Frances to Cheerskep and members...
Aside from all this interesting debate over the details of aesthetical art and logical science, it turns mainly on and remains basically about the philosophic controversy dealing with realism versus antirealism, such as the unreal mentalist theories of psychologism and notionalism and nominalism and rationalism. It therefore seems to me that the initial issue that aesthetes and artists and aestheticians or scientists and logicians should put to rest in their theoretical wrestling with art and science is whether all things in the world, like classes and objects and signs and contents and responses, are only subjective mental constructs made in the mind of normal humans, or rather might partly be objective material constructs that can exist in the cosmos independent of life and sense and mind and thought. Until this pressing issue is agreeably resolved, debate over the specifics of art and science will remain indeterminate and indecisive, albeit essential and necessary. Some key problems to resolve hence might be whether the general qualities of stuff like art and the universal laws of stuff like science might in fact be found to exist as phenomena in the world outside the limits of matter and life. Regarding that global class called by the name of "art" the consensus of opinion here seems to be that the word refers to a typical object that remains a subjective mental construct, but that all token artworks deemed as falling under this general umbrella are objective material constructs, yet are all alike in that they have some standard quality or property in common. It further seems held here that individual artworks are made only by humans, and that the norm of art is an arbitrary social determination. This approach is notional and nominal and rational and even institutional. It denies that any general categories like "art" or that any beautiful properties of "art" can exist independent of mind. By extension, this stance also holds that signs and contents and laws too are subjective mental constructs that exist only within the exclusive dominion of normal humans. This biotic and anthropic and epistemic position is not shared by all theorists. If in the alternative it is agreed that some general classes and some formal properties of objects do exist as objective material constructs and are independent of mind, then the task is to find out whether "art" might be such a class and whether artworks can have such stuff as beauty embedded in their form, and if artworks can indeed be made by other than humans. This approach would be phenomenal and existential. The result in adopting this approach would be that matter is effete mind, that matter is in quasi thought, and that all phenomena feel. By extension, this stance would also hold that signs and contents and laws too are objective material constructs that exist aside from the presence of humans. It would be supported by the logic of relativity which holds that formal beauty and typical art are sensed simultaneously in one and the same individual artwork. This ontic and cosmic and realistic position is not shared by all theorists. It seems that pragmatist realism is currently the best way to correct the excesses of idealism and materialism and rationalism, by its resorting to the logic of relativity, which deals mainly with the relations that all phenomena find themselves in. The objective and the relative and the subjective are thereby brought into a real balance and a true closure.
