Hi all
I just realized that I've already posted a bit without first introducing myself. Although I'm no great shakes at philosophy, I do admire the elegence of utilitarianism. Anyway, I'm looking forward to learning heaps on here, and you'll have to excuse me if I walk into the obvious errors and ask seemingly silly questions. I know Jinksy from Melbourne. I work in art conservation and have interests in art, printmaking and judo
Cheers
T.

Hi redcarded. Welcome to these Felicifia Forums. I look forward to seeing you around!

I hope you can learn and enjoy yourself. As we know, simply questions can be important. If you're made to feel silly, that's more of a comment on that the ability of the explainer than on you. If you find yourself falling into some common pitfalls, maybe better maps need to be created to help you along.

I seem to be making a habit of creating a question personally for each new Felicifian member, so here is yours:
What do you think of science? If neuroscientists could one-day explain to us why art is attractive, would that be a good or bad thing? Might it just be annoying, like explaining a joke?

And a follow-up question: traditionally, there's been humanities, arts, fine arts on one side and science on the other. Arty people accuse scientists of putting the magnifying glass too close (not seeing the forest from the trees) and lacking emotion. Scientists accuse arty people of being impractical, airy-fairy and unscientific. Can everyone get along?

Hi Redcarded welcome aboard.

RyanCarey wrote:I seem to be making a habit of creating a question personally for each new Felicifian member, so here is yours:
What do you think of science? If neuroscientists could one-day explain to us why art is attractive, would that be a good or bad thing? Might it just be annoying, like explaining a joke?

I do think the desire fulfilment theory of value - one of the bases of Desire Utilitarianism that I advocate - can explain this but have not thought about it for a while. Will explore this if someone else gets this going. An interesting question Ryan

I have no problem with science, artists, contrary to what some scientists think, have about the same level of tolerance and intolerance to science as the general public. Actually many contemporary artists absolutelly wallow in the hi-tech, like Nam Jun Pak and the generations since him. There is actually still a bit of a 'virtual reality' hype amongst artists, although I think it's beena bit overdone and is getting a bit boring, but that might just be me. Sort of how manga went from an interesting peak at a different culture of aesthetics and moral value, to just a peak into highschool girls changing room. Nothing wrong with that, so long as you just admit to yourself that you're buying and reading it for the titilation.

As for the neuroscientists. Well aesthetic attraction is one aspect of contemporary aesthetics, much of post-modernist work is purely polemic and often anti-aesthetic trying to fight desperately against any kind of notion that they make attractive 'beautiful' works to be venerated by the middle-classes. Sort of a 'the cake is a lie' getting in the way of 'This is serious, mum' (The 'mum' part was my addition, but anyone who knows the band TISM will get it). That aside, neuroscientists explaining the attraction of art will have about as much impact as them explaining the chemical reactions causing 'love'. It won't stop it happening, and just make scientists appear like they're trying to be kill-joys. Also, it would make me wonder if they didn't have anything better to do with their time, seriously, noone has ever died from not enough art, or from not being vaccinated against Damian Hurst.....Anyway, side-tracks aside, art attraction, collection etc is a many varied thing with no single root cause or single outcome, explaining why people do it and why people are attracted to art by scientists will simply be adding to the great debate on art that has been ongoing for thousands of years.

Damn I should run...work....manager...bloody..bloody...no time to edit, sorry if all rubbish

Alright, the coast is clear.

Why can't we all just get along? Well, mostly we do. Artists often take it upon themselves to comment on and respond to society, as though being able to paint or stick a tampon onto a canvas somehow gives you extra insight into the world, therefore science is something that they equelly see as part of that process. Whether or not they actuallly have anything worthwhile saying is another thing all together. As for the scientists, I don't know if they still have this idea that they are all Van Gogh want to be's? If they do, I can't possibly imagine how they could see artists as a threat of any sort.

Hey RC, glad you made it. I look forward to finding tortuous utilitarian justifications for mocking you repeatedly