Jazzman!

I’m posting on behalf of an old birdbrain penpal of yours!

He says he’s sorry he couldn’t finish up your conversation with him before he had to go. But he hopes to continue corresponding with you through email. Ask Allison, he says, to facilitate an email exchange.

He says he’s sorry he was crippled for weeks by what seems to be an annual springtime “faux Alzheimer’s� that made his thinking fuzzy and his emotions frustrated and cranky.

He says: “You’re right about this:

‘The problem with the incredible pervasiveness of metaphors in our worldview and in correspondence is that they are so common that we forget they are metaphors and operate as if they are the concepts they analogize…’

…because that’s exactly the problem with using the religious notion of ‘belief’ as a metaphor for subscription to scientific thought.�

He says, “It’s like using the phrase ‘War on Poverty’ for an national social program. It sounds strong and intuitively proper, but it’s only a metaphor, not the reality.�

And he wants to talk it over with you.

Email Allison at her web-site and ask her to forward the email to him.

Thanks.

He misses you, he says.

No, I’m bummed out in part by the Time and Space Vigilantes who are trying to impose their limitations on the rest of us (see the Alley and Nir Rosen for details).

And, more dispiriting than that—by far—is the Spiked Helmet-Worshiping conformity of Americans. (See: http://www.radioopensource.org/presidential-signing-statements/#comment-10809 & http://www.radioopensource.org/presidential-signing-statements/#comment-10810 .)

It’s not just that Americans are woefully ignorant about the pitiful deficiencies of our government-as-constituted and the comparative virtues of responsive parliamentary democracies abroad – it’s that we’re so friggin’ content in our woeful ignorance.

It’s very, very dispiriting.

Anyway, I’ve a response to you in my head (and partly written) but I need more time to listen to the Lisa Randall show again to find a quote I want to include in my response. I expect to do so overnight or over the weekend.

Thanks for your patience.

I’m just kinda burnt out and demoralized right now.

Gimme a couple of days.

Jazzman to Potter: We are only bound by our beliefs and then only bound if we believe we are. (WG alert) WG = Word game

Jazzman to Potter: I define instinct as an innate drive that exists in non-human entities and implies lack of free will. We have free will and can make conscious choices to go for or against reactive or emotional (often miscalled instinctive) behavior. Potter replies:Isn’t “free will� specific to human consciousness …Art or ART is special. There is another component, let’s say “spiritual�. Yes free will takes the place of instinct in humans. The other component IS spiritual – your spirit creates it.

Potter: If people have free will, then some animals may (we are on a continuum with animals from the beginnings of life.) I doubt that animals are able to override their instinct by conscious choice. As to the continuum you know where I stand on that.

Potter: Some people dress artfully/or artistically. Jazzman:. According to themselves and those who agree. Potter: But that is not what I think you mean. I think you mean that our whole being is art, our perceptions are art. Jazzman:. No – I mean one’s physical body as grown by one is ART – one’s shape, moles, bunions, creases, pocks, personality etc. not to mention tattoos and piercings if applicable. Potter: That stretches the definition to the point where it has no specific meaning. . Jazzman:. Work –Well Done Potter: Expression alone is not art. Reaction/response alone is not art. George Ballanchine’s ballets and Suzanne Farrell’s performances are ART though, no question about it. If expression is well expressed and I react to it and respond in a manner that is ART to me then it’s ART. Balanchine’s and Farrell’s work constitutes are for you no question, others may disagree, and that is the point. YOU create what you deem ART.

Potter: It’s not a matter of opinion. It’s ART or it is not whether others agree or disagree. If I don’t like a Jackson Pollack painting, it’s still ART. Jazzman Au contraire. There’s no Platonic ideal model for ART.

This is a misinterpretation of Plato and/or what I said. From your wikipedia link: Begin Quote

Platonic idealism is the theory that the substantive reality around us is only a reflection of a higher truth. That truth, Plato argues, is the abstraction. He believed that ideas were more real than things. He developed a vision of two worlds: a world of unchanging ideas and a world of changing physical objects. A particular tree, with a branch or two missing, possibly alive, possibly dead, and initials of two lovers carved into its bark, is distinct from the form of Tree-ness. A Tree is the ideal that each of us holds that allows us to identify the imperfect reflections of trees all around us.

End Quote

In other words there is no higher truth or ideal that is ART. No ideal that is the ABSOLUTE standard for art to compare lesser art forms to its ART-ness

Potter: ART is real, not ideal. Your argument is about it’s designation as such without your approval. That is not a Platonic argument near as I can tell. I am not saying that ART exists independent of particulars. Particulars are in fact essential to art/ART. ART is real in your mind and other’s minds only. I’m saying it’s not a Platonic argument. You seem to believe ART exists as a concept independent of our minds eye which would make it a Platonic form. I’m not saying ART exists independent of particulars either. I’m saying you decide what constitutes those particulars. This is what I mean when I say you don’t want to take responsibility for your creations, co or individual.

Potter on Christo: It is obviously conceptual. Art is about Art as well. It may mean something to other artists, in terms of freeing them up, making them see things or in a way they had not before. In that sense, even as you indicate when you say “framing nature�, it has a value. Velasquez ( and certain other painters, Delacroix) for instance was called a “painter’s painter�. They inspire other artists. This is by no means a rubbery definition. The inspiration part is still there, the aesthetic part is still there: form and expression. This work also has the potential to be transcendent. It’s the artist’s and the viewer’s concept. Conceptual art allows, not makes, artists to see things differently. The value of framing nature is decided again by the observer. Obviously Christo believes it has value (people pay him) but inspiration, esthetics, and transcendence are provided by the beholders who transmute the potential from latency to actuality for themselves.

Potter on fakes: And if you focus, you too will see the difference between the expression of the master and his copier for no one can be Rembrandt. I doubt if I could tell the difference on most good imitations, the major difference is their respective values. The intrinsic values of each are close to equal but the piece with the cachet of expert provenance is worth whatever the market will bear, ultimately decided by the purchaser.

Jazzman to Potter: ART without subjectivity is a neutral action/event/object – and has no meaning. If a tree falls in the forest and there is no observer – there is no tree and no forest. Not philosophy, quantum mechanics! Potter replies: That’s a contradictory statement! Neutral is one thing (a value, or non-value), non-existent is another. ART sans subjectivity is neutral. Art without an observer is non-existent.

Potter: So every work of art/ART that you have not yet experienced does not exist?? Yes – art/ART not experienced by you doesn’t exist in your experience except as an abstract concept (the set of all art/ART that could be experienced by you)

Potter: Not to take away from that essential point but are you telling me that the trees that fell behind my house this winter did not fall? That all the trees in the deep forests of the world did not fall because no one saw them? What about all the CO2 they are releasing from their decay? Are you telling me there are no forests, no trees? (???#%*!!!) You are one of the many observers. Your house’s back behind is as you observe it.

Potter: I think this gets to the bottom of our discussion. We disagree on language and you are talking in philosophical terms. You have an underlying philosophy which challenges all points made that are not within it. That is true of ALL belief systems. I am talking about the world as I believe it manifests (that all experience and existence is a function of observation.) This bandwagon has many riders, although it may not be correct but this is the current position of leading edge physics. Each of us has a philosophy (belief system) that challenges points that are not within it, that is what you are doing when you challenge any positions in the ROS blogs or anywhere else. That is how we alter and enlarge our worldviews.

Potter: You are putting on me your position. The ART is there. I can engage/experience it, fully or partially, or not. ART exists, the expression that is ART exists outside of me. Within the ART “category� there is quite a variety of potential experience. Everything that is ART is not necessarily recognized by consensus ( yet). I asked for your definition of ART. The Object/Action/Event is there – you make it ART – consensus notwithstanding. Your experience is the decider. ART exists because you have parameters that define ART. The expression (work) exists outside of you but the ART is inside. On one hand you say ART is not necessarily recognized by consensus and the other that consensus makes it ART.

You say Miller’s work doesn’t move you, and it’s possibly not ART – I, on the other hand, was moved enough to purchase several of her works (they aren’t inexpensive) which generally elicit positive comments (most commonly regarding the intense visceral reaction they experience) when viewed by friends. My son said he was creeped out by one of her clay faces and doesn’t like her creations.

Potter: things of natural beauty are different from things created by human consciousness….Someone has to create from their senses/impulses/cognition what goes into your sense organs/ cognition/responses. This comes through a universal language that transcends time and physical boundaries. Art is in that realm. It draws on that universal power that connects us. But it comes through a human consciousness to another. By the way you have switched from advocating “co-creation� to “individual creation� which does not even need an artist on the other end. This is truly/totally “conceptual� (and a dead end in the art conversation imo). Beauty is in the eye of the beholder (you) – you decide what goes into your senses by your focus. Someone may have created the scene but you pick and choose. What is this universal language and power that connects us and operates in other dimensions? The realm is in your mind. It comes through a human consciousness to another alright but it flows from your consciousness to the other not the other way around.

If you reread my thesis regarding “individual creation� vs. “co-creation�, you’ll see I was stating that in terms of Nature’s art, you are the individual creator the only artist in that scenario is you (unless you anthropomorphize Nature or subscribe to God the artist.)

Potter: I’m all I define the WORK part as creative intention by the artist The creative intent part is to subsume “conceptual� art like Christo and ART created by the “Name and a Frame� people as I define ALL creative work by humans art and reserve the WELL DONE part for the value judgment of others.

Potter goes: The WELL DONE part regarding art is according to some consensus or standard. As I repeatedly state, consensus is a bandwagon fallacy and the standard is in your mind.

Potter’s like: We carry a morality that has been transmitted to us. I’m like: We carry a morality (beliefs) that we select from ALL possible morals by either accepting transmitted values (inculcated by authorities) or by conscious choice. Potter’s all if it is not ART, it’s only your opinion that it is. I’m like: It’s your opinion that it isn’t. It’s our opinions that create ART for each of us.

I’m all: The artist creates the “work� and each of us including the artist creates our personal experience. The “work� is neutral. Potter goes: So why go to a museum, a play, a concert. Save money, stay home and create your own experience! I’m like because if I stay home the work is neutral. When I create my own experience it’s not neutral it’s ART (if I think it is.) BTW I’m not into saving money I spend it as fast as I get it – it’s worth less every day and spending keeps the economy moving.

Potter’s all: I refer to “work� that has meaning, is aesthetically extraordinary and/or moves or has potential to move us, awaken us, our senses. I’m like: Meanings are construed by individuals, esthetics are in each persons mind, and everything has the potential to move us. We decide whether or not we are moved.

Potter goes: ART embodies universals, is an expression of timeless essentials, is inspired and has potential be inspire us more deeply. I’m like: What are universals? What are timeless essentials? Who’s the decider? Inspiration takes the form of intent and everything has the potential to inspire us. Again, the deeply part is our decision.

Potter’s like: There is a lag time between the creation and the acceptance of most (especially modern) ART….This requires a change in attitude of the beholder. I go: Snap. You recognize that the beholder’s (your) attitude is responsible for the ART – the thesis of most of this exchange.

I’m like: Because the majority believes something to be true does not make it true. Potter’s all: The majority in this case are those people who devote their lives to understanding, experiencing/focusing on these expressions.…You sweep it all away, as with (parts of) “Darwinian Evolution� and for the same broad brush unsubstantiated reasons about consensus. I’m like: If people devote their lives to understanding, and focusing on a field, that doesn’t guarantee they understand or have the TRUTH regarding that field. What I sweep away is the assertion that because a majority of people believes anything, that makes it a fact. That is the Bandwagon fallacy period. The majority may be in agreement but wrong, or they may be right. The majority of the pre-Copernican thinkers believed the Earth was the center of the solar system. The majority of the inhabitants of Olde Salem MA believed that some people were witches. The majority of people in the nineteenth century were against woman sufferage. The majority of people in the U.S. (and in the world) believe in God and capital punishment. The majority of voters voted for GWB. Consensus!!!