Dear Colleagues,
This comment by Sri is right on, but it further calls on us to answer the
question of what does constitute artistic value. Market value is perhaps one
indicator, but I feel this is only one aspect, and not the most interesting
from an Information Science standpoint. (Nietzsche, exaggerating as usual, said
that what has a price has no value.). I think one way to look at art may be the
way Bob Logan looks at language in his book The Extended Mind, a cultural
artifact that "is neither of the brain nor in the brain", (or perhaps both
outside the brain and in the brain). This is what Bob calls a neo-dualistic
formulation to which I think my logic in reality applies.
I essentially proposed that the real value of art is related to the
(non-Shannon) information it can deliver, and I would hope that some of you
might be able to formulate this in a more rigorous way.
Thank you and cheers,
Joseph
----- Original Message -----
From: Srinandan Dasmahapatra
To: fis@listas.unizar.es
Sent: Saturday, October 04, 2008 7:49 PM
Subject: Re: [Fis] The Fascination of Art
I'm surprised to not see any of the obvious issue that come to my head --
conspicuous consumption by the wealthy and powerful, choosing to focus on
buying up that which some consider valuable. After all, this continues in a
more distributed market driven manner, commissions issued by noblemen to gifted
artists who would gladly paint their patrons in generous light, showcasing
their worldly wealth and property and even depicting servants with smiles on
their faces to round off the aura of benevolence. (See, for instance, Ways of
seeing, by John Berger.)
Sri
On 4 Oct 2008, at 17:00, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Send fis mailing list submissions to
fis@listas.unizar.es
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can reach the person managing the list at
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of fis digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: The Fascination of Art (Joseph Brenner)
From: "Joseph Brenner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 4 October 2008 09:09:41 BST
To: "Pedro C. Marijuan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "fis" <fis@listas.unizar.es>
Subject: Re: [Fis] The Fascination of Art
Reply-To: Joseph Brenner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Dear Colleagues,
I plead guilty to having contributed to the overstretching and apologize
herewith.
To try to answer Pedro's specific question, I feel that the source of
fascination in art definitely goes beyond the art object, the physical "antique
painting" as such. The fascination with art might be related to the
information content of art works, which I see as concentrating a great deal of
emotional and social information in a more or less dynamic entity (a dance
performance). A play by Shakespeare or Goethe, a Rembrandt, or a Picasso
condenses information at several levels of complexity such that the perceptual
processes that are activated are both conscious and unconscious. As Heidegger
said, the Angel in Rilke's "Elegies" "assures the recognition of a higher level
of reality".
I think one can apply some of E. O Wilson's ideas outlined in my first
reply to Sonu: there seem to be some kind of epigenetic rules governing the
process of attraction to art. Being able to receive this complex information
content of art, e.g. from a cave painting, and store it might have good
survival aspects as well. This is not inconsistent with Stan's point about the
"pleasures" of art.
Thank you and best wishes.
Joseph
----- Original Message ----- From: "Pedro C. Marijuan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "fis" <fis@listas.unizar.es>
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2008 1:09 PM
Subject: [Fis] The Fascination of Art
Dear colleagues,
My impression is that when art is discussed form the point of view of
scientific disciplines, the "diminishing returns" effect starts quite
soon --as discussants we should be aware when overstretching is taking
place and leading the theme astray... anyhow, kindness and abiding by
the two messages per week rule are to be expected at any circumstance in
this list.
A question I was going to ask to the people who contributed last week
(of course, and to anyone interested) is why do we have such an enormous
social and individual fascination with art. Probably the most expensive
products on any postindustrial market economy are not chips or design
molecules... but antique paintings. Historically the development of art
is quite related to the emergence of urban life --its beneficial effects
on the individual having to suffer "domesticate" life in the urban
environment. But we have artistic "enchantment" in prehistoric caves
(not much urban life at that time). What perceptual processes --maybe
social traditions are not needed-- in order to "chain" and enslave the
observer to the artwork?
best wishes
Pedro
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
