!["Coupling" 1976 [Gum-bichromate]](http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_IoU3bEFUwWc/S69lnr9G6AI/AAAAAAAAH58/O40Gg-G6rKk/S150/COUPLING+3.jpg)
Can "art" be quantified i.e., a theory of aesthetics?
No...1
Yes...1
Somewhat of an ambiguous poll. Certainly artistic movements can be quantified. but not, necessarily, individual pieces. I have been to many art fairs and I am repelled when an artist stands [or sits] there telling me what I am supposed to experience. "Aesthetics" should be personal and subjective perhaps within a movement framework.
2 comments:
I take it your not aware of the current research into Neuroaesthetics?... I'm not sure if they're aiming to quantify art - I'm not even sure what that means. Neuroaesthetics is the leading study into how the brain processes aesthetics or "beauty". That is the perception of it. And so, therefore perhaps art, if the sole purpose of art was to create something beautiful is quantifiable... but art isn't always meant to be beautiful, at least aesthetically. Sometimes it's meant to be ugly because it's purpose is political or otherwise. But check it out anyway. It's an interesting field.
Neuroaesthetics?
Offer some reference please.
I trust that it is not related to neuroethics. That discussion usually winds up discussing freewill and determinism.
I will relate what happened at the end of an undergraduate course on aesthetics. Months were exploring all the theories of aesthetics and at the end of the course a student at the back of the room said..."Well then, art is a matter of 'taste'". A second student quipped..."Sure, 'good' taste and 'bad' taste." We were back at square one.
Essentially, interpretation is subjective and 'not' what the artist tells you.
Post a Comment