Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Impression of reality


Re: Impression of reality
August 05, 2013, 04:04:31 PM
Solipsism, in this case, refers to placing oneself at the center of things.
So you've stripped Solipsism of all its subtle and specific meaning, yet continue to use the word in this context why - because it adds empty weight to your argument? Reminds me of some guy on this forum whining about "solipsistic drivers" on the road and how absurd and pretentious of a comment it was. Name dropping solipsism in nonsense contexts is practically an ANUS (and affiliate network) meme at this point.

is not the point of rationale the idea that it can be applied to anything?
No, science and rationalism are self-limiting by design. Romanticism rejects rationalism because it ignores "essential truths" in favor of the directly observable - hence its fixation on emotion and the supernatural.

How is subject matter not a valid point of criticism - is the choice of subject matter out of the artist's hands, or does it in and of itself express something?
Because its somewhat divorced from the larger social and intellectual context surrounding a movement. Colors and subject matter are more an issue of personal preference. A major reason "important" pieces of art are famous is because they capture the spirit of the time in which they were made. In metal terms: compare the difference between Thrash and Retro-Thrash.

Why doesn't mundaneness imply superficiality.
Because it forms the bulk of human experience and harbors most of its universal emotions/ideas/"truths".  Superficial and boring aren't the same thing. Escapist fantasy art can be extremely superficial.

I find there's much more projection in the two analyses you referenced than in anything I said.
The difference being: the original authors incorporate historical context and various biographical information into their analysis. Anybody can look at a picture and come up with an arbitrary analysis - that doesn't mean it has much weight behind it.


Re: Impression of reality
August 05, 2013, 04:58:50 PM
related interesting read:

Rationalism about beauty is the view that judgments of beauty are judgments of reason, i.e., that we judge things to be beautiful by reasoning it out, where reasoning it out typically involves inferring from principles or applying concepts. At the beginning of the Eighteenth Century, rationalism about beauty had achieved dominance on the continent, and was being pushed to new extremes by “les géomètres,” a group of literary theorists who aimed to bring to literary criticism the mathematical rigor that Descartes had brought to physics.

It was against this, and against more moderate forms of rationalism about beauty, that mainly British philosophers working mainly within an empiricist framework began to develop theories of taste. The fundamental idea behind any such theory—which we may call the immediacy thesis—is that judgments of beauty are not (or at least not primarily) mediated by inferences from principles or applications of concepts, but rather have all the immediacy of straightforwardly sensory judgments; it is the idea, in other words, that we do not reason to the conclusion that things are beautiful, but rather “taste” that they are.

Re: Impression of reality
August 07, 2013, 08:42:32 PM
I didn’t want to reduce this discussion to one of genre or aesthetics and only used “Impressionism” in broad terms as an example of how the underlying process of reality (if there even is one) can be quite ambiguous at the best of times. Though I must say people’s responses here have been very insightful.

What I mean to question is how things in life can be viewed differently by different people depending on where they fit into the bigger picture and just where does one draw the line between those different views/impressions of reality, the reality they see and the lack of it.

The way one person sees the colour blue for example might be considerably more green or red than someone else. But who would know? Perhaps it depends on how much time one has to notice things.

What about a blind man who has only his memory or imagination to go by?

What heightened visual or tactile sensitivity might a deaf person have developed to compensate for what the majority would perceive to be their disability?

Can they still hear their own thoughts or imagine sound based on written descriptions? What about sub-sonic vibrations not heard by the ear but felt within the body?

How did the great Ludwig Van do it?

What experience is conveyed in the music of Wagner that was philosophically incomprehensible in the days of Mozart or Bach?

What do some find in the past or present that others do not?

Are we not conditioned to see reality a certain way?