Whenever I have a philosophical conversation with an artist, invariably we end up talking about reductionism, with the artist insisting that if they give up on some irreducible notion, they feel their art will suffer. I’ve heard, from some of the world’s best artists, notions ranging from “magic” to “perfection” to “muse” to “God.”
It seems similar to the notion of free will, where the human algorithm must always insist it is capable of thinking about itself on level higher. The artist must always think of his art one level higher, and try to tap unintentional sources of inspiration. Nonreductionist views of either are confusions about how an algorithm feels on the inside.
I don’t think that this is an artist problem- I think this is a human problem, which a few scientists and philosophers have been forced to overcome in pursuit of truth.
their art will suffer
Too many people have straw-vulcan notions of reductionism. (tvtropes warning)
I’ve heard, from some of the world’s best artists, notions ranging from “magic” to “perfection” to “muse” to “God.”
Elizabeth Gilbert presents a reasonably practical justification for the use of such a concept. See [here] (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86x-u-tz0MA). Warning: TED talk and generous use of “reasonable”
What about artists who think that reducing things to their bare essentials is the essence of art? Or styles like—well, broadly speaking, anime (or caricatures in general) - that are based on the emphasis of certain basic forms? Or writers like Eric Hoffer—“Wordiness is a sickness of American writing. Too many words dilute and blur ideas. [...] If you have nothing to say and want badly to say it, then all the words in all the dictionaries will not suffice.” ?
It’s worth noting that Wilson’s comment is A->B, C->D, not A=B, C=D.
Yeah, I know. It’s just not clear that you have to love complexity and not like reductionism to get art. It’s not A <-> B.
If it’s not A <-> B then it’s A → B but even that seems sketchy. Lots of people love spouting, sketching, whatever, complex nonsense without doing anything I’d describe as art.
Of course, it’d help in this situation to be able to point at art—but the whole thought seems very muddled and imprecise, and the issues seems far from the blank assertion it’s presented as.
I don’t think it is complexity that makes art. I think it is emotion/feeling. Emotion/feeling may look like complexity to the rational mind because it does arise from a complex system which can be figured out bit by bit by the rational mind. But the essence of art is not to love anything that is complex and hard for the rational mind to figure out, but rather to focus on the feelings produced, the gestalt, the irrational, emotional connections and reactions.
--E.O. Wilson
Whenever I have a philosophical conversation with an artist, invariably we end up talking about reductionism, with the artist insisting that if they give up on some irreducible notion, they feel their art will suffer. I’ve heard, from some of the world’s best artists, notions ranging from “magic” to “perfection” to “muse” to “God.”
It seems similar to the notion of free will, where the human algorithm must always insist it is capable of thinking about itself on level higher. The artist must always think of his art one level higher, and try to tap unintentional sources of inspiration. Nonreductionist views of either are confusions about how an algorithm feels on the inside.
I don’t think that this is an artist problem- I think this is a human problem, which a few scientists and philosophers have been forced to overcome in pursuit of truth.
Too many people have straw-vulcan notions of reductionism. (tvtropes warning)
Elizabeth Gilbert presents a reasonably practical justification for the use of such a concept. See [here] (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86x-u-tz0MA). Warning: TED talk and generous use of “reasonable”
What about artists who think that reducing things to their bare essentials is the essence of art? Or styles like—well, broadly speaking, anime (or caricatures in general) - that are based on the emphasis of certain basic forms? Or writers like Eric Hoffer—“Wordiness is a sickness of American writing. Too many words dilute and blur ideas. [...] If you have nothing to say and want badly to say it, then all the words in all the dictionaries will not suffice.” ?
It’s worth noting that Wilson’s comment is A->B, C->D, not A=B, C=D.
Does that sound like a love of complexity to you?
Yeah, I know. It’s just not clear that you have to love complexity and not like reductionism to get art. It’s not A <-> B.
If it’s not A <-> B then it’s A → B but even that seems sketchy. Lots of people love spouting, sketching, whatever, complex nonsense without doing anything I’d describe as art.
Of course, it’d help in this situation to be able to point at art—but the whole thought seems very muddled and imprecise, and the issues seems far from the blank assertion it’s presented as.
No.
I don’t think it is complexity that makes art. I think it is emotion/feeling. Emotion/feeling may look like complexity to the rational mind because it does arise from a complex system which can be figured out bit by bit by the rational mind. But the essence of art is not to love anything that is complex and hard for the rational mind to figure out, but rather to focus on the feelings produced, the gestalt, the irrational, emotional connections and reactions.