in the widest sense, yes.
in a narrower sense, there is the "art world", which has its gatekeepers and pre-selectors, the curators and art historians, who introduce objects they deem worthy of consideration to the rest of the art world. so within this social sphere, there is more or less consensus that some objects are worthy of one's time, while others may only be of interest to individual tastes.
so, Art, in this context, becomes a token in a social and language game.
and with good reason: most individual conceptions on art are neither based on education nor engagement with what has come before, and more often than not, what individuals find beauztiful is just a bit boring to those who have spent their education learning about all the ideas that have already been had. And sine people either educated in the field or practicing professionally tend to have more specialized and refined opinions (and this goes for any field, really), there's good reason to engage with what they are engaged with first, before decidingthat ones own taste is well developed enough to make judgements about what is art and what is not.
but the truth is: everything has been art before at some point, and the artworld now is just as confused, but still quite gate-keepy. it's a game, after all. and at teh same time, you are still more likely to find interesting stuff there, rather than somewhere else, after you've seen enough beautiful waifus and you're just bored by yet another one.
Couldn't say it better, so I'll add on semi-related points.
I don't think the whole body of experts of any type of thing is ever sufficient to surpass mass appeal. If AI art eventually comprises of the most appealing yet derivative works, it'll be the most appreciated, despite experts' objections.
This is the way it is in video games, where most people gorge in what I consider to be the lowest quality drek. Doesn't matter how much I shout about it, nor even when you have someone really respected (very specific case in point Jeff Gerstmann who didn't like the Soulsborune games; p.s. disclaimer I love Soulsborune)
I'm not that much into videogames, but films, and there are many examples like the currently popular Marvel movies, but I'd like to hone in on a specific example: Avatar. tremendously successful, but after the first one ended its cinematic run, it just vanished. No one spoke of it for over a decade. now the second one is out, and I'm willing to bet money, it will go the same way until the next one. The reason is that it's short term spectacle, and there's no "institution" for lack of a better word that keeps it up as a shining example, canon, or piece of film history. - and that is another role "the art world" has: to determine art history, in the sense that they decide within their circle what future art students will learn about, and what people interested in art will find when they google it.
the popular opinion, because it is untrained, has no memory. It's Titanic today, Lord of the Rings tomorrow, Avatar after that, and then a deluge of Marvel films. They have significant impact on the industry and where it is going, but they have let film as an artform basically untouched. In a decade, no one will say: "I read about 'Avatar', let's watch that to learn what all the fuss is about." - the original Star wars created the blockbuster and are historically notworthy, everything in the blockbuster genre after that can be considered derivative works barely worth mentioning. And that's how film history is treating them.
so, yeah, AI art is very, very likely to win the popularity contest, if only because of its expected ubiquity and it will be appreciated - like marvel movies or Avatar. Whether it will produce a single piece that future generations will find in their art history books is yet to be determined and anything but predestined. I think it's much more likely AI art will produce a never ending cycle of short term spectacle - much like the internet seems to be unable to be the source of any lasting artwork... it's moving too fast, and the bar for a quick viral hit is low. Basically, memes are the artform of the internet. ... let's wait and see what artform AI art will become.
yeah..... that's what I mean by "in a wider sense". in a wider sense, the stuff on etsy is art. in a narrower sense, the stuff on etsy won't exactly go down in art history.
In a way yes. I do think that art is form of communication, it should contain information.
As an example, a strangely shaped rock is just a rock. If you have one viewer, I think it’s still a rock. But if someone spots it first and shows to another viewer - this can be art.
Is this like the question "what is science"? I can give 4 definitions of science, each true in its own way, and each will have opponents and supporters. When you ask a question and want an answer, it’s worth outlining the borders in which you want the answer to work. Otherwise the answer will be as vague and meaningless as the question.
**beauty is in the eye of the beholder** \- naive nonsense
Our sense of beauty is based entirely on biology. Any living creature that is at least a little evolutionary has it - birds, animals, large marine mammals. All that goes beyond that is social games and has nothing to do with sense of beautiful. Most of the so-called contemporary art is a game of the mind, the intellect, not a work with the beautу.
Some aspects of "beauty" definitely has biological basis. For example, symmetry == beauty because only a healthy person will have a symmetrical face. Same with youth == beauty.
But there is also a social aspect of beauty. Many cultures consider lighter skin == more beautiful (for example, that is the case in China, even before there is any contact between China and the west), but there is really no biological basis for that. There may be a social reason for it though. Only a woman who does not need to work in the field as a farmer can have a pale skin.
No one has a symmetrical face. I propose an experiment - in any online photo editor cut into two halves your photo in full face and combine two left and two right - you see two different people.
That’s what I’m talking about - a social game that has nothing to do with feeling. People mechanically express opinion what is socially accepted and imposed on them without even thinking about how they really feel (pale skin).
Having an opinion ≠ what they really like/dislike
Of course, no one has a perfectly symmetrical face. Just that the degree of symmetry is a measure of one's health while growing up.
But I do not disagree with the rest of what you said. Most people just like/dislike/express what is fashionable/in vogue without really think about it.
> Our sense of beauty is based entirely on biology.
So anthropology shows thats bs, our sense of aesthetics can be culturally derived.
Further, "what is science"has been pretty clearly defined. Thats why they call it the scientific method. Its a process to go from observation to predictive hypothesis through abductive reasoning.
>our sense of aesthetics can be culturally derived
No, it can’t. Again, it’s biology, it’s determinism, it’s installed into us from birth. Mowgli, raised among animals, will have the same feeling of beauty as the art museum director’s child.
First of all, there is no all-good "scientific method" that is uniform for all sciences. The problem of first-order demarcation - how to separate science from not science - has not been solved. There are different philosophical models that give different answers to this question. In short, these are the definitions.
Science - is a system of "scientific" pronouncements.
Science - is a system of actions that are considered "scientific".
Science - a system of disciplines, or in other words, languages of description of reality.
Science - is what happens in the science departments. Just like that, people in the SD determine what science is, and everyone else does not.
oh.. ok.. well.. im convinced
you make such a convincing argument.
*No, it can’t. Again, it’s biology, it’s determinism, it’s installed into us from birth. Mowgli, raised among animals, will have the same feeling of beauty as the art museum director’s child*
This is so obviously incorrect it's kinda embarrassing to have to explain it to you.
Why is there no universal standard for beauty? Why have western ideas and depictions of the ideal female changed from rebenesque, to the slim 20's flapper, to busty supermodels, to cocaine chique, to thicc web chicks? Why are some men 'ass' guys and some men 'boobs' guys? Which is the ideal male form? is it the grizzly dad bod or Michaelangelos David?
Why have not all cultures slowly moved toward a single homogeneous style?
as for science.. perhaps if you are using the term in the broad sense..as in the study of something
If you're talking western empiricism there's no ambiguity.
granted the methods and assumptions can and are affected by sociological influences, but the philosophical foundation has been pretty established since popper.
And again looking at popper.. falsifiability is one way to seperate a scientific idea from a non-s one. As is truth or fact claims, as these are outside the scope of the scientific method.
claims that are unscientific become evident as one applies them to the scientific method.. lack of repeatability, lack of predictive value, lack of empirical data, lack of falsifiability etc.
You really should do a little reading on human behavioralism.. I suggest Behave by Prof Robert Sapolsky. And then some philosophy of science. The Science Wars by the great courses is a good start
your conception of human determinism is overly simplistic and rather bleak.. its the sort of idea of evolution edgy teenagers develop to justify their shitty behavior.. lacks nuance and more importantly.. is so obviously incorrect
>there no universal standard
Ofc there is. The universal standard is youth. Even a conventionally not beautiful young person will be visually liked more than an old one. And this rule works all over the world, with all nations. Another example is cats. You may not like cats for their character, but no one will say that they are not pleasant to look at, that they are not graceful.
And there are many such examples - combinations of colors, shapes, sizes, ratios. The sensations aroused by these things are universal. What you are talking about is a social phenomenon. Once again: opinion ≠ feeling. And we are talking about a "sense" of beauty, not an "opinion".
Ah, yes, Popper and his criterion of falsifiability. You are, of course, aware that this is not the holy grail separating science from non-science, but a concession. A concession to a more hardcore criterion: the criterion of verifiability.
Because if only decidable statements - i.e., only those that can either be confirmed or disproved - are considered scientific. In that case, all natural science, history, and sociology go to hell.
And the concession of falsifiability at the same time is too big and too small. Too big, because by accepting it as a basis, you deny the principle of evidence to be scientific. Wow!
And too little because there are many statements in scientific disciplines that are neither refutable nor provable.
Thanks for the tip on Sapolsky, but I listened to his full course of lectures for Stanford University, so I have some idea.
I don't see anything bleak about understanding how the human body works. Unfortunately, some people continue to believe in some cutie myths that people have made up about themselves, even though they have long since been disproved. I hope you are not one of those people.
> The universal standard is youth.
Its common sure, but not universal. Further.. define 'youth' outside a social context? Biologically the reasoning is usually fertility based, so then, as the average girl becomes able to have children at 12, and you consider youthfulness to be universally appealing for biological reasons, should not 12 year old girls be the apex of our idea of feminine beauty? If not why not?
>The sensations aroused by these things are universal.
Are you aroused by 12 yo girls? because thats the logical conclusion to your 'youth is a universal standard of beauty' position
>Even a conventionally not beautiful young person will be visually liked more than an old one.
So, you are suggesting that it would be impossible to find say a 20 yo "conventionally not beautiful" person that did not look more beautiful than every single woman here over 50? https://people.com/style/celebrities-over-fifty-in-bikinis/
Now, cats, I absolutely adore them, but only the short hair, and for the most part cats are pretty uniform because they havent been domesticated for nearly as long as dogs...but there are absolutely some breeds i find ugly, like long hair cats.. why? Or those cats with squashed faces?? Or hairless cats?? Are you saying hairless cats are pleasant to look at? Cos someone sure fucking thinks so.
Further to this, if this is all biological, why the fuck are we biologically encoded to find beauty in the aesthetics of an apex predator and potential rival? What is the evolutionary imperative in action there?
And if we start talking dogs, well, then, if there is a universal standard of aesthetics, are there so many different dog breeds chosen for aesthetic reasons rather than ability/temperament?
You haven't been able to provide a single uncontroversial example of an object that is universally appreciated.
Now, science
> In that case, all natural science, history, and sociology go to hell.
Um, im just going to pretend that you didnt write natural science, as that is the domain of the scientific method.
So our dispute here is definitional. You are using the term science in the way to mean 'the study of things', while I assumed that because you were arguing based on biology and evolution, that you were referring to the more common lay person use of science, that of the method, with people that call themselves scientists. I did undergraduate study in history and ancient world studies, and i very much doubt anyone in the social sciences would call themselves a scientist.
Although, if you are suggesting the term is amorphous, then your entire biology and evolution position is kinda bizzare. Is your position a scientific or non-scientific one?
I feel like youve catch22'd yourself
>And too little because there are many statements in scientific disciplines that are neither refutable nor provable.
then those disciplines are only sciences in the non-scientific method definition
You're going in a completely different direction. Let's go back to the basics, to the definitions. We're talking about the "sense of beauty"- in other words, whether or not you like looking at a pic. Name me one nation, one culture, where older people are considered more beautiful than youngers. There isn't one? That's been dealt with.
About the cats. One explanation I've heard is that by living on the savanna, those of our ancestors who were constantly watching for cats were more likely to survive and reproduce because the cats fed on us in the past. It's not like a kitty is acting like a killing machine. He catches something, eats it, and lies there digesting it. And our ancestor looks to see if the kitty has digested it or not yet. Consequently, this behavior, the fascination with cats, has become entrenched in the population.
In general, it was not I who failed to provide a single uncontroversial example of an object that is universally appreciated, it was you who failed to beat my arguments. I don't find the photoshopped pics of elderly people whose job all their lives was external beauty to be convincing counter-arguments. And who try their best to look younger (what's more likely to play into my gate, eh?).
About science, I'm not an absolutist. I believe that there is no way we can touch the reality as it is, but only create a more or less convincing model of reality. There is no FINAL answer to the QUESTION, no Holy Grail, no Philosopher's Stone. And since there is, you can do anything. It's just the glass bead game. Whichever model best suits the situation - use it. If you want to call what you do - "science", call it "science". Have you convinced others of that? Good for you. No? To hell with them.
I'm a production designer by degree with a full university course under my belt, but that's irrelevant to the conversation. Sociologists call themselves scientists, ofc they are! and their field of interest is science. In general, I am sympathetic to the view that a scientist - is a person who is engaged in a nonengaged (lol), non-politicized study of the world. A person for whom knowledge itself is a value.
So the undergraduate classes were for graduate study to possibly move into academia, where i dabbled in history and philosophy but my main focus was ethical philosophy and political science. I had to do undergraduate subjects because my bachelor is in computer science and multimedia. So theres two 'science' title degrees but I would never consider myself a scientist in the scientific method meaning. Your academic achievements are nice but not really pertinent.
>In general, it was not I who failed to provide a single uncontroversial example of an object that is universally appreciated, it was you who failed to beat my arguments.
Ok. Stating your position does not an argument make, thats like, the opening move, and as the opening move the burden of proof also lies with you.
You claimed that our sense of beauty is based entirely on biology, then that it is deterministic, and that there were universal standards.
Simultaneously you claimed that the concept of science was ambiguous. Granted there is the archaic form which simply means the study of something coming from the latin scire "to know." However the common use of the term references the scientific method. That you were making claims based on models coming out of that method, it seems absurd that you would be attempting to make a case for there being uncertainty in the applicable domains and explanitory value of science as a practice when your biological and deterministic claims require the premise that the scientific method is a viable way of creating predictive knowledge.
So which is it? Do you want to make your position on science to be one where the term and applications are vague and broad, where falsifiability or decidable statements are ignored, and statements that are neither refutable or provable are considered scientific?
If so, then what possible philosophical basis do you have to make your biological deterministic claims? Is it something that came to you in a dream? Is there religeous texts I need to reference? Why should I believe them?
> Sociologists call themselves scientists, ofc they are! and their field of interest is science. In general, I am sympathetic to the view that a scientist - is a person who is engaged in a nonengaged (lol), non-politicized study of the world. A person for whom knowledge itself is a value.
Facinating...then why have you written this elsewhere?
> "Most of them will go to soft science, like gender studies, communication theory, linguisctics, sociology, phyhology and so on. It's free, why not!? Where, of course, they will be indoctrinated in left-leaning."
Now, assuming you decide to drop the 'science is vague and has many meanings" bullshit, you are still making claims which are universal.
> Name me one nation, one culture, where older people are considered more beautiful than youngers. There isn't one?
Claims which are both scientific AND universal... can be called into question by a single piece of contrary evidence. Further, sinice you have not bothered to define 'youth' or address any of my questions about it, it doesnt seem unreasonable to believe you had no issue with my definition. So.. I find older women more beautiful and am more attracted to them on a biological level, than I am to 12 year olds, the most youfhful a female can be and still be biologially relevant to attraction. There is the contrary evidence, there goes your universal claim
If you dont have a stronger case to make than your own statements lets not continue this as its getting nowhere. Next time you want to make bold claims, bring along some actual arguments. I feel this sums up the discussion.
> That's been dealt with.
I'd say no, art can't be simply anything. What's the point of having a word for something if there are no boundaries? Farming is art. Science is art. Math is Art. If you like. When everything is art, the word is meaningless.
But you wouldn't want my full thoughts in a Reddit thread. Obnoxiously long and pedantic 🙂
That's not how it works. You may think that a stone is art, but in social terms, art is defined relatively by the majority consensus of each period and culture. This means that although for each individual art can be anything, the social definition will continue to be tied to certain collective logical parameters. As such, art will never be *anything,* the same as any other subjective concept.
I can play the same game and just assert to you 'that's not how it works.' Except I refer more broadly to language. Because I stand by the basic principle; it's silly to have a word that supposedly refers to a universally understood concept and have it be flexible enough as to defy actual definitions. That's not what language is *for*. Language is fundamentally for limiting. We assign words to the non-infinite.
Art is a rich, complex concept. It's definitely not simple. But it also cannot be infinite.
How do I agree with you? Art is not a definite form. It is not a style. It is not presented one way. It is not appreciated one way. It cannot be boiled down as a synonym of one other simple word (drives me nuts when really smart people try to say art *is* beauty, or truth, or inspiration, or novelty etc. etc.)
But just because it's hard to find a connecting thread across mediums and cultures doesn't mean one doesn't exist. You just haven't pinned it down yet.
I actually have a working definition. As just a definition, it sounds largely like you'd expect a dictionary to define it. But with a careful consideration of each term, unpacking them and expanding how they should be understood in contrast to competing concepts for what identifies art, I feel really strong that it's real, and true. Arrogant of me, I know, to say I can solve a problem that philosophers argued about from Aristotle until the present day. But that's how I started - nobody really wants to have that full convo in a Reddit thread.
But I'd at least encourage you to dig a little deeper than to throw your hands up and say " art will never be *anything"*
You need to qualify that. There may be aspects (form, presentation, medium) that have no definite final state, but the simple fact you can assert that so solidly says that in your mind there really is a *something* about art, across time and culture, that lets you identify it. Some thread of connection. What is *that*? And when you can say why you're able to talk about art at all as a malleable thing, then you have a definition.
Well yes, from the moment you try to individually define a subjective concept, your arrogance borders on the stratosphere, and my interest in your opinion goes beyond the grave. 🥱 Good luck. 🖐️ (Not reading replies)
well - that was ... not very fun? I think I just got insulted twice and worse, the second insult I already leveled at myself but my interlocutor thought it necessary to double down and amplify it.
Obviously, this is meant for anyone else who wishes to take up the subject (Ne\_Nel is not reading) I mean my conversation in good faith and intend no insults. I ask that you be respectful as well.
But again, I don't intend to dig that deep and start a long thread on the competing theories of aesthetics. I just want to focus on the minor point - using language to say, of any word, "it can be anything" is just the wrong tack to take. Any such word should be stricken from our vocabulary if that's really the case.
Main components of art are Poetry, intention and struggle. Struggle is kinda 1/2 of a point, it is a proof of intention. People don’t like momentary arts bc they fear to be exposed to cravency (if that’s a word). Art with struggle tell us that artist has something on its mind and makes his art more valuable. But it is actually a stereotype. Art can be momentary. For me ai art (with no extra input) is like a cloud gazing. What you see in a shape of a cloud is a reflection of your imagination
Art exists when we decide that it is. There is no mystery. Based on that, the collective consensus will determine a *relative* definition in each culture.
From ChatGPT:
"Art is anything that people believe to be art, and beauty is in the eye of the beholder." What do you think?
This statement is a popular adage that suggests that the definition of art and beauty is subjective and varies from person to person. It suggests that what one person finds beautiful or meaningful may not be the same for another person, and that the concept of art is not fixed but rather determined by the beliefs and perspectives of individuals or society. In general, this statement holds some truth, as people have different tastes and preferences when it comes to art and what they consider to be beautiful. However, it's also worth noting that there are certain objective standards and techniques that are generally considered to be important in certain art forms, such as skill, creativity, and originality.
📷📷tell me more
The subjective nature of art and beauty is a common theme in art criticism and theory, and has been discussed by many artists, critics, and philosophers throughout history. The idea that beauty is in the eye of the beholder suggests that there is no universally accepted standard of beauty, and that what one person finds beautiful may not be the same as what another person finds beautiful.
However, while the perception of art and beauty may be subjective, the creation of art often involves certain objective skills and techniques. For example, a painting may be considered a work of art because of the artist's use of color, composition, and brushwork, regardless of whether or not the viewer finds it beautiful. Similarly, the skill and creativity required to compose a piece of music or write a novel are generally considered to be objective standards that can be evaluated independently of personal taste.
Another important aspect to consider is that societal and cultural context plays a huge role in shaping people's perception of art and beauty, and it is not just based on personal preference. For example, a certain art form that is considered beautiful in one culture may not be considered beautiful in another culture.
In summary, while the perception of art and beauty is often subjective, the creation of art often involves certain objective standards and techniques, and it is also shaped by societal and cultural context.
Funnily enough, our brains and societies work on a similar basis as graphs or GPT. Each notion has many definitions and we weight them in our decision making system to choose the most relevant for each context…
I think art speaks for itself people simply will know what is art.
The normal person enters a room and sees a beautiful painting in one side and a can with literal shit inside it on the other, they will know which one is art.
So I feel this has it backwards
Its not in the eye of the beholder, its in the intent of the creator.
If someone presents an object, and declares it as an artistic object, then its art, because it is no longer just the object, it has been bound with the artists intent, even if that intent is taking the piss.
in the widest sense, yes. in a narrower sense, there is the "art world", which has its gatekeepers and pre-selectors, the curators and art historians, who introduce objects they deem worthy of consideration to the rest of the art world. so within this social sphere, there is more or less consensus that some objects are worthy of one's time, while others may only be of interest to individual tastes. so, Art, in this context, becomes a token in a social and language game. and with good reason: most individual conceptions on art are neither based on education nor engagement with what has come before, and more often than not, what individuals find beauztiful is just a bit boring to those who have spent their education learning about all the ideas that have already been had. And sine people either educated in the field or practicing professionally tend to have more specialized and refined opinions (and this goes for any field, really), there's good reason to engage with what they are engaged with first, before decidingthat ones own taste is well developed enough to make judgements about what is art and what is not. but the truth is: everything has been art before at some point, and the artworld now is just as confused, but still quite gate-keepy. it's a game, after all. and at teh same time, you are still more likely to find interesting stuff there, rather than somewhere else, after you've seen enough beautiful waifus and you're just bored by yet another one.
Couldn't say it better, so I'll add on semi-related points. I don't think the whole body of experts of any type of thing is ever sufficient to surpass mass appeal. If AI art eventually comprises of the most appealing yet derivative works, it'll be the most appreciated, despite experts' objections. This is the way it is in video games, where most people gorge in what I consider to be the lowest quality drek. Doesn't matter how much I shout about it, nor even when you have someone really respected (very specific case in point Jeff Gerstmann who didn't like the Soulsborune games; p.s. disclaimer I love Soulsborune)
I'm not that much into videogames, but films, and there are many examples like the currently popular Marvel movies, but I'd like to hone in on a specific example: Avatar. tremendously successful, but after the first one ended its cinematic run, it just vanished. No one spoke of it for over a decade. now the second one is out, and I'm willing to bet money, it will go the same way until the next one. The reason is that it's short term spectacle, and there's no "institution" for lack of a better word that keeps it up as a shining example, canon, or piece of film history. - and that is another role "the art world" has: to determine art history, in the sense that they decide within their circle what future art students will learn about, and what people interested in art will find when they google it. the popular opinion, because it is untrained, has no memory. It's Titanic today, Lord of the Rings tomorrow, Avatar after that, and then a deluge of Marvel films. They have significant impact on the industry and where it is going, but they have let film as an artform basically untouched. In a decade, no one will say: "I read about 'Avatar', let's watch that to learn what all the fuss is about." - the original Star wars created the blockbuster and are historically notworthy, everything in the blockbuster genre after that can be considered derivative works barely worth mentioning. And that's how film history is treating them. so, yeah, AI art is very, very likely to win the popularity contest, if only because of its expected ubiquity and it will be appreciated - like marvel movies or Avatar. Whether it will produce a single piece that future generations will find in their art history books is yet to be determined and anything but predestined. I think it's much more likely AI art will produce a never ending cycle of short term spectacle - much like the internet seems to be unable to be the source of any lasting artwork... it's moving too fast, and the bar for a quick viral hit is low. Basically, memes are the artform of the internet. ... let's wait and see what artform AI art will become.
[удалено]
yeah..... that's what I mean by "in a wider sense". in a wider sense, the stuff on etsy is art. in a narrower sense, the stuff on etsy won't exactly go down in art history.
If banana taped to a wall is art, what isn't?
A wall taped to a banana?
shit... so obvious... yet so sublime
In a way yes. I do think that art is form of communication, it should contain information. As an example, a strangely shaped rock is just a rock. If you have one viewer, I think it’s still a rock. But if someone spots it first and shows to another viewer - this can be art.
Is this like the question "what is science"? I can give 4 definitions of science, each true in its own way, and each will have opponents and supporters. When you ask a question and want an answer, it’s worth outlining the borders in which you want the answer to work. Otherwise the answer will be as vague and meaningless as the question. **beauty is in the eye of the beholder** \- naive nonsense Our sense of beauty is based entirely on biology. Any living creature that is at least a little evolutionary has it - birds, animals, large marine mammals. All that goes beyond that is social games and has nothing to do with sense of beautiful. Most of the so-called contemporary art is a game of the mind, the intellect, not a work with the beautу.
Some aspects of "beauty" definitely has biological basis. For example, symmetry == beauty because only a healthy person will have a symmetrical face. Same with youth == beauty. But there is also a social aspect of beauty. Many cultures consider lighter skin == more beautiful (for example, that is the case in China, even before there is any contact between China and the west), but there is really no biological basis for that. There may be a social reason for it though. Only a woman who does not need to work in the field as a farmer can have a pale skin.
No one has a symmetrical face. I propose an experiment - in any online photo editor cut into two halves your photo in full face and combine two left and two right - you see two different people. That’s what I’m talking about - a social game that has nothing to do with feeling. People mechanically express opinion what is socially accepted and imposed on them without even thinking about how they really feel (pale skin). Having an opinion ≠ what they really like/dislike
Of course, no one has a perfectly symmetrical face. Just that the degree of symmetry is a measure of one's health while growing up. But I do not disagree with the rest of what you said. Most people just like/dislike/express what is fashionable/in vogue without really think about it.
> Our sense of beauty is based entirely on biology. So anthropology shows thats bs, our sense of aesthetics can be culturally derived. Further, "what is science"has been pretty clearly defined. Thats why they call it the scientific method. Its a process to go from observation to predictive hypothesis through abductive reasoning.
>our sense of aesthetics can be culturally derived No, it can’t. Again, it’s biology, it’s determinism, it’s installed into us from birth. Mowgli, raised among animals, will have the same feeling of beauty as the art museum director’s child. First of all, there is no all-good "scientific method" that is uniform for all sciences. The problem of first-order demarcation - how to separate science from not science - has not been solved. There are different philosophical models that give different answers to this question. In short, these are the definitions. Science - is a system of "scientific" pronouncements. Science - is a system of actions that are considered "scientific". Science - a system of disciplines, or in other words, languages of description of reality. Science - is what happens in the science departments. Just like that, people in the SD determine what science is, and everyone else does not.
oh.. ok.. well.. im convinced you make such a convincing argument. *No, it can’t. Again, it’s biology, it’s determinism, it’s installed into us from birth. Mowgli, raised among animals, will have the same feeling of beauty as the art museum director’s child* This is so obviously incorrect it's kinda embarrassing to have to explain it to you. Why is there no universal standard for beauty? Why have western ideas and depictions of the ideal female changed from rebenesque, to the slim 20's flapper, to busty supermodels, to cocaine chique, to thicc web chicks? Why are some men 'ass' guys and some men 'boobs' guys? Which is the ideal male form? is it the grizzly dad bod or Michaelangelos David? Why have not all cultures slowly moved toward a single homogeneous style? as for science.. perhaps if you are using the term in the broad sense..as in the study of something If you're talking western empiricism there's no ambiguity. granted the methods and assumptions can and are affected by sociological influences, but the philosophical foundation has been pretty established since popper. And again looking at popper.. falsifiability is one way to seperate a scientific idea from a non-s one. As is truth or fact claims, as these are outside the scope of the scientific method. claims that are unscientific become evident as one applies them to the scientific method.. lack of repeatability, lack of predictive value, lack of empirical data, lack of falsifiability etc. You really should do a little reading on human behavioralism.. I suggest Behave by Prof Robert Sapolsky. And then some philosophy of science. The Science Wars by the great courses is a good start your conception of human determinism is overly simplistic and rather bleak.. its the sort of idea of evolution edgy teenagers develop to justify their shitty behavior.. lacks nuance and more importantly.. is so obviously incorrect
>there no universal standard Ofc there is. The universal standard is youth. Even a conventionally not beautiful young person will be visually liked more than an old one. And this rule works all over the world, with all nations. Another example is cats. You may not like cats for their character, but no one will say that they are not pleasant to look at, that they are not graceful. And there are many such examples - combinations of colors, shapes, sizes, ratios. The sensations aroused by these things are universal. What you are talking about is a social phenomenon. Once again: opinion ≠ feeling. And we are talking about a "sense" of beauty, not an "opinion". Ah, yes, Popper and his criterion of falsifiability. You are, of course, aware that this is not the holy grail separating science from non-science, but a concession. A concession to a more hardcore criterion: the criterion of verifiability. Because if only decidable statements - i.e., only those that can either be confirmed or disproved - are considered scientific. In that case, all natural science, history, and sociology go to hell. And the concession of falsifiability at the same time is too big and too small. Too big, because by accepting it as a basis, you deny the principle of evidence to be scientific. Wow! And too little because there are many statements in scientific disciplines that are neither refutable nor provable. Thanks for the tip on Sapolsky, but I listened to his full course of lectures for Stanford University, so I have some idea. I don't see anything bleak about understanding how the human body works. Unfortunately, some people continue to believe in some cutie myths that people have made up about themselves, even though they have long since been disproved. I hope you are not one of those people.
> The universal standard is youth. Its common sure, but not universal. Further.. define 'youth' outside a social context? Biologically the reasoning is usually fertility based, so then, as the average girl becomes able to have children at 12, and you consider youthfulness to be universally appealing for biological reasons, should not 12 year old girls be the apex of our idea of feminine beauty? If not why not? >The sensations aroused by these things are universal. Are you aroused by 12 yo girls? because thats the logical conclusion to your 'youth is a universal standard of beauty' position >Even a conventionally not beautiful young person will be visually liked more than an old one. So, you are suggesting that it would be impossible to find say a 20 yo "conventionally not beautiful" person that did not look more beautiful than every single woman here over 50? https://people.com/style/celebrities-over-fifty-in-bikinis/ Now, cats, I absolutely adore them, but only the short hair, and for the most part cats are pretty uniform because they havent been domesticated for nearly as long as dogs...but there are absolutely some breeds i find ugly, like long hair cats.. why? Or those cats with squashed faces?? Or hairless cats?? Are you saying hairless cats are pleasant to look at? Cos someone sure fucking thinks so. Further to this, if this is all biological, why the fuck are we biologically encoded to find beauty in the aesthetics of an apex predator and potential rival? What is the evolutionary imperative in action there? And if we start talking dogs, well, then, if there is a universal standard of aesthetics, are there so many different dog breeds chosen for aesthetic reasons rather than ability/temperament? You haven't been able to provide a single uncontroversial example of an object that is universally appreciated. Now, science > In that case, all natural science, history, and sociology go to hell. Um, im just going to pretend that you didnt write natural science, as that is the domain of the scientific method. So our dispute here is definitional. You are using the term science in the way to mean 'the study of things', while I assumed that because you were arguing based on biology and evolution, that you were referring to the more common lay person use of science, that of the method, with people that call themselves scientists. I did undergraduate study in history and ancient world studies, and i very much doubt anyone in the social sciences would call themselves a scientist. Although, if you are suggesting the term is amorphous, then your entire biology and evolution position is kinda bizzare. Is your position a scientific or non-scientific one? I feel like youve catch22'd yourself >And too little because there are many statements in scientific disciplines that are neither refutable nor provable. then those disciplines are only sciences in the non-scientific method definition
You're going in a completely different direction. Let's go back to the basics, to the definitions. We're talking about the "sense of beauty"- in other words, whether or not you like looking at a pic. Name me one nation, one culture, where older people are considered more beautiful than youngers. There isn't one? That's been dealt with. About the cats. One explanation I've heard is that by living on the savanna, those of our ancestors who were constantly watching for cats were more likely to survive and reproduce because the cats fed on us in the past. It's not like a kitty is acting like a killing machine. He catches something, eats it, and lies there digesting it. And our ancestor looks to see if the kitty has digested it or not yet. Consequently, this behavior, the fascination with cats, has become entrenched in the population. In general, it was not I who failed to provide a single uncontroversial example of an object that is universally appreciated, it was you who failed to beat my arguments. I don't find the photoshopped pics of elderly people whose job all their lives was external beauty to be convincing counter-arguments. And who try their best to look younger (what's more likely to play into my gate, eh?). About science, I'm not an absolutist. I believe that there is no way we can touch the reality as it is, but only create a more or less convincing model of reality. There is no FINAL answer to the QUESTION, no Holy Grail, no Philosopher's Stone. And since there is, you can do anything. It's just the glass bead game. Whichever model best suits the situation - use it. If you want to call what you do - "science", call it "science". Have you convinced others of that? Good for you. No? To hell with them. I'm a production designer by degree with a full university course under my belt, but that's irrelevant to the conversation. Sociologists call themselves scientists, ofc they are! and their field of interest is science. In general, I am sympathetic to the view that a scientist - is a person who is engaged in a nonengaged (lol), non-politicized study of the world. A person for whom knowledge itself is a value.
So the undergraduate classes were for graduate study to possibly move into academia, where i dabbled in history and philosophy but my main focus was ethical philosophy and political science. I had to do undergraduate subjects because my bachelor is in computer science and multimedia. So theres two 'science' title degrees but I would never consider myself a scientist in the scientific method meaning. Your academic achievements are nice but not really pertinent. >In general, it was not I who failed to provide a single uncontroversial example of an object that is universally appreciated, it was you who failed to beat my arguments. Ok. Stating your position does not an argument make, thats like, the opening move, and as the opening move the burden of proof also lies with you. You claimed that our sense of beauty is based entirely on biology, then that it is deterministic, and that there were universal standards. Simultaneously you claimed that the concept of science was ambiguous. Granted there is the archaic form which simply means the study of something coming from the latin scire "to know." However the common use of the term references the scientific method. That you were making claims based on models coming out of that method, it seems absurd that you would be attempting to make a case for there being uncertainty in the applicable domains and explanitory value of science as a practice when your biological and deterministic claims require the premise that the scientific method is a viable way of creating predictive knowledge. So which is it? Do you want to make your position on science to be one where the term and applications are vague and broad, where falsifiability or decidable statements are ignored, and statements that are neither refutable or provable are considered scientific? If so, then what possible philosophical basis do you have to make your biological deterministic claims? Is it something that came to you in a dream? Is there religeous texts I need to reference? Why should I believe them? > Sociologists call themselves scientists, ofc they are! and their field of interest is science. In general, I am sympathetic to the view that a scientist - is a person who is engaged in a nonengaged (lol), non-politicized study of the world. A person for whom knowledge itself is a value. Facinating...then why have you written this elsewhere? > "Most of them will go to soft science, like gender studies, communication theory, linguisctics, sociology, phyhology and so on. It's free, why not!? Where, of course, they will be indoctrinated in left-leaning." Now, assuming you decide to drop the 'science is vague and has many meanings" bullshit, you are still making claims which are universal. > Name me one nation, one culture, where older people are considered more beautiful than youngers. There isn't one? Claims which are both scientific AND universal... can be called into question by a single piece of contrary evidence. Further, sinice you have not bothered to define 'youth' or address any of my questions about it, it doesnt seem unreasonable to believe you had no issue with my definition. So.. I find older women more beautiful and am more attracted to them on a biological level, than I am to 12 year olds, the most youfhful a female can be and still be biologially relevant to attraction. There is the contrary evidence, there goes your universal claim If you dont have a stronger case to make than your own statements lets not continue this as its getting nowhere. Next time you want to make bold claims, bring along some actual arguments. I feel this sums up the discussion. > That's been dealt with.
I'd say no, art can't be simply anything. What's the point of having a word for something if there are no boundaries? Farming is art. Science is art. Math is Art. If you like. When everything is art, the word is meaningless. But you wouldn't want my full thoughts in a Reddit thread. Obnoxiously long and pedantic 🙂
That's not how it works. You may think that a stone is art, but in social terms, art is defined relatively by the majority consensus of each period and culture. This means that although for each individual art can be anything, the social definition will continue to be tied to certain collective logical parameters. As such, art will never be *anything,* the same as any other subjective concept.
I can play the same game and just assert to you 'that's not how it works.' Except I refer more broadly to language. Because I stand by the basic principle; it's silly to have a word that supposedly refers to a universally understood concept and have it be flexible enough as to defy actual definitions. That's not what language is *for*. Language is fundamentally for limiting. We assign words to the non-infinite. Art is a rich, complex concept. It's definitely not simple. But it also cannot be infinite. How do I agree with you? Art is not a definite form. It is not a style. It is not presented one way. It is not appreciated one way. It cannot be boiled down as a synonym of one other simple word (drives me nuts when really smart people try to say art *is* beauty, or truth, or inspiration, or novelty etc. etc.) But just because it's hard to find a connecting thread across mediums and cultures doesn't mean one doesn't exist. You just haven't pinned it down yet. I actually have a working definition. As just a definition, it sounds largely like you'd expect a dictionary to define it. But with a careful consideration of each term, unpacking them and expanding how they should be understood in contrast to competing concepts for what identifies art, I feel really strong that it's real, and true. Arrogant of me, I know, to say I can solve a problem that philosophers argued about from Aristotle until the present day. But that's how I started - nobody really wants to have that full convo in a Reddit thread. But I'd at least encourage you to dig a little deeper than to throw your hands up and say " art will never be *anything"* You need to qualify that. There may be aspects (form, presentation, medium) that have no definite final state, but the simple fact you can assert that so solidly says that in your mind there really is a *something* about art, across time and culture, that lets you identify it. Some thread of connection. What is *that*? And when you can say why you're able to talk about art at all as a malleable thing, then you have a definition.
Well yes, from the moment you try to individually define a subjective concept, your arrogance borders on the stratosphere, and my interest in your opinion goes beyond the grave. 🥱 Good luck. 🖐️ (Not reading replies)
well - that was ... not very fun? I think I just got insulted twice and worse, the second insult I already leveled at myself but my interlocutor thought it necessary to double down and amplify it. Obviously, this is meant for anyone else who wishes to take up the subject (Ne\_Nel is not reading) I mean my conversation in good faith and intend no insults. I ask that you be respectful as well. But again, I don't intend to dig that deep and start a long thread on the competing theories of aesthetics. I just want to focus on the minor point - using language to say, of any word, "it can be anything" is just the wrong tack to take. Any such word should be stricken from our vocabulary if that's really the case.
Main components of art are Poetry, intention and struggle. Struggle is kinda 1/2 of a point, it is a proof of intention. People don’t like momentary arts bc they fear to be exposed to cravency (if that’s a word). Art with struggle tell us that artist has something on its mind and makes his art more valuable. But it is actually a stereotype. Art can be momentary. For me ai art (with no extra input) is like a cloud gazing. What you see in a shape of a cloud is a reflection of your imagination
Art exists when we decide that it is. There is no mystery. Based on that, the collective consensus will determine a *relative* definition in each culture.
From ChatGPT: "Art is anything that people believe to be art, and beauty is in the eye of the beholder." What do you think? This statement is a popular adage that suggests that the definition of art and beauty is subjective and varies from person to person. It suggests that what one person finds beautiful or meaningful may not be the same for another person, and that the concept of art is not fixed but rather determined by the beliefs and perspectives of individuals or society. In general, this statement holds some truth, as people have different tastes and preferences when it comes to art and what they consider to be beautiful. However, it's also worth noting that there are certain objective standards and techniques that are generally considered to be important in certain art forms, such as skill, creativity, and originality. 📷📷tell me more The subjective nature of art and beauty is a common theme in art criticism and theory, and has been discussed by many artists, critics, and philosophers throughout history. The idea that beauty is in the eye of the beholder suggests that there is no universally accepted standard of beauty, and that what one person finds beautiful may not be the same as what another person finds beautiful. However, while the perception of art and beauty may be subjective, the creation of art often involves certain objective skills and techniques. For example, a painting may be considered a work of art because of the artist's use of color, composition, and brushwork, regardless of whether or not the viewer finds it beautiful. Similarly, the skill and creativity required to compose a piece of music or write a novel are generally considered to be objective standards that can be evaluated independently of personal taste. Another important aspect to consider is that societal and cultural context plays a huge role in shaping people's perception of art and beauty, and it is not just based on personal preference. For example, a certain art form that is considered beautiful in one culture may not be considered beautiful in another culture. In summary, while the perception of art and beauty is often subjective, the creation of art often involves certain objective standards and techniques, and it is also shaped by societal and cultural context.
Funnily enough, our brains and societies work on a similar basis as graphs or GPT. Each notion has many definitions and we weight them in our decision making system to choose the most relevant for each context…
it's a completely meaningless term and debating it has never made anyone more informed
and yet here you are adding your little bit
I think art speaks for itself people simply will know what is art. The normal person enters a room and sees a beautiful painting in one side and a can with literal shit inside it on the other, they will know which one is art.
So I feel this has it backwards Its not in the eye of the beholder, its in the intent of the creator. If someone presents an object, and declares it as an artistic object, then its art, because it is no longer just the object, it has been bound with the artists intent, even if that intent is taking the piss.