The Last Word on Art Criticism

[BaalChatzaf]

De Gustibus non disputandum est! In matters of taste there is no logical basis for dispute. It is subjective down to the molecular level. One man's ugly is another man's beauty. Every last bit of art criticism is opinion. There are no artistic facts, not one.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

De Gustibus non disputandum est! In matters of taste there is no logical basis for dispute. It is subjective down to the molecular level. One man's ugly is another man's beauty. Every last bit of art criticism is opinion. There are no artistic facts, not one.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Is that a fact?

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

De Gustibus non disputandum est! In matters of taste there is no logical basis for dispute. It is subjective down to the molecular level. One man's ugly is another man's beauty. Every last bit of art criticism is opinion. There are no artistic facts, not one.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Is that a fact?

--Brant

Yes it is. And what I wrote is not art. It is a statement -about- art. There is no physical law that implies or determines beauty. It is purely a matter of human convention. Arguing over the "best" art is silly. It is like arguing over the "best" flavor of ice cream.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

De Gustibus non disputandum est! In matters of taste there is no logical basis for dispute. It is subjective down to the molecular level. One man's ugly is another man's beauty. Every last bit of art criticism is opinion. There are no artistic facts, not one.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Is that a fact?

--Brant

Yes it is. And what I wrote is not art. It is a statement -about- art. There is no physical law that implies or determines beauty. It is purely a matter of human convention. Arguing over the "best" art is silly. It is like arguing over the "best" flavor of ice cream.

Ba'al Chatzaf

You might simply say aesthetics are subjective; that "Objectivist Aesthetics" is an oxymoron. "Artistic facts" is way too broad to support your load properly.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

You might simply say aesthetics are subjective; that "Objectivist Aesthetics" is an oxymoron. "Artistic facts" is way too broad to support your load properly.

--Brant

I accept that correction. Well said.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Artistic standards exist and they are objective. Many artistic standards are subjective, but there are objective ones.

Why is there this constant need to oversimplify all the time?

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

Artistic standards exist.

Michael

Indeed. They are conventions and protocols, not anything implied or required by physical laws.

Tennis standards exist also, to wit the rules of the game. There is no ontological significance to tennis. Tennis and reality intersect only to the extent that a rule in tennis cannot demand a physically impossible act. In every other respect the rules of tennis are arbitrary creations of people who like to strike spherical objects with flat net like appliances.

Do you think art has an ontological or scientific significance? If so, what is it? What in art is implied by or required by the laws of nature?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

Our posts crossed and my edited one did not appear in your post.

As to your questions, there is a body of literature that we often discuss on OL that answer them (although they are some of the strangest damn questions I have ever heard about art—sort of like asking what the significance of blue is to a duckbill platypus).

What is the ontological significance of science, for that matter?

Michael

[Newberry]

Artistic standards exist.

Michael

Indeed. They are conventions and protocols, not anything implied or required by physical laws.

Tennis standards exist also, to wit the rules of the game. There is no ontological significance to tennis. Tennis and reality intersect only to the extent that a rule in tennis cannot demand a physically impossible act. In every other respect the rules of tennis are arbitrary creations of people who like to strike spherical objects with flat net like appliances.

Do you think art has an ontological or scientific significance? If so, what is it? What in art is implied by or required by the laws of nature?

Ba'al Chatzaf

You have a weird way of passing judgments in fields you, apparently, know little about.

This is an online transcription of lecture I gave to members of the Vision Scientist Conference in Glasgow, Scotland a few years ago. http://www.michaelnewberry.com/studioupdate/2002-09/

Jan Koenderink complimented me on my presentation by writing about it here: http://www.perceptionweb.com/perception/pe...3/editorial.pdf

He is one of the most respected vision scientist in the world, you can google him to find about about his projects and bio.

Well, this is about as scientific as I get. Proportion, math, triangulation, are a few of the artist's tools. Kind of the tip of the iceberg.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

You have a weird way of passing judgments in fields you, apparently, know little about.

This is an online transcription of lecture I gave to members of the Vision Scientist Conference in Glasgow, Scotland a few years ago. http://www.michaelnewberry.com/studioupdate/2002-09/

Jan Koenderink complimented me on my presentation by writing about it here: http://www.perceptionweb.com/perception/pe...3/editorial.pdf

He is one of the most respected vision scientist in the world, you can google him to find about about his projects and bio.

Well, this is about as scientific as I get. Proportion, math, triangulation, are a few of the artist's tools. Kind of the tip of the iceberg.

Michael

I asked some questions. Now I will repeat the main question: where in the laws of physics is there a standard of beauty in art?

No judgment. Just a question. If you can provide an answer, I will surely thank you for the gift.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Newberry]

I asked some questions. Now I will repeat the main question: where in the laws of physics is there a standard of beauty in art?

No judgment. Just a question. If you can provide an answer, I will surely thank you for the gift.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Could you be asking the wrong question?

[BaalChatzaf]

It is the right question. If there is nothing in the laws of physics which determine a standard of beauty (as I claim), then judgments of beauty are subjective, a matter of opinion, rather than a matter of fact. If there is no scientific basis for artistic beauty, then it is as I have said. There are no rational disputes in matters of taste. On the other hand, if there is a scientific physical basis for beauty, then we should find it, reduce it to an algorithm, computerize it and fire the art critics as being redundant.

Leibniz, the philosopher made an early (and unsuccessful) attempt to reduce reasoning to an algorithm. He intention was to eliminate endless disputes. Instead of arguing, the contending parties should get out their pencils and calculate. Then having determined who (if anyone) was right, they could go off to dinner and enjoy each other's company.

If a similar quest for an objective standard of beauty for art were successful, then there would be no more disputes over which is the best work of art, music etc. etc.. It could be calculated. I don't believe such a standard exists, but if it did, it would save a lot of wasted breath and band width.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Newberry]

It is the right question. If there is nothing in the laws of physics which determine a standard of beauty (as I claim), then judgments of beauty are subjective, a matter of opinion, rather than a matter of fact. If there is no scientific basis for artistic beauty, then it is as I have said. There are no rational disputes in matters of taste. On the other hand, if there is a scientific physical basis for beauty, then we should find it, reduce it to an algorithm, computerize it and fire the art critics as being redundant.

Leibniz, the philosopher made an early (and unsuccessful) attempt to reduce reasoning to an algorithm. He intention was to eliminate endless disputes. Instead of arguing, the contending parties should get out their pencils and calculate. Then having determined who (if anyone) was right, they could go off to dinner and enjoy each other's company.

If a similar quest for an objective standard of beauty for art were successful, then there would be no more disputes over which is the best work of art, music etc. etc.. It could be calculated. I don't believe such a standard exists, but if it did, it would save a lot of wasted breath and band width.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Good reply. But, then, yes, it is the wrong question. Kind of like asking why art isn't feathers. Aesthetics (not art but the study of it) is like philosophy, they involve a mode of argument and persuasion. A good analogy with art is comparing it to a romantic relationship--they both have a composite of sensuality, emotionality, and intellectuality--perhaps a good question would be: is your wife beautiful? If so how did you come to that conclusion? Persuade me of the truth of your judgment? Making art judgments can feel similar.

Michael

[Philip Coates]

> Every last bit of art criticism is opinion. There are no artistic facts, not one.

I'm sorry, I seemed to have stumbled onto the belligerent subjectivist oracular pronouncement thread.

:-)

[BaalChatzaf]

> Every last bit of art criticism is opinion. There are no artistic facts, not one.

I'm sorry, I seemed to have stumbled onto the belligerent subjectivist oracular pronouncement thread.

:-)

I raised a question: Is there anything in the laws of physics that imply a standard of beauty?

Do you have an answer? If yes, what in the laws of physics imply a standard of beauty. If no, then the judgment of artistic beauty is totally subjective. I see nothing in the laws of physics that imply a standard of beauty. Perhaps I am wrong. Do you have any pertinent facts on this issue that you wish to share?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

You have a weird way of passing judgments in fields you, apparently, know little about.

Could you be asking the wrong question?

Michael,

LOLOLOL...

Notice that, did you?

But Bob does have a few redeeming qualities. (I can't think of any right now, but I am sure I will remember some if I think about it. )

Michael

[mvir9]

> Every last bit of art criticism is opinion. There are no artistic facts, not one.

I'm sorry, I seemed to have stumbled onto the belligerent subjectivist oracular pronouncement thread.

:-)

I was going to state something similar to this . . . but, why mess with perfection?

[mvir9]

Somebody help me understand . . .

Is the original poster stating that if something is not emphatically substantiated in physics, then it is not objective?

[Brant Gaede]

Somebody help me understand . . .

Is the original poster stating that if something is not emphatically substantiated in physics, then it is not objective?

Yes, but from the scientific perspective all knowledge is tentative, albeit not subjective. I don't see why non-scientific knowledge can't also be labeled as tentative, albeit not subjective, just more tentative than scientific except for scientific grandstanding from this one poster here.

--Brant

[mvir9]

Somebody help me understand . . .

Is the original poster stating that if something is not emphatically substantiated in physics, then it is not objective?

Yes, but from the scientific perspective all knowledge is tentative, albeit not subjective. I don't see why non-scientific knowledge can't also be labeled as tentative, albeit not subjective, just more tentative than scientific except for scientific grandstanding from this one poster here.

--Brant

Thank you, Brant.

[Alfonso Jones]

> Every last bit of art criticism is opinion. There are no artistic facts, not one.

I'm sorry, I seemed to have stumbled onto the belligerent subjectivist oracular pronouncement thread.

:-)

I raised a question: Is there anything in the laws of physics that imply a standard of beauty?

Do you have an answer? If yes, what in the laws of physics imply a standard of beauty. If no, then the judgment of artistic beauty is totally subjective. I see nothing in the laws of physics that imply a standard of beauty. Perhaps I am wrong. Do you have any pertinent facts on this issue that you wish to share?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Am I misunderstanding you, or is it your position, as it appears above, that only the only things which are not "totally subjective" in your view are those which are implied by the laws of physics?

Alfonso

[BaalChatzaf]

Am I misunderstanding you, or is it your position, as it appears above, that only the only things which are not "totally subjective" in your view are those which are implied by the laws of physics?

Alfonso

More precisely those things which can be quantified and/or tested empirically. If a proposition can not be test empirically (at least in principle) then it has no objective content. Things having to do with feelings and impressions are subjective. Anything going on in your head which cannot be witnessed by an independent party is subjective.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Anything going on in your head which cannot be witnessed by an independent party is subjective.

Bob,

Does that include mentally noting what was tested empirically? That act can't be witnessed by an independent party.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

Anything going on in your head which cannot be witnessed by an independent party is subjective.

Bob,

Does that include mentally noting what was tested empirically? That act can't be witnessed by an independent party.

Michael

Write it out on a piece of paper.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Alfonso Jones]

Am I misunderstanding you, or is it your position, as it appears above, that only the only things which are not "totally subjective" in your view are those which are implied by the laws of physics?

Alfonso

More precisely those things which can be quantified and/or tested empirically. If a proposition can not be test empirically (at least in principle) then it has no objective content. Things having to do with feelings and impressions are subjective. Anything going on in your head which cannot be witnessed by an independent party is subjective.

Ba'al Chatzaf

What about things such as logic, without which one cannot function, or even argue against those laws?

Alfonso