harmonize towards support groups that mutually reinforce people's hesitant approval until others confirm that it's art (so the original expression is more accurately referred to as a call for consensus that validated individual judgement, and less a case of screw-consensus-art-is-what-i-like)
certainly "high art" and some performance art seem to fall into that -fishing for validation- expression as often as they seem capable of standing on their own "merits"
perceptions shift... some art survives a shift in observer or period or trend...
john cage's "musical performance" 4:33 is curious... 4:33 of him staring at the piano. No sound except for chair shift and the odd throat clearing from the audience. not what i'd call music... and a 2 minute version wouldn't be any different in content or supposed "motive"
does null performance require language to interpret?
what about elephant, gorilla, and chimp paintings?
optical mechanical differences aside (colour space impact), these critters do seem to express particular moods and themes, and can be seen to prefer certain paintings to others...
which states that Orangutangs[sp?] have varying patterns of behavior, likes and dislikes, table manners-if you will, according to different group histories and locations.
My arguement does not say that it is absolutely objective either . . . its a dialogic process; a sharing, give and take.
Shetline: got more stuff to read? do you have a web site?
somehow, based on your posts, it makes sense that you could string together a decent set of stanzas . .
Now if I could only add some new material. My muse has been taking a very extended vacation for a while now.
Anyway, the sideways sort of point I was trying to make about this thread with my poem was in the last couple of stanzas.
I am rather mercilessly analytical and reductionist by nature, but I also feel that with some things, like art, or free will, the feelings evoked in the journey to understanding are probably more important and more meaningful than any conclusions one might reach, as these subjects tend to blur out of focus the more closely you try to look at them.
Comments
<strong>
You said people view art objectively based on their own circumstances. Since everyone has different circumstances, there is no universal standard for art and hence it is indeed subjective to the individual. You post such convoluted nonsense that you don't even realize what you are posting.</strong><hr></blockquote>something just happened to my post.
but I'll try again
anyway.
subjectivity is an illusion. We are not isolated absolutely self-sovreign subjects.
what I said is that people evaluate art based on experience whish is profoundly communal. .. that experience itself is inter-subjective.
the dichotomy of subjective/objective is facile. experience is more like a fantasm formed through the agragate that is culture, history and self.
If you care to read closely before you assume that you have it figured out then you might find that it isn't merely convoluted thought
<strong>
This, to me, is the definition of subjective.
[ 01-20-2003: Message edited by: ryukyu ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
The point that you miss about my statement is that the medium of understanding, the medium that then constructs the model projected out into the world is itself language . . . language that is made up of shared experience . . . meaning that our understandings are actually made up of other's experiences: other knowledges . . .
anyway, must sleep its late
<strong>something just happened to my post.
but I'll try again
anyway.
subjectivity is an illusion. We are not isolated absolutely self-sovreign subjects.
what I said is that people evaluate art based on experience whish is profoundly communal. .. that experience itself is inter-subjective.
the dichotomy of subjective/objective is facile. experience is more like a fantasm formed through the agragate that is culture, history and self.
If you care to read closely before you assume that you have it figured out then you might find that it isn't merely convoluted thought</strong><hr></blockquote>
Feh. The illusion of free will is just as good as free will itself. Your point is moot. For all intents and purposes, art is subjective. You just caught a (pointless) technicality.
<strong>
The point that you miss about my statement is that the medium of understanding, the medium that then constructs the model projected out into the world is itself language . . . language that is made up of shared experience . . . meaning that our understandings are actually made up of other's experiences: other knowledges . . .
anyway, must sleep its late</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think I do understand what you are trying to say, however, those other experiences, which I assimilate into my own understanding of things, is what makes it subjective to me.
In other words, your definition of subjective is one which you have formed based on your experiences, and those that have influenced you.
Your statement that subjectivity is an illusion, is an opinion.
How did you formulate that opinion?
[ 01-20-2003: Message edited by: ryukyu ]</p>
I don't understand ANY of the previous 10 posts.
Holy cow...maybe I need to go outside and run around some.
<strong>I'm not smart enough to be at AppleInsider...
I don't understand ANY of the previous 10 posts.
Holy cow...maybe I need to go outside and run around some.
It's way too cold to go out and run around outside here !!!
<strong>
Feh. The illusion of free will is just as good as free will itself. Your point is moot. For all intents and purposes, art is subjective. You just caught a (pointless) technicality.</strong><hr></blockquote>I'm not sure if its needless to say so I'll say it anyway . . . what I said had nothing to do with the whole free-will thing.
If you think that it is a technicality then that is up to you. I think that the notion of subject ivity has had a long history but for the most part when people use the term they are thinking about the 'self' as some ghost in the machine, absolute rational center . . . I don't think that that is the case, the self itself is this dialogue, through the medium of language with the world and within a context . . . not outside and above experience.
My conclusion and the whole point of this thread (which originally started in the patriotism thread) was because someone said that art is just subjective....and that he didn't like serrano because, well, he just didn't like it.
the conclusion from my lengthy post is that people's 'subjective' likes and dislikes are not subjective but are the product of specific situatedness, their context . . .in fact their very selves are part of this flow of language and context and culture . . .
like I said before: someone likes Kincaid or Serrano because they have lived in such a way and with such an environment that they see nothing terrible in his work, they can grow to see it differently but they need to expand their horizons and understandings of different valuations their selves will need to have knew values grafted onto them
edited due to iBook typing
[ 01-21-2003: Message edited by: pfflam ]</p>
<strong>I'm not sure if its needless to say so I'll say it anyway . . . what I said had nothing to do with the whole free-will thing.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's an analogy and a fitting one at that.
Art is subjective, because it deals with our own culture and background. Subjective means, subject to individual appreciations. And i agree 100 % with that : taste and color.
Art is becoming objective or universal, when it call upon the background of everyone.
An art is strong when the feelings of a people seeing it are strong, even if only a low percentage of the population seing it appreciate it, or react to it.
An art is weak, when the feelings of people saying it are very moderate (well it's not bad, instead of Woww !)
A masterpiece of art is universal and strong.
A mastershit of art interest only a minoritie and is weak
I think that you wanted to say that is subjectivity is not random, and can be explained throught our own background and personal experiences. What is not random, is logical and thus objective. . Thus collective subjectivity is based on various single objectivity ( if i follow your thinking)
So, in a sense you?re right. Our reaction is fashioned by our environment, and thus so is our taste in Art. Perhaps this is what you mean by the objectivity of Art.
<strong>My conclusion and the whole point of this thread (which originally started in the patriotism thread) was because someone said that art is just subjective....and that he didn't like serrano because, well, he just didn't like it.
the conclusion from my lengthy post is that people's 'subjective' likes and dislikes are not subjective but are the product of specific situatedness, their context . . .in fact their very selves are part of this flow of language and context and culture . . .
</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is what I wanted all along, now it makes sense. I didn't even notice there was a Patriotism thread.
<strong>hey . . . that was a good poem . . .
author? you?
sounds like Simic? or Hoagland?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yep, that was my poem. I thought maybe I was sounding a bit like John Ashbery at the time
<strong>Art is not subjective though it appears that way because there is such an incredible variety of kinds of art that you can like or dislike . . . truck stop art, sci-fi art, comic book art, landscapes, Museum High Mosernism, paintings of villas in the south of France, dogs playing poker, etc etc
no one of these arts are more 'art' then any other form . . . in other words Kincaid *cough gag* is as valid as 'art' as is Duchamp . . . or as Rembrandt *heehee*
there is a difference as to what those different kinds of arts, (the different 'self institutionalizing forms' of art) addresses and dialogues with. And, there is a dialogue (a 'self institutionalizing form' of art) that is called art where the questions posed by and through it are on an ontological, self critical scale . . . this usually is what is called "high art" and is what is concentrated on in the institutions of Museums, Contemporary Galleries, Art Magazines, Art Schools . . . . often there is some measure of knowledge or acquaintanceship necessary to engage in this dialogue (though not if the work is very very strong and crosses over boundaries with ease) and oftten forms of art in this diaogue are dismissed without engagement.
Anyway, art is not subjective: you find yourself liking one of these 'self institutionalizing forms' of art, because it fits your knowledge and your background and your expectations: what you are familiar with as 'art' . . . all of these are a function not of mere decisions but of where you live, how you live and who you are in daily dialogue with . . . there is a reason that Fellowship likes Kincaide, because his expectations have been conditioned so by his daily living. . . his "comfort zone" has been established so that Kincaide makes sense and feels right . . . he also goes to church to get his ontological/cosmological introspection and doesn't need to get it from the art in his life. So he is not interested in engaging in the dialogue with works such as Andres Serrano and would not bother to work at it . . . to talk with it
(I have, and frankly, Serrano didn't have the insight to pull the famous Piss christ out of mere provocation and decent photography . . . so, strangely enough, I agree with a critique of him . . though it could have been possible to see that piece as itself a perfect symbol for the power of christ in this pisser of a world . . but alas he talks about it with the intelligence of a moron so it was his intention that now colors the reception of the work for me now)
By the way, these 'self institutionalizing forms' of art, become 'institutions' because of the people that 'dialogue' with them: who purchase them, who talk about them who hang them in their homes offices or etc . . . that is, in fact what I mean by 'institution' . . .
[ 01-20-2003: Message edited by: pfflam ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
pfflam,,
Is this thread aimed at me? I do not like Kincaide as you state. I have a problem with people who have to make it their goal in life to spit on a contemporary Christian painter. Kincaide is a successful seller of prints of his original paintings. Yes it is widely available and for some that cheapens the value of the art. I am really not a fan of this greed factor of how exclusive art is or is not. I don't trade baseball cards either for the same reason. I could care less if something of an art nature is in great supply or if it is very rare. Art is art none the less and yes it is captured in the eye of the beholder. I have no room for academic types who try to frame an entire concept within a set of limits. Life is not that black and white my good academic friends. As for "High Art" I live in in a suburb of a mid-city of Dallas / Fort Worth and I enjoy a wide variety of "high art" and I enjoy and appriciate every bit of it.
I do not own a single piece of Kincaide and I never will. Because I see it as no crime that people enjoy Kincaide and I defend such a notion does not make me a Kincaide nut.
pfflam it is nice of you to think of me but let's move on shall we?
you said: [quote]<strong>there is a reason that Fellowship likes Kincaide, because his expectations have been conditioned so by his daily living. . . his "comfort zone" has been established so that Kincaide makes sense and feels right . . . he also goes to church to get his ontological/cosmological introspection and doesn't need to get it from the art in his life. So he is not interested in engaging in the dialogue with works such as Andres Serrano and would not bother to work at it . . . to talk with it<hr></blockquote></strong>
All I can say is that you don't have a clue who I am or what I enjoy or do not enjoy. If you are going to tell me who I am and what I am all about take a pause and Don't.
Fellowship
[ 01-21-2003: Message edited by: FellowshipChurch iBook ]</p>
In this thread I am in no way denigrating Kincaid . . . I stated that several times . . . I am saying, in fact that there is no kind of art that does not accede to the level of art if people say that it is art.
However there is a discourse that calls itself "high art" . . . that's what it thinks itself as being . . . it of course may very well be absolutely deluded as to the 'highness' of the work that falls under that rubric. Although one of the qualities, besides the established groups of peope who focus on it from their positions within institutions, is that the art attempts to address ontological/theological/cosmological (the "big Questions") issues. I said that you are happily a member of a church, your big questions seem to be addressed by your faith in God and his church . . . the "questions" posed within the realm of "high art" I assumed are allready answered for you by the Gospels
am I right about that?!? that's what I meant to say
Now.... powerdoc, I am trying to problematize the notion of 'subjectivity' vs objectivity.
Inter-subjectivity seems like it is merely a broader form of subjectivity, however it is not. It is the notion that the self is a nodal point in the history of culture; a part of a flowing tradition that moves through language, by moving through us, as our relating to the world.
Our experiences, what we think are merely subjective, and therfore soley private and our own, actually partake of a process of sharing . . . our valuations (that means what we like and don't like, what we hold as valuable) are part of teh meanings and understanding of the world which are teh same as the meanings and understandings of language . . .and these are not private
its difficult to grasp, but what it means is that taste is not private and isolated but shared and a process of influenced and influencing
that means not subjective but rather inter-subjecctive
perhaps the culture is Isolate . . . but there are clearly the objective factors of other people's mode of valuating that influence the individual within that culture . . .
got it?
pfflam, are you suggesting that subjectivity as an acquired/environmental influence of cultural dynamics and interoperative language acts as a channel for the development of artistic sense?
ie: that proverbial identical twins raised in the same cultural environment and exposed to the same 'standards' and artistic influences would logically evolve the same taste in art due to the interplay of subjective perceptions and linguistic discourse in their (semi-closed) environment
in contrast, say, to the same proverbial identical twins who if separated to east coast art school and west coast art school would logically have unique subjective interpretations of art?
while not a twin, i know several sets... some grew up in the same environment (art on walls, visits to the same galleries, same classes, similar friends, common movies and books) yet have quite different tastes when it comes to what they consider "art"
certainly with more points of common cultural reference it might be easier to find shared interests and artistic tastes despite different sources... emerson and thoreau both expressed a preference for the pastoral over the technological... so did tolkien...
more than one mid-60s liverpuddlian found an outlet in music that led to beatlemania
except for the recent death of maurice, the brothers Gibb seemed to play similar music when together... (but solo careers differ)
at the same time, canadians can also point to families with widely discordant outcomes despite similar starting points...
from the frozen yukon came the Nielsen family... one -Eric- became a famous politician in Canada (recently retired after 30+ yrs of serious service)... his brother, Leslie, is best known for absurdity in the Naked Gun series of movies... and don't call him surely
sorry for the seemingly off track references, but i'm not sure if your implications are intended to question where in the mental/social process we differentiate our own subjectivity from the peer group, from abstractions to objectivity, or if the necessity for approval and flock behaviour tends to harmonize towards support groups that mutually reinforce people's hesitant approval until others confirm that it's art (so the original expression is more accurately referred to as a call for consensus that validated individual judgement, and less a case of screw-consensus-art-is-what-i-like)
certainly "high art" and some performance art seem to fall into that -fishing for validation- expression as often as they seem capable of standing on their own "merits"
perceptions shift... some art survives a shift in observer or period or trend...
john cage's "musical performance" 4:33 is curious... 4:33 of him staring at the piano. No sound except for chair shift and the odd throat clearing from the audience. not what i'd call music... and a 2 minute version wouldn't be any different in content or supposed "motive"
does null performance require language to interpret?
what about elephant, gorilla, and chimp paintings?
optical mechanical differences aside (colour space impact), these critters do seem to express particular moods and themes, and can be seen to prefer certain paintings to others...
where's the linguistic or inter-subjectivity?
hmmm
which states that Orangutangs[sp?] have varying patterns of behavior, likes and dislikes, table manners-if you will, according to different group histories and locations.
My arguement does not say that it is absolutely objective either . . . its a dialogic process; a sharing, give and take.
Shetline: got more stuff to read? do you have a web site?
somehow, based on your posts, it makes sense that you could string together a decent set of stanzas . .
Ashberry rocks!?!?
<strong>Shetline: got more stuff to read? do you have a web site?</strong><hr></blockquote>
<a href="http://www.shetline.com/?poetry"; target="_blank">http://www.shetline.com/?poetry</A>;
Now if I could only add some new material. My muse has been taking a very extended vacation for a while now.
Anyway, the sideways sort of point I was trying to make about this thread with my poem was in the last couple of stanzas.
I am rather mercilessly analytical and reductionist by nature, but I also feel that with some things, like art, or free will, the feelings evoked in the journey to understanding are probably more important and more meaningful than any conclusions one might reach, as these subjects tend to blur out of focus the more closely you try to look at them.
<strong>
<a href="http://www.shetline.com/?poetry"; target="_blank">http://www.shetline.com/?poetry</a>;
as these subjects tend to blur out of focus the more closely you try to look at them.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Good poems and quotes . . . can't read them all at once . .
I think the Woody Allen ends "by not dying"
anyway, as Wittgenstein said "sometimes the fuzzy picture is exactly what we need"