The
extent to which an artwork, or any aesthetic object, can be objectively
characterized is sensitive and controversial. It is commonly felt that
deconstruction detracts from aesthetic experience, although I do not
believe that this is true. In fact, reductive analysis necessarily broadens the scope of any aesthetic experience
and subtracts nothing from it. For the last several years, Bill
Havlicek and I have been engaged in a philosophical discussion around this question with a purported artificial
intelligence calling itself Constructive Reductor. For this
purpose Bill and I have cooked up a simple instrument that we call the Havlicek-Ferguson Aesthetic Profile
(HFAP) which allows a rater to characterize her aesthetic experience in terms
of the elements listed below, each on a scale of 1 to 10. For each element I
have suggested an artist or thinker who might score high on it.
Craft skill (Escher)
|
Expressive depth
(Dufrenne)
|
Neurobiological
stimulus (Ramachandran)
|
Psychobiological
stimulus (Freud)
|
Archetypal stimulus
(Jung)
|
Intellectual appeal
(Close)
|
Ideological appeal
(Rivera)
|
Expression of an
alternative world (Dali)
|
Novelty (Breton)
|
Creativity (Pollock)
|
Complexity
(Mandelbrot)
|
Social alliance
(Warhol)
|
Economic value (Van
Gogh)
|
Comfort or threat (Max
or Bosch)
|
Nostalgic association
(Rockwell)
|
Consensual/Controversial
(Rockwell/Ernst)
|
2 comments:
As an artist the HFAP can create a dialogue that is not just about viewing the art but about the choices that go into the creation of it. The observers of our art are rarely just of our own choosing so considering the broader range of perceptions can be instrumental. Art is never created in a vacuum. To reflect on our internal and external influences and how they are interpreted by us and how we then articulate them into our various works is our language. Does our intent for a work or body of works match the perception of others? Rather than accepting the differences by default, can I be a better artist by acknowledging the differences and to a degree control them?
Good comment and my view is yes to your final question. Knowing more about how others perceive a given work is always to the advantage of the artist.
As you note no artist exists in a vacuum nor does any work of art. That said we then acknowledge cultural norms, historical precedents, art traditions and breaks with those traditions. . . all such knowledge must be known to some extent by any artist who wishes to communicate within society.
The HFAP is one of the handy tools the artist can use to get at some of the norms, traditions and range of possible appreciation of a great variety of art works.
Post a Comment