Magnus Anderson wrote:I think that perceiving the relation between what you see and how you feel about it is much more difficult than finding the right words to express that relation. That's the stage most people get stuck at.
Let us recall the exact steps:
1) Observe as many paintings as possible
2) For each painting, observe how you feel about it
3) Study the the relation between what you see (paintings) and how you feel about it (your feelings)
4) Express that relation using some kind of language
Most people get stuck at step number 3.
I agree that it is difficult
but not necessarily that one is more difficult than the other
as I believe that that process of perceiving and expressing the perception
is one and the same
unless you are able to explain to yourself what that is
it just flutters in your mind like a scent
for which you have no frame of reference
and then it flutters away
and I'd add a 5th stage to that
which is to investigate why you feel what you feel
and that one is a step that can take you really deep
into introspection
and even into the subconscious
most people can't even get anywhere near that without help
as it often requires a second voice
a truthful alter ego
and not everyone is able to simulate that on their own
which is also why talking is the primary tool of psychology
once you're able to formulate something about feelings
and you have someone to be the second voice
you are more likely to be able to travel deeper in
which is why to know about human nature you often don't seek a scientist, but a poet
And that's where I disagree ): I mean, there is a sense in which I agree with you, but generally speaking, I think we're disagreeing. (Though it may actually be an issue of misunderstanding.)
That's because one is a study of what any given physical object (such as wine) is in itself (i.e. what any given physical object is independently from what anyone thinks or feels about it) and the other is a study of what wine-in-itself
means to people i.e. what value it holds for people. Both are scientific endeavours, they are merely different
kinds of scientific endeavour.
I am not sure that i agree with you that both are scientific endeavors
because values are deeply dependent on meanings
and that is all highly subjective to the individual
unless you are using a very liberal interpretation of what is "scientific"
it most certainly isn't exact
(i added bold marking in that quote)
some art comes into play to be able to translate those sensations into words
The kind of language you use is in most cases a reflection of the degree to which you understand the subject. For example, the more superficial your understanding, the more poetic your descriptions will have to be. (Though there are other reasons people might want to use poetic descriptions. One is that melody and rhythm make such descriptions more entertaining, easier and less strenuous to read. But in general, I would say, it has to do with lack of understanding.)
well, the point i am trying to make is
that scientific language in this 'case
is not as informative
as affective language
because what you are looking for is language that can
tell you something about experiencing something as a human being
and when it comes to that
physical properties of the thing become secondary
and the emotional significance of them become primary
where science calls for you to step outside of yourself
in order to be objective
understanding feelings calls for you to step back inside yourself
and feel them
Figuring out the answer to the question "Why do I like this?" is an intellectual and not an artistic endeavour -- even if the person answering the question ends up using poetic descriptions. That's not art, that's science.
while i don't think you're wrong
i think that it is more of a philosophical endeavor
meaning that it is a broader realm than strictly scientific
and also wildly speculative
In most cases, the point of art isn't to describe a portion of reality;
I think that it is
a portion of humanity, even
though not necessarily describe it
but present it in some way
and in pretty much every case, the point isn't to describe why people like what they like and dislike what they dislike. That said, that sort of knowledge can at best be a means to an end but the question is to what extent is it useful to artists.
speaking as an artist
that question was crucial to me
to go from a hobby doodler
to creating a more cohesive body of work
because I can simply answer that question
"i do this because I like it, and i like it because i like it"
and that'd keep me going
but when I try to get to the bottom of why i choose a theme
what pulls me in when I look at something
which is not at all an easy thing to do
then i can start to concentrate on that
and maybe at the end of my life
i might have spent enough time obsessing over this theme
to have created something that speaks to others
maybe an artwork that will contribute to our collective exploration of our nature
and outlast me
I have a penchant for composition, choreography, dancing and acting. I am also interested in writing and poetry but to a much lesser extent.
post it!
So I am aware of what it takes to make a work of art. And from my experience, knowing the reasons behind my preferences isn't particularly useful; in fact, trying to figure that out seems detrimental as it slows down the entire process without providing benefits of any kind. When I'm composing, or choosing the right set of moves to accompany certain piece of music, all I care about is how I feel about those choices.
I get that
and i think that the feeling is always going to be the main driving force behind artistic impetus
but a study of what feeling, which does not have to necessarily occur during your creative moment
instead have its own time, research time maybe
meditation time, or rather, concentration time
i save every image that I run across that attracts me
no matter what the subject is
into a folder that i call inspiration folder
then when I browse that folder
naturally i see a repetition of specific themes
as well as one thing that i managed to find that is common to all of them
after having done that study of what inspires me primarily
it became much easier to filter out the things that will just distract me
from the ones that will bring me focus
that is of course not something that I see working for everyone
it works for me because i am very specific with my pursuit
i'm always impressed by people who work with many mediums
and do many styles, and are always trying something new
but my stuff I suppose is an INTJ's way to do art
filtering out all that seems irrelevant or a distraction
and focusing on the conquest of the core elements of it
all i care about in terms of techne is value, anatomy, proportion, form
in terms of the feeling, the meanings, the symbols, it is more complicated than that
but i don't like to talk about that part
My goal is to make those choices that lead to the most pristine kind of feeling there is. How I make my choices as well as how I judge them is almost completely outside of my consciousness. (I suspect that MBTI practitioners would call this "introverted feeling".)
i have the impression that introverted feeling produces "heavy" art
while extroverted feeling produces "light" art
and i think that i only like introverted feeling art
the kind that hits you in the guts
(as an addendum, I've noticed personally
that my memory of a sensation is not of the taste and smell of it at all
but of what I've described it to myself
Right, so it's not a memory of a sensation itself but a memory of a verbal representation of that sensation. I suppose this means your verbal memory is stronger than your non-verbal memory. You remember words better than sensations.
well, yes
but as I said above
it seems to me like the two things are very closely connected
like when you smell something that you remember
unless you can recall the place or circumstance
which i propose amounts to creating a verbally descriptive memory of it
you're left with nothing but "this is a familiar smell"
so you might remember the sensation
but without that verbal reference it is a useless memory
thus if I immediately turn an experience into a narration
I am able to remember it much better
than if I try to conjure up the memory itself
as if i've written to myself a recipe of a memory
so that my brain can use it to recreate it
so when something is so good that I want to preserve it
i go into a frenzy of trying to quickly describe it as accurately as possible
before it vanishes
thus i am able to relive it
mind tricks i guess
I have the same problem with compositions. I have
zero memory of all the pieces I've composed in my mind. On the other hand, my memory is better when it comes to improving other people's existing compositions (I guess that's because such results are tied to a specific external stimulus.)
I don't have the musical education necessary to write my compositions down on a piece of paper and I am pretty bad at playing instruments (I find it hard to learn to play them.) So unless I record myself singing, my original compositions are forever lost. (An option is to learn how to retrieve them from my long-term memory, as I believe they are stored there just difficult to retrieve, but that appears to be quite a difficult task.)
perhaps you can relate to referring to a chord as "happy" or "sad" or "tense"
these are adjectives i hear frequently associated with music
and they help me remember sounds
it might be easier to remember changes you made to someone else's composition
because when you're listening to it you have a point of reference
from which to say " here I added this other note which added tension, made it happier, etc"
anyway, this verbal element of memory
seems particularly important
when it comes to dreams, hallucinations
it seems that if you wake up from a dream
and immediately tell it to yourself
just create a quick conscious narration of what you just brought from the dream
then you will be able to remember it
(Just the other day I heard some random piece of music -- I don't know exactly where I heard it and the piece itself was not familiar to me -- that instantly gave me an idea of a melody loop that sounded so pleasant I wish I recorded it.)
On the other hand, I don't find this troubling, as I believe that ideas come and go. There are so many of them, it's no big deal.
we often take for granted that which comes easy
like the piles of scribbles on top of my dresser
that i'm sure some people would pay money for
but that i'll probably make a fire with
Let's recall that the object of study is the mathematical function that you use to judge paintings. The domain of that function is the set of all paintings and its codomain is the set of all value judgments. Paintings are neither numbers nor words -- they are physical objects -- but you can use numbers and/or words to represent paintings. You can represent paintings any way you want though I am sure we will all agree that the most desirable representation is the simplest one.
i'd say that the most desirable one
is the best cost-benefit
between simplicity and comprehensiveness
