Subjectivity, Aesthetics, and Art -- 22/10/19

PHILSOC DISCUSSION

22/10/19

Subjectivity, Aesthetics, and Art

Attendance: 33

Cake Jar Words: “Modern art is [bad]” – “snob” – “truth”

Calls of order: 5

Can anything be art?
1. Anything with intention can be art – what about nature? – biology doesn’t seem random – but some parts of biology aren’t as ‘perfect’ as others – intentionality as a perceived characteristic – perception as ultimately always flawed – what about emotions? – can we enclose emotional content within artistic representation? – convention as containing intentionality – can the non-conventional contain intentionality?
2. Is art discovered or defined?
  1. Is it something of the object or what we see of it?
  2. Camus – joy of art is to disclose what we see of the world in intention (therefore art is created) – humans as the only species able to produce representations
3. Does art have to have meaning?
  1. In music, for instance, there is no concrete referential object – not all reference is concrete
  2. Intended meaning makes art seemingly meaningless; but there can still be meaning nevertheless
4. Satre: two forms of art – normal and ‘superior’ (which works for social change)
5. What makes a mathematical equation sexy?
  1. Simplicity to solve a difficult problem? Parallelisms?
    1. Same with minimalist art
Is high-brow culture superior?
1. High-brow culture as presumptuous, superior – related often with heavy cognition or high-expensive – are the artistic circles the ones that determine superiority? – do they have validity in their determinations? – their validity depends on the era of the time
2. Seems to change all the time
3. High-brow as high in skill-level required; low-brow as high in meaningful content? – but can you stumble on high-brow quality work without having done any practice?
4. What is superior? – Bourdieu as referencing social or economic status as what is superior – e.g. Van Gogh was not high-brow until people started buying his work for lots of money – capitalism suggesting monetary value as be-all and end-all
5. High-brow culture as applying high monetary value to certain types of art
6. Is Satre’s ‘superior’ art actually superior? – seems to be more sophisticated – but isn’t it just propaganda? – sure, but it still has a certain standing that seems to make it superior – what kind of social change is superior? – how does instigating social change necessarily have a value in the first place? Doesn’t saying this seem to trivially assign artistic value? – social value certainly not be-all and end-all of quality of art
7. What is seen as an ‘end’ is for rich people to decide; poor people can only see as ‘means’
Is there objective beauty?
1. Could there be one piece of art that everyone found beautiful? – there are some artistic structures that seem to universally appeal (e.g. architypes and motifs) – Golden Ratio & Fibonacci Sequence – but there are ‘nicer’ sequences
2. Can beauty be found in repeat observation?
3. Does objectivity entail materiality? – surely, yes
4. Are art and beauty actually linked? – beauty as an active, decision-based approach to token perceptions of art
5. Is defining even worthwhile? Reductionist, Wittgensteinian approach – but we can get close enough for philosophy to be worthwhile
6. Brutalist architecture…
Can nature be art?
1. What is nature? – is nature beautiful? – nature and beauty aren’t totally inseparable? – uniqueness as licensing beauty?
2. What counts as art? Anything that has a representational quality? Importance of including human appreciation in the ascription of the term art (the term is so broad) – anything that is put as an “end”; that we might consider has intentional content beyond its immediate function
Where will art go? How will it evolve?
1. Looking to the past and see a general/historical trend? – e.g. Egyptian pyramid creation – but is this just convention?
2. Higher future disposable incomes leading to broader artistic interests?
3. Focus on higher skill and higher capacity for detailed representation?