picasso's Guernica, 1937
is there aesthetic knowledge?
this is a very important question.
without aesthetic knowledge it becomes quite difficult to evaluate why we like what we like other than begging the question on our taste. "
It's good because I like it"? (kind of circular)
I propose this soft formula
aesthetic judgments = aesthetic facts + aesthetic norms
aesthetic norms evolve through a process of trial and error in time (hundred of thousand of years). there is an evolutionary argument to be made for aesthetic norms (since late homo erectus and homo sapiens). they already had internalized certain facts pertaining early medicine, early cooking, moral norms (which we already discussed), early art, early religion.
I propose this soft formula
aesthetic judgments = aesthetic facts + aesthetic norms
aesthetic norms evolve through a process of trial and error in time (hundred of thousand of years). there is an evolutionary argument to be made for aesthetic norms (since late homo erectus and homo sapiens). they already had internalized certain facts pertaining early medicine, early cooking, moral norms (which we already discussed), early art, early religion.
why do we enjoy certain colors? the smell of firewood? the sight of a sunset? why did we have to make this figurine?
Willendorf Venus, circa 30,000 BC
Our paleolithic ancestors are telling us what matters: THE GODDESS OF FERTILITY. The figurine conjures at once beauty and magic.
homo sapiens could not have built civilizations without aesthetic norms (Lacaux paintings)
look at the Karnak Temple in Egypt. the construction requires a degree of consensus pertaining planning, measuring, transportation of materials, construction methods, manufacture, masonry technology, etc. yet, from the anthropological standpoint it's difficult to establish which comes first, the norms or the society (since any society comes with norms in it).
NOT ONLY IN ART and ARCHITECTURE, BUT ALSO IN THE CULINARY ARTS.
are there aesthetic facts in the chicken broth?
you bet.
in the long evolution of the production of the stock (we call it CULINARY SCIENCE) we get the right method. it's right because it tastes better, it tastes better because of the facts of the matter of the preparation. YES, SLOW IS MUCH BETTER.
why? MORE COLLAGEN EXTRACTED FROM THE BONES. this is a chemical property, which translates into TASTE. this is a CULINARY FACT.
there are culinary facts, musical facts, political facts, etc:
what makes an aesthetic "fact"?
look at the Karnak Temple in Egypt. the construction requires a degree of consensus pertaining planning, measuring, transportation of materials, construction methods, manufacture, masonry technology, etc. yet, from the anthropological standpoint it's difficult to establish which comes first, the norms or the society (since any society comes with norms in it).
NOT ONLY IN ART and ARCHITECTURE, BUT ALSO IN THE CULINARY ARTS.
are there aesthetic facts in the chicken broth?
you bet.
in the long evolution of the production of the stock (we call it CULINARY SCIENCE) we get the right method. it's right because it tastes better, it tastes better because of the facts of the matter of the preparation. YES, SLOW IS MUCH BETTER.
why? MORE COLLAGEN EXTRACTED FROM THE BONES. this is a chemical property, which translates into TASTE. this is a CULINARY FACT.
there are culinary facts, musical facts, political facts, etc:
what makes an aesthetic "fact"?
aesthetic facts = aesthetic norms + facts
here is a diagram about the construction of consensus:
take picasso's GUERNICA above. we'd examine the painting's formal qualities, the new style it represents (Cubism & Surrealism), as well as the painting's reception (Spanish pavillion 1937 and all the people that have written about the painting) and its influence in subsequent 20th & 21st century art (the intersubjectivity explain the consensus, which takes time to build: best consensus cannot be produced overnight).
the best consensus provides the best explanation for these "notes." this slow layer-upon-layer of reasons through the centuries become a formidable value accumulation. the term "masterpiece" simply describes the process.
this is when i made a distinction between saying:
1. I hate Guernica and 2. Guernica is a mediocre painting.
there differences here to note:
1. is a personal opinion, which one is entitled to; 2. is a statement of "fact" going against the best consensus.
2. is actually quite difficult. to prove 2. one would have to produce an argument to defeat 81 years of consensus; not impossible, but unlikely.
from 1. to 2. there is an enormous value/gap, which the counter would have to defeat.
Guernica is a masterpiece because of the "facts" pertaining Guernica, which is why it is in the CANON.
consensus is NEVER static. it's a dynamic process where each Guernica reviewed and written about, discussed, is different than the previous one. numerically speaking there is only one Guernica, qualitatively there are many.
this is how the work becomes canonical (or part of the canon of a civilization).
consensus lends itself to best consensus. best consensus is just the best of the previous consensus. "best" is important because it is more reliable. less subject to negotiation with plain info.
best consensus is not what makes Guernica a masterpiece. Guernica is a masterpice because of "facts" in Guernica. what the best consensus does is flesh out these "facts".
here is a diagram about the construction of consensus:
see that the info is negotiated via cause/effect
inter-subjectively from the outside into consensus and from consensus into best consensus. best consensus' main property is that it's more reliable, more resistant to to and fro from the outside
take picasso's GUERNICA above. we'd examine the painting's formal qualities, the new style it represents (Cubism & Surrealism), as well as the painting's reception (Spanish pavillion 1937 and all the people that have written about the painting) and its influence in subsequent 20th & 21st century art (the intersubjectivity explain the consensus, which takes time to build: best consensus cannot be produced overnight).
the best consensus provides the best explanation for these "notes." this slow layer-upon-layer of reasons through the centuries become a formidable value accumulation. the term "masterpiece" simply describes the process.
this is when i made a distinction between saying:
1. I hate Guernica and 2. Guernica is a mediocre painting.
there differences here to note:
1. is a personal opinion, which one is entitled to; 2. is a statement of "fact" going against the best consensus.
2. is actually quite difficult. to prove 2. one would have to produce an argument to defeat 81 years of consensus; not impossible, but unlikely.
from 1. to 2. there is an enormous value/gap, which the counter would have to defeat.
Guernica is a masterpiece because of the "facts" pertaining Guernica, which is why it is in the CANON.
consensus is NEVER static. it's a dynamic process where each Guernica reviewed and written about, discussed, is different than the previous one. numerically speaking there is only one Guernica, qualitatively there are many.
this is how the work becomes canonical (or part of the canon of a civilization).
consensus lends itself to best consensus. best consensus is just the best of the previous consensus. "best" is important because it is more reliable. less subject to negotiation with plain info.
best consensus is not what makes Guernica a masterpiece. Guernica is a masterpice because of "facts" in Guernica. what the best consensus does is flesh out these "facts".
No comments:
Post a Comment