Interesting take on taste (as in good/bad)

[mame]

http://www.paulgraham.com/taste.html

(If you are interested in philosophical word-ese, there's always Hume's
"Of The Standard of Taste")

and just for fun

http://quizilla.com/users/boatboy19842003/quizzes/Do%20you%20have%20good%20taste%3F/

[AmyH]

paul graham is outstanding, hit it right on the money, thanks for posting this MOST EXCELLENT read!!!!

[debbi_carr]

yes Molly. i am really appreciating the article...i think many have done discourses on the same matter and left a bad taste in my mouth...but, i believe because he hit the subject from all angles, that gave it credibility based on scientific objectivity in my mind. every time i thought "but what about...?" i found a discussion about it in the next section. it wasn't an overly aggressive or abrasive article but rather one of introspection delivered in a matter-of-fact tone. Thanks a bunch.

Deborah.

[MountainSong]

:D Thanks Mame - another interesting and enjoyable read. This was particularly well written in fact.

[muchfoolishness]

good thinking food
thanks molly :)

[SanDL]

Thanks Molly, it looks useful, I printed it out and willl peruse in a softer location than this chair.

[mame]

Have been thinking about "taste" recently for some reason.

I once read a quote by an Interior Design diva I've since forgotten the name of who said:

"I wish people with money had good taste and people with good taste had money".

It's fun to share these little finds with yall because you don't JUST take it hook, line and sinker nor reject it wholly out of hand - but are discerning, consider the "angle" of the author, reflect on the IDEA of it, perhaps pursue further investigation out of curiosity or intrigue, maybe get excited about something you hadn't thought of before or offer another layer to my own perception/paradigm.

[FriendCarol]

Just read the article (offline) -- terrific! I agree with just about everything. Still want to be "expressive abstractionist," though. :evil:

Btw, have I ever mentioned I don't care to live in Charlotte? :D I put this list through their catalogue, preparing for a visit yesterday. This is the library for the COUNTY; just the city contains (I'm told) over a quarter of a million souls:
Dewey - "Art as Experience" NA (not even mentioned in catalogue, though 3 other books they do have, have this title!)
Langer - "Feeling and Form" NA (Yet this is on MY much depleted shelves, along with something like "Problems in Art"; Philosophy in a New Key disappeared -- probably stolen years ago by a homeless man I sheltered for some months in my spare bedroom, like most of my other good looking texts.)
Goodman - "When is Art", "Language of Art" NA
Heidegger - "The Origin of the Work of Art" NA
Bullough - "Psychical Distance As A Factor In Art And As An Aesthetic Principle" closest I could get was a "Geoffrey B." who wrote about British writers & poets, 17th century, and edited Oxford book of 17th Century Verse.
Vygotsky - "The Psychology of Art" nope
Abstract Art/PostModernism:
Kandinsky, Wassily (1866-1944) - "Concrete Art" Concerning the spiritual in art Dover Publications, 1977. Call #: 701.17 (0 copies) (considering the copyright, maybe this is ABOUT him, not by him? Anyway, they seem to have 0 copies!)
Mondrian, Piet - "Plastic Art And Pure Plastic Art" NA
Mondrian, 1892-1914 : the path to abstraction : catalogue / by Janssen, Hans.
Waanders Publishers ; Kimbell Art Museum ; Reunion des musees nationaux, c2002. Call #: 709 OVERSIZE # of Copies: 2
Lyotard - "What Is Postmodernism"? Unless this guy is Jean Francois and wrote "Heidigger and the Jews" (around 1990 copyright date), I don't think they have him, either.

So, of 10 authors (not talking specific works, just anything by these authors), they carry 0. Did I mention Charlotte prides itself on being 'all about business?' *sigh* I saw one of those local magazines cities use to boost themselves once, with front-page article "Does Charlotte Have a Place for Intellectuals?" Did find 3 books about art, which I'll list some other time (if I find they were worth reading).

I sure hope WC! itself turns out to be a "place" in the sense of that article, or I'll never make it. (This morning I saw so much helpful constructive writing, in this forum alone, that I'm rather hopeful it will be or is. :) )

[Jet]

Mame,
That was a great article..Real 'munchies for thought'...
....This said, as to imply it is something we crave for (as in munchies), instead of we 'need' ( as in food)... :wink2:

I am glad to find these, timeless & accurate words with many truths implied:
When you're forced to be simple, you're forced to face the real problem.
When you can't deliver ornament, you have to deliver substance.

These words are the cornerstone of pragmatic thought, same words not many "artists" are willing to ever be told; let alone give a second thought ... :(

Congrats !

Kind Regards

[mame]

Jet - and boy is it hard to get back to "simple" after a few years of jading!

FriendCarol - I've got an old anthology of Aesthetic Theory I've had for years that includes many of these guys and essays re aesthetics. It's pretty much an historical overview. In some cases, it is the entire essay, in others a short version. Has a good bibliography/footnotes though. I have the 2nd edition printed in 1987. There was a 3rd edition but don't know if any after that.

I found it for you at Powell's Books if you are interested in pursuing


http://www.powells.com/search/DTSearch/search?kw=&isbn=&author=&publisher=&title=Art+and+Its+Significance&section=&submit=Start+Search&class=all&binding=any&sort=by_title&sort2=by_author&store=all&perpage=25

If the URL doesn't work, Google Powell's Books,(Portland, Oregon) go to art, then I think philosophy and search:

"Art and Its Significance, An Anthology of Aesthetic Theory"

[FriendCarol]

These words are the cornerstone of pragmatic thought, same words not many "artists" are willing to ever be told; let alone give a second thought ...And taking it the opposite way around is useful, too (perhaps not for artists)! To solve a problem, I often advocate taking it to the next (higher) level of abstraction, then come back down. First, however, one must 'simplify' the problem.

Ex: I need a hammer, don't have one. Simplify: I need to apply pressure to this sharp object to embed it. Move up: I need a relatively heavy object I can control to apply force precisely without endangering myself or destroying the object. Solution: some other heavy object, graspable and smooth on the business end (maybe a shoe, a 2"x4", etc.).

Also, properly simplifying the problem (or going higher up on the ladder of abstraction) leads to a wider range of solutions: I need to embed an object through this... Drill a hole, then screw in something with threads.

Actually, maybe artists do this. Maybe 'simplifying the problem' is what I'm trying to do now with one piece (not literally "now," but "now" in my painting life). The problem has to do with white space, but the real constraints I should observe in order to reduce the white space are proving elusive. I think identifying minimal constraints has a lot to do with elegance (or beauty, if you will). Maybe identifying them, then meeting them in a minimal (playful? strange?) way, is the sum of it.

Mame, thanks, I put that page in my Bookmarks. Hoping I'll have a few dollars left after paying bills, once a small insurance settlement comes through one of these days. :)

[Jet]

I am glad to find these, timeless & accurate words with many truths implied.-

And taking it the opposite way around is useful, too (perhaps not for artists)! To solve a problem, I often advocate taking it to the next (higher) level of abstraction, then come back down. First, however, one must 'simplify' the problem.

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/03-Jul-2004/27782-biggthumpup.gif..Yup!! that's great example of the many truths implied in those words...
A very practical way of applying them in our everyday tasks, too. :cool:

Mame, sure it's hard to get over old habits..LOL... :)

Kind Regards
:cool:

[Don Berendsen]

Thanks for the link to the article. I found it interesting and well written and consistent with my views. I've never felt that beauty was arbitrary, and naturally taste wouldn't be either.

I was a math major in college, my interest was in 'pure mathematics' rather than applied. That's just about as abstract as one can get, yet there is great beauty. One incident in particular confirmed my thoughts about beauty. I ran across a famous theorum, I think it was by Fermat, and was so awestruck by the beauty of it that I was overwhelmed by emotion and broke down in tears. The other students didn't 'get it', but fortunately the professor did. When I went up after class one day to share my experience with him he got a tear in his eye and hugged me. He saw that beauty, and the communion we experienced in that moment was both deep and rare.

To me that beauty was not different than the beauty in a magnificent sunrise, in an attractive human form, or a flower. It's certainly not a matter of societal norms, culture, education or opinion. It's totally abstract, no correlation to anything in the physical world that is known, no apparent usefulness.

Think for a moment about how mathematicians come up with theorums. There are obviously an infinite number of theorums, yet out of the literally never-ending source of theorums mathematicians choose to prove those that not only are true, but often are of great practical value in the future. Reimann (http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Riemann.html) is a good example.

How does this happen? As Paul Graham points out it's 'taste' coupled with hard work.

His essay on design and research (http://www.paulgraham.com/desres.html) talks about working methods and I think is very applicable to the artistic process in general, and applies very well to the creation of abstract art. Often it seems to me artists use the 'Hail Mary strategy' he mentions in this essay.

There is a problem in abstract art in that the referent is not an object for which there is a clear, shared experience of such as the human figure. I think much of the problem with abstract art is that the artist doesn't have a clear referent, and isn't willing to make the effort to apprehend one and develop the expressive powers to make their experience of that referent accessible to others.

FWIW,

db

[FriendCarol]

There is a problem in abstract art in that the referent is not an object for which there is a clear, shared experience of such as the human figure. I think much of the problem with abstract art is that the artist doesn't have a clear referent, and isn't willing to make the effort to apprehend one and develop the expressive powers to make their experience of that referent accessible to others.
I'm learning to think of the 'referent' for abstract art as sometimes being the, um, transformations -- something more a verb than a noun.

One example: I can appreciate some abstract landscapes because the painter gives me cues such as shadow and transitions and variations that 'match' (in some sense -- insert words here one would learn in art school :D ) how one treats recognizable objects in a 'real' landscape. What happens in a slope, for example, is a variation of tone -- isn't it? -- and the fact that that happens on a hillside or some purely imaginary plane doesn't matter so much. Even in my own work, I can 'see' a fold when I'm playing with color and shapes (although making it is still pure accident, most of the time, since I'm not yet competent). Then I can make it more of a fold, if 'fold' contributes to whatever I'm after.

Or, I think of getting a 3-d effect on lettering in PhotoShop -- just consistently 'shadow' (consistency of direction, I mean) whatever the object is; in my case, I do this sometimes where the 'shadow' color is neither dark nor related in any way other than something I can't name (a color relationship, I could describe examples, but don't have the language to express it precisely) the color of the 'object.' My object, too, is sometimes line rather than shape. And, the 'shadow' might alter its color, maybe in some subtly consistent way.

In addition, within abstract art, there is or can be (maybe should be, more often!), a relationship between parts and wholes... Or even between parts and other parts... If I do something and repeat the same processing on a different base, or perform successive (related) transformations of that process, that can be part of the meaning, or at least can be enjoyed (even if the bases are not obviously related). Isn't there a sense in which the repetition of the abstracted process is enjoyable even in the absence of meaningful base referent? (To use a distorted mathematical example: a pure curve extended, not an actual number series; and a family of such curves, perhaps.)

I'm almost devil's advocate in saying this, since what I want to do myself is to 'take off from' real (or rather representational) objects. But I'm learning to appreciate more 'abstract' approaches than mine. :) Sorry about the sloppiness which which this is expressed. I've been procrastinating all day, and really have to do some other stuff now. (Or soon!)

[Tamana]

[...]

Btw, have I ever mentioned I don't care to live in Charlotte? :D

[...]

So, of 10 authors (not talking specific works, just anything by these authors), they carry 0. Did I mention Charlotte prides itself on being 'all about business?' *sigh* I saw one of those local magazines cities use to boost themselves once, with front-page article "Does Charlotte Have a Place for Intellectuals?" Did find 3 books about art, which I'll list some other time (if I find they were worth reading).

I sure hope WC! itself turns out to be a "place" in the sense of that article, or I'll never make it. (This morning I saw so much helpful constructive writing, in this forum alone, that I'm rather hopeful it will be or is. :) )

Ugh. It's pathetic. It's the second largest banking capital of the country. Nada culture; ZERO stimuli where the arts are concerned (imho). Now imagine living juuuuuust outside the city in a smaller town with...well...LESS.

We're literally starving artists.