This painting is not “what anger looks like.” This painting communicates a feeling of anger. See the difference?
No one here has said such a thing. Why must you use only the most extreme examples to defend your point? And why must you put words in others’ mouths before you can find something to object to?
Why do you apply this kind of backward logic to one form of abstracted communication without realizing that other forms of abstracted communication are perfectly parallel? Sure, language finds a spot in the brain to settle into, however bizarrely you want to describe that process. Why do you refuse to consider the same mechanism for visual communication?
And then you create your own obfuscatory dichotomy:
There are a substantial number of people who are indifferent to Icelandic poetry. What’s your point? Plenty of people can’t stand opera or rap, either. Point?
So you believe it’s a bit of both, then.
Poor choice of the word ‘manufactured’, perhaps. ‘Developed’ might be a better one - I’m trying to determine whether you all believe it is primarily a development, or a discovery.
[QUOITE]Art is a language. And like any language, it can either be taught, or it can be intuited by observing how others use it. And just like with language, if you are never exposed to art, and never taught art, then no matter how innate art appreciation maybe, you are never going to understand art. Saying that art works on an innate level is not the same as saying that everyone has an equal ability to process art. All humans have the same musculatory system. Muscles are innate to humans. This doesn’t mean that everyone is equally strong. Some people are just naturally stronger than others. Other people may start off weaker, but through exercise can become stronger. Art works on a similar principle. Some people just “get it.” They’re born with a bigger art “muscle” than normal. Other people have an atrophied art “muscle,” but they can always improve it by exercising it.
[/QUOTE]
Let’s go with your muscle analogy, then. People train their muscles to make them perform better. However, different sorts of tasks require different sorts of muscle development - sprinters versus marathon runners; any sort of runner vs. a weightlifter; someone wanting to be a runner shouldn’t do the same sort of program as a bodybuilder, exactly - the bulkier muscles can get in the way. So, then, to bring the analogy back to art - it’s possible that one’s aesthetic “muscles” can be trained towards different tasks. Different aspects. And being geared primarily towards one aspect can make the other aspects more difficult to see. - Would you agree with that assessment?
Again, this analogy seems to assert that a particular work of art has only one correct interpretation. Is that your position?
Mmhm. ‘Need’ - ? No, not really. It’s a useless distinction. For example, these paintings by the people you claim have mastered all the aesthetic languages - Picasso, in particular - ugly.
Trained by thousands of movies to perceive it that way. Not because the music’s actually sad. It’s basically a sort of crude, repetitive programming - abstract art could benefit from the same sort of programming, if it were used in movies in that fashion, I suppose - so a link could be forged between the painting and examples of human behavior playing out on the screen.
And it doesn’t say one word about ‘love’. We may infer that it is directed toward someone the poet loves, simply because of the effusivity of the praise, but this sonnet has nothing whatever to do with describing love. Sorry.
Okay, you just shot your scientific credibility. Additional brain size accomplishes nothing without additional complexity of structure to go along with it.
Whales, Dolphins, and high Primates - the jury is out.
That depends. Do you assert that a given piece of art has one correct interpretation?
Really? And here’s Miller telling me that art is a language. So I guess we’re excluding Art from the Visual Communication category? Okay, if you say so. :rolleyes:
But it’s true. Do you think our brains come pre-programmed with a thousand facial configurations, each associated with an emotional state?
It’s been strongly implied several times, and I’m trying to find out if this is an assertion that they would make. If art is open to all interpretations, why would the artist’s intent matter?
Why?
I’ve never heard it, but this anecdote amuses me.
Whose? The artist’s anger?
Did I say that someone here had said it? Why, no. However, the fact that so-called art-informed types did evaluate a random splotch made by an elephant as a quality work perfectly exemplifies part of what I’m trying to get across here.
Well, I’m using language as an analogy for art in that paragraph - so for the purposes of those questions, that’s exactly what I’m considering.
Jeebus. Did you eat lead paint chips as a kid?
It is a dichotomy, but it is not a false one. Use the clarified explanation I gave Miller. I don’t think it’s obfuscatory at all - if I can get straight answers, I think it will be quite revelatory.
You’ll note that the entire paragraph from which this was excerpted was built upon you agreeing to the description that the ‘language’ of abstract art was built on innate human aesthetic sense, not vice versa. If we all have an innate human aesthetic sense, we should all be able to ‘get’ something from abstract paintings that conform to that sense.
So what? Why must art happen to the viewer? Why can’t the viewer happen to art?
Your statement seems like such a product of the television generation – “Hey art, show me a good time!” No effort on your part is needed. But a lot of art is not like that. Some of it demands a little effort from the observer. And that’s not a bad thing.
There is evidence to strongly suggest that the basic emotional expressions are, in fact, somehow innate and not conditioned. Take that as you will.
Why do you keep asking this? Where are you going with it?
You miss the point. To illustrate - when lissener projects his aesthetic sensibilities onto a piece of art, he sees … well, whatever. When I project mine, I get something else, or nothing at all.
Really, now? Well, goes against the glossing-over of the subject I got in Psych 101, but it certainly could be true. Cite?
I keep asking it because it’s been implied several times, and I’ve yet to get an answer. As for where I’m going with it - well, you’ll see when I get an answer.
OK, I’ll bite (he said, knowing full well that he was walking into a trap).
No, there is not one and only one interpretation of any particular work of art. There are, however, some interpretations that occur more often than others. A good artist will convey a particular emotion in a majority of viewers.
On the whole. Depends on the work of art.
So there’s your answer – now, where are you going with this?
Once again, so what?
It’s not a trap. I’m trying to analyze your position so as best to frame mine in terms you will understand and accept, if not agree with. So there are multiple, valid interpretations of a piece of art, then?
If that’s the case, and I agree with you by the way, then are some interpretations more valid? Does one’s level of art education correspond with a higher likelihood of matching the artist’s intent to the observer’s interpretation?
Well, considering I’ve been yelled at for the past 12 pages for asserting that there’s nothing there, it’s a pretty big ‘what’.
It increases one’s faculty in working with the language of art, which may give one more tools with which to interpret, which may give one a deeper understanding of a piece. So yeah, sort of. And I don’t see anything wrong with that. You’ll get more out of reading a book on calculus if you have a basic education in mathematics, too. More depth is there for those that seek it.
But I’m not of the thought that art is exclusively for the elite and knowledgeable. I truly believe that the unwashed masses can get a great deal of enjoyment out of it as well. They just might not be able to go as deep.