r/arttheory

Hi everyone, I hope this is the right subreddit to ask, but if not, please kindly redirect me! I'm studying Breton's Manifestoes of Surrealism and I'm wondering what he means to say in this passage:

>Let me come back again to the waking state. I have no choice but to consider it a phenomenon of interference. Not only does the mind display, in this state, a strange tendency to lose its bearings (as evidenced by the slips and mistakes the secrets of which are just beginning to be revealed to us), but, what is more, it does not appear that, when the mind is functioning normally, it really responds to anything but the suggestions which come to it from the depths of that dark night to which I commend it. However conditioned it may be, its balance is relative. It scarcely dares express itself and, if it does, it confines itself to verifying that such and such an idea, or such and such a woman, has made an impression on it. What impression it would be hard pressed to say, by which it reveals the degree of its subjectivity, and nothing more. This idea, this woman, disturb it, they tend to make it less severe. What they do is isolate the mind for a second from its solvent and spirit it to heaven, as the beautiful precipitate it can be, that it is. When all else fails, it then calls upon chance, a divinity even more obscure than the others to whom it ascribes all its aberrations. Who can say to me that the angle by which that idea which affects it is offered, that what it likes in the eye of that woman is not precisely what links it to its dream, binds it to those fundamental facts which, through its own fault, it has lost? And if things were different, what might it be capable of? I would like to provide it with the key to this corridor.

I feel like the woman comes quite out of left field here. Is he arguing that women lack the dreaming capabilities of men? Is he relating the waking state to women (and later the dream state to men as he follows this passage with, "The mind of the man who dreams is fully satisfied by what happens to him")?

Thank you in advanced for any help.

Please could someone point out the main flaws in my argument for Art being in some way 'objective'. I'm certain there will be multiple flaws, but I feel that I'm not qualified to best expose them.

As a brief prelude I should mention that I started to think of art as 'non-subjective' partly in order to push back against the 'all art is subjective' and 'everything is poetry' responses that come up in layman's discussions about these things. As a brief disclaimer, while I know that those are serious philosophical positions that should be contended with, in the context of everyday discussions they're regularly used to terminate the conversation and render disagreement null and void, which I find irritating. I'm going to try to prevent that irritation from tainting the below argument.

I'm also aware that pushing back against 'All art is anarchically subjective' is different from saying 'Art is objective', and that the rejection of the former does not entail or require accepting the latter.

Laying the groundwork, I notice that in physics we can posit objective facts which are conditional on contexts. For example the temperature at which I optimally bake a cake A has a single, fully determined objective answer, but that singular, fully determined answer's value changes according to prior conditions, such as the altitude I am baking at. That's separate from saying that the temperature required to optimally bake cake A can be any number whatsoever; rather, it just shows that the objective answer shifts according to environmental context. So far so good (I hope).

Taking a less secure kind of 'objectivity', we know that in chess the rules are intersubjectively agreed upon (or develop). There might be objective facts about human perception, human anatomy (the pieces need to be moved by hands with dextrous digits or whatever; the colours can vary but must ultimately conform to the limits of human perception) and human cognition that determine what kind of rules can be developed, but ultimately out of the set A of possible rules, there is an infinite number of rulesets to pick between. However, once rule-set A(x) has been chosen, then in order to play the game chess, those rules become binding, and the moves available to a player are objectively limited and determined, regardless of what the player would like to do outside of those rules (flick the king over from across the board; trash all the pieces, etc.). So a looser kind of conditional objectivity.

You can probably see where I'm going with this...

I don't think art is objective in the way physics is, but I do think that given the priors of historical hermeneutic framework, body organisation, perceptual-cognitive constraints, artistic tradition, linguistic practices, for a 'subject' existing within that network of constraints, certain interpretations are structurally compatible with the artwork and certain are incompatible.

FYI I'm allowing for the idea that the artwork and the subject are not themselves independent objects but are themselves co-determined and reciprocally constituted by the various things I mentioned (historical framework, body, perception, artistic tradition, linguistic practices) etc. So the art object can be an evolving object shaped predictably by an evolving environment (which it shapes), and from a bird's eye view it's meaning can change significantly, but for a subject within a two hour timeslot these slow, tectonic changes aren't as relevant. The evolution analogy is intentional, and will come to the fore further down.

So like with chess, after we have a mixture of objective and intersubjective conditions set, the options are limited by those conditions. With an artwork, given conditions X, certain interpretations are structurally compatible and certain are incompatible with the formal organisation of that work as it exists within the current context.

As a brief aside regarding structurally compatible and structurally incompatible interpretations, I don't want to limit art; this still allows for infinite interpretations, but it also disallows a larger infinity of incorrect interpretations. It's like transfinite sets. The set of all prime numbers is both structurally constrained and infinite. An artwork is like a transfinite set with LOTS of baroque structural constraints. Whereas subjectivism says 'all interpretations are equally valid', my view says that 'there an infinite amount of correct interpretations; but there is also a much larger infinity of incorrect interpretations', like with Cantorian sets etc.

In this sense I do think Art is non-subjective, because interpretation is constrained by the structured relations of the work as it exists within shared perceptual and historical conditions, such that some interpretations are not just unlikely but structurally impossible. Eg given our current situation, regardless of country or origin or prior books read, hamlet being about moon piglets discovering fajitas is structurally incompatible with the semantic and narrative organisation of the play. Even as shared reading practices change across history, none of them change so drastically as to entirely change the meanings of words as radically as that, since some continuity of meaning across time is a necessary condition for language to function, (and is something we can demonstrate via etymology and philology.) So I'd add that there's a hierarchy of things which are more or less vulnerable to shifting historical contexts; certain aspects are more robust, and others can change quite a lot (again, similar to evolution; exaptation is also a viable analogy for how reception of artworks can shift, but i'll leave that aside for now).

The shared linguistic and perceptual conventions are of course historically determined from a timeless bird's eye view of all history, but they are operatively real and constraining for any person A living within that timeframe and practising within that paradigm. It's the same logic that prevents me from arbitrarily changing the meaning of words without offering any reasoning or informing anyone that I'm going to do it; I'll just end up sounding gibberish. The constraints are intersubjective, but once there, the possibilities are objective, similar to the Chess example. i.e. A is up in the air, but given A, set B necessarily follows.

So to summarise, while conditions can shift, the possible interpretations shift in predictable accordance with the shift in those conditions, like in the cake example.

One rebuttal is that in the systems of physics and even chess, the presumed difference is that the system is closed, and once the system or conditions have been specified, there is a single correct answer. With art, however, even if the paradigm or conditions can constrain what interpretations are structurally viable with the text-era-culture-person interaction, they can't fully determine a single correct answer, but can only constrain a set of competing interpretations. 

My response would be that Art's meaning by definition is irreducible to denotational propositions, but that is not the same as saying that it does not have a singular correct answer. It is just that propositional language cannot exhaustively capture it. It is forced instead to capture 'aspects' of it. I think art being irreducible to propositional language is often considered a central definition of art, so asking it to contravene this definition would demand art be in contradiction with itself.

So art does fully determine a single correct answer, but that answer, call it an aesthetic form or harmony, is not the kind of thing that can be captured in a single proposition. Competing interpretations are partial and fragmentary appreciations of different aspects of this aesthetic object. It is a single, fully determined, evolving object which evolves objectively in harmony with its attendant contexts and whose richness exceeds any single articulation. The consequences of this are that all interpretations have SOMETHING to say (even a terrible interpretation will likely land on 0.0001% of the structure, even if burdened with mistaken understanding), while also allowing that some interpretations more comprehensively capture the object, and yet also allowing that no single interpretation can exhaustively capture it. 

Having used 'aesthetic object' as a convenient term to get here, we can swap it out for 'field of relations' or 'relational structure', if we want to avoid any metaphysical baggage associated with 'thinghood' or 'independent atomistic objects' etc.

I think my view is massively informed by Kuhn and Wittgenstein tbh, with a tiny bit of Kant thrown in just because some of his language around the Sublime is very useful. In Kuhn science takes place within a paradigm. A paradigm sets the conditions for what can legitimately be posed, what solutions are valid, and what counts as an error. Cus for Kuhn a paradigm sets the conditions under which scientific practice proceeds. And scientists working within a paradigm aren’t free to say anything whatsoever; they can’t just shift things around willy-nilly; they operate within a structured field of possibilities where they test ideas against the framework already in place, and then according to the results either refine or extend or reject those ideas with respect to said framework. Gradually, too, from this process, the framework evolves – it’s like, reciprocal -- but it’s always evolving more slowly than the ideas being tested are evolving, so with respect to those ideas, the paradigm still functions as a legitimate framework that can ground them and make sense of them. An artwork does something analogous, with respect to the shared linguistic practices and the shared perceptual architecture of the individuals experiencing/participating in it. This explains how tastes and standards evolve, but also allows us to say that within a particular paradigm of tastes and standards, we can evaluate how aesthetically valid something is. We can’t do it exhaustively, and there are loads of fuzzy boundaries, but we can make a punt towards it, and for extreme cases (e.g. ACOTAR v Hamlet), we can make pretty determinate judgements on it.

An artwork is something that establishes its own kind of mini-paradigm in real-time as it unfolds (and is itself situated within a larger paradigm of aesthetics and spectatorship and language and visuality, which is also more slowly evolving). Because it unfolds in time, it's mini-paradigm can evolve and reorganise its hierarchies of dominant and minor elements. Let's say the opening elements set up a local horizon of expectation, which subsequent elements can complicate and deepen, or break. If they 'break' it, this break can become the hinge through which the whole piece expands its 'grammar', so to speak, into a wider structure of coherence which can integrate that break into a new, more-encompassing paradigm. Likewise the break can shift the hierarchy of elements, forcing a background framing structure to become a point of focus, and allowing points of focus to retreat and become the new ground. There are 'traditions' that encourage certain elements to remain the 'ground' or 'dominant', such as the tradition of subordinating everything to narrative purpose in Literature, but these can be broken within the tradition (Flaubert in the realist novel), or can be broken in such a way that a new tradition emerges (the Nouveau Roman, best embodied in Claude Simon), which in turn re-shapes how we read the earlier tradition (the descriptions become more salient in Balzac and Zola after reading the Nouveau Romanciers).

So as the artwork is experienced in time, as it develops, it establishes a network of relations between its internal elements -- tone, language, character, structural rhythm, visuals, sound, etc. etc. etc.-- that begins to shape expectations about what can meaningfully follow from what. It’s basically about harmony, and expectations of harmony. Musical form is a good example because one note sets up myriad expectations for the next note, and as more notes occur, the expectations morph and evolve accordingly. These expectations are not explicit rules, but they are strong enough to organise interpretation, so that readers/listeners are interpreting within a space that the work itself has progressively structured as it has unfolded. You’re engaging in a complex kind of sensory and intellectual puzzle-solving whose rules emerge and consolidate in real time, one that involves tracing and appreciating what is already made possible by the emerging framework (itself made possible by the artwork's objective form), rather than imposing something wholly external.

Anomalies can arise, or results that initially seem out of place, but these are often absorbed and reinterpreted within the paradigm, sometimes even deepening it. The same is true in other artforms, where a surprising shift in tone or meaning can feel momentarily dissonant, yet still be integrated if it can be brought into relation with the rest of the work’s structure. In fact this can kind of help you see a grander structure, since comparing the dissonance to the earlier consonance forces you to take a step further back, and look at it from a meta’structural level. And similarly, while these dissonant anomalies, these moments of thwarted expectation, can be aesthetic, it’s obvs not a complete free-for-all; there are predictable limits. Some moves in an artwork are not merely unusual but are so structurally out of place they cannot feasibly be reconciled with the network of relations the work has established, or with the larger paradigm of interpretative practice that really and effectively exists for that reader/listener at that time. This also leaves room for a listener/reader/watcher from a later era, with a new interpretative paradigm, to appreciate something which in the artwork’s own time was too dissonant to be structurally reconciled with its other elements.

Constraints can evolve mid-way through a film or book ofc -- but pulling it off requires a gradual evolution and some kind of overarching harmony that a reader/listener/watcher can apprehend. Zen Koans and Wittgenstein's Tractatus seemed to do this. In this situation a new paradigm imperceptibly bursts out of a previous paradigm which was incubating it.

Based on Walter Benjamin's "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction"

Interested in different people's perspectives and opinions on abstract art and its place in modern society.
I personally like certain abstract styles and artists, like Robert Delaunay, but the abstract art that is flooding most galleries and markets today looks sloppy and ugly, colours that have been lazily strewn across the canvas, meant to symbolise the artists opinions or ideas.
They lack discipline and design, hiding behind the excuse of "this represents my feelings"!
I believe statements of one's opinions and emotions can be made through art don't get me wrong, but not at the expense of visual excellence.
Many artists of the past used symbolism in their work but still put in effort to make it appealing and beautiful, this takes more talent. What annoys me most is that these types of artists expect and even demand to be held in the same regard as creative masters, ones who have put in effort and dedication, who have actually earned the right to have their paintings hung in galleries.

Hi! I'm reading Nicolas Bourriaud book "Relational Aesthetics" and I wanted to know if anyone has a podcast recommendation that talks about it or something similar.

Thank you in advance!!

Welcome to Philosophy for Artists! A light and relaxing way to spend summer Sunday afternoons.

This is a reading-and-practice group exploring philosophy in relation to artistic work. Each session begins with a close reading of a short philosophical text drawn from aesthetics, phenomenology, and existential thought, followed by time to work in whatever medium you choose—drawing, writing, sound, movement, or other studio practice. That is, we will actually spend part of our time working creatively, in “parallel play”.

The aim is not to treat philosophy as commentary on art, but as something that can actively inform how we perceive, make, and situate ourselves as artists. At the same time, the sessions take seriously the reverse claim: that artistic practice can clarify, resist, or extend philosophical ideas in ways that argument alone cannot capture.

Sessions are structured as 2.5 hours: approximately one hour of shared reading and discussion, an hour and fifteen minutes of making, and a final fifteen-minute group check-out. The emphasis throughout is on sustained attention, material engagement, and the relationship between thinking and doing, rather than interpretation alone. All participants are invited to bring materials and work during the practice portion; no prior artistic training is assumed, only a willingness to make.

I would like this group to be as inclusive as possible. Yes, some folks may be professional artists but others may just be “creative-curious”. As an expressive artist myself, I’m a big believer that everyone is inherently creative and that art as a form of expression is not something that needs to be gate-kept. If you are curious about exploring your creativity, we can pop into a breakout room during session and I can give some prompts. Or you can DM me (Cece) ahead of time.

https://preview.redd.it/2e1vfyyy1x8h1.jpg?width=1356&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d1afff2058673284485593cee0dddda83fdcfd10

To join the 1st meeting taking place on Sunday June 28 (EDT), please sign up in advance on the main event page here (link); the Zoom link will be provided to registrants.

Meetings take place weekly on Sundays. Look for future sessions in this series on our calendar (link).

All are welcome!

The reading for each session will be posted a week a head of time.

We will start with Rainer Maria Rilke’s “Letters to a Young Poet”, please read pp. 15-25 (Letters 1-3) for the 1st meeting on June 28.