[Aiwendil]

Hi Aiwendil - we meet again in that torchlit arena - "What is Art II"

Well, I've been trying to restrain myself from going into all-out rant mode, but how can I resist when you've thrown down the gauntlet like that?

I think (or perhaps hope) that some of our differences are more a question of degree or language

I think some are. But I believe our primary difference lies in our approach to the whole question. More on this shortly.

Well, I'm not sure that mathematics has in all cultures invariably followed the Western model; my understanding is that traditional Arabic was different, and Chinese also (I may be corrected).

Certainly the evolution of mathematics has been different in different cultures. But the laws of mathematics are the laws of mathematics. The square of the hypotenuse of a right triangle equals the sum of the squares of the legs, regardless of what culture you're in (well, as long as you're in non-curved space). I agree that it seems unlikely that the same is true of aesthetics.

This seems a little contradictory. If aesthetic values are universal, AND the knowledge of different artistic cultures or methods is not a key factor in appreciating (or understanding) a form of art, then somone who can appreciate the aesthetic qualities of Mozart should certainly be able to also appreciate the aesthetic qualities of other art forms.

This is why it's not contradictory: I can't appreciate the aesthetics of a Russian novel because I don't understand Russian. It's not that Russian literature is held to a different standard; it's simply that the means by which that standard is approached (the language) is incomprehensible to me. Someone might not understand Eliot's [u]The Wasteland[/i] because he or she does not understand the various literary allusions. The allusions, in this case, contribute to the aesthetic appeal. The devices used to achieve beauty may vary from culture to culture, but beauty is beauty.

The refutation of empericism as an absolute reflection of reality (by Hume and others) has never in itself been overturned.
. . . Just because a separate and absolute essence of something exists, it does not follow from there that its purpose or nature is one thing or another

I perhaps complicated the matter by introducing Plato. I did not mean that I think a thing called Art exists physically on some other plane of being. My point can be taken merely syntactically; what I mean is that if you say the purpose of music is one thing and the purpose of literature is another (for example), you are essentially saying that there are two fundamentally different things, both of which happen to be called "art".

We are back to the 10,000 monkeys writing Shakespeare here.

Herein seems to lie the heart of our disagreement. If a monkey handed me King Lear (supposing he had just written it) I would consider it a great work of art. I gather that you would not.

If this is the case, you could just as well argue that no one should bother with art - it will occur 'naturally', and indeed the hills and mountains and seas themselves all meet to an unsurpassable degree such purposeless aesthetic ideals.

If nature produced symphonies and novels randomly, then yes - there would be little need for art. But in practice it doesn't. I don't think that a hill is as aesthetically pleasing as The Lord of the Rings. Why do humans build houses when nature has provided us with caves? Because humans are better at building shelter than nature is. There is aesthetic beauty in nature, but because nature has no sense of aesthetics, this beauty is random. Humans do have a sense of aesthetics, so they are able to produce aesthetically beautiful things more often and more succesfully.

The implication is that there is never any disagreement in aesthetic evaluations - 'those who know' immediately perceive what is good based on these abstract quantifiable criteria.

This was not an intended implication. There is disagreement about the laws of physics, but that doesn't mean that a single set of universally true laws does not exist.

and without the presence and creativity of the artist the work would not exist or appeal at all.

Probably not. Without the intention of a car manufacturer, a car would probably not be created. But if it were created by chance, would it not be just as useful for getting from one place to another?

There is a sinister side to this too - what about the appropriation of art by totalitarianism, relating aesthetic criteria to a validation of its oppressive worldview?

A terrible thing, I agree. However: 1. If art is aesthetic beauty, it does not follow that aesthetic beauty is whatever the state says it is. 2. I am not saying anything about morality. I think that whether a piece of art is good or bad artistically is a completely different question from whether it is good or bad morally.

To read or hear the work is to experience the intention of the author, both consciously and 'unintentionally'.

Being a student of quantum physics, I must disagree. We can never know the intention of the author with certainty. For any given present state, there are an infinite number of past states which may have led to it.

I don't see communication as a reduction, but I suspect we are using the word differently.

We probably are. I have a feeling I don't believe in the existence of the kind of communication that you are talking about. I see it as a reduction for this reason: if the only purpose of art is communication, why not just communicate? Why not just write a philosophical treatise? It is sure to be a lot more clear, a lot more comprehensible, than if the author encodes his or her message in a work of literature.

By your argument, there is nothing wrong with someone saying their soda bottle is art if (unintentionally) it happens to meet certain abstract aesthetic criteria.

It would appear that by either of our definitions, a soda bottle can be art. By my definition it can be art because it may have certain aesthetic properties. By your definition it can be art because its creator may have intended it to be art. I think the more relevant question is: is this good art? By my definition, it is probably not. The aesthetic qualities of a soda bottle are minimal compared to most novels or paintings or symphonies. I think you would also say that it is not good art; but I fail to see how you can say this, by your argument, without knowing the intention of its creator.

you immediately conclude that they are "failing for non-artistic reasons".

Well, I conclude that either they are failing or I am failing.

It could easily be used by religious fundamentalists (of any denomination) as a justification for action.

First of all, I don't think that the quality of art should be used as a justification for action at all. Secondly, I have not made any value judgements regarding who is right. I have merely proposed that if two people believe contradictory things, one or both must be wrong.

I will raise your Mozart with my John Coltrane ... to therefore assume my preference is because of non-artistic reasons is very presumptious, and rather insulting

I see it like this: you say that Coltrane is better; I say that Mozart is better. We cannot both be right. Of course I think that I'm right - if I thought that you were right, then I wouldn't think that Mozart is better. I acknowledge, of course, that I may be wrong. But only one of us can be right - unless you want to say that the quality of art is entirely subjective, in which case you have "Britney Speares is better than Mozart" being true for all those misguided pre-teens. (By the way, I do like Coltrane, though not as much as Mozart).

I mentioned that I think our primary difference is in approach. I think that I am approaching the question from a purely abstract position, whereas you are thinking about the way art works in practice. I would say that I am taking the viewpoint of a scientist and you that of an artist, but I think that's a very oversimplified evaluation.

I've wracked my brain for some way to tie this all back in with the original question. I've failed. Though I very much enjoy this debate, I think the thread has been pretty much derailed.