Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
for me. In fact, I don't think I've ever met an artist who did think that beauty was an
issue. Beauty is emergent, apparently, from the relentless pursuit of the individual's
holy grail, whatever that might be, bearing in mind that my grail and yours are
unlikely to have the same shape. That does not necessarily mean that a purely formal
evaluation of the work itself, without regard to how it got to be that way—harmony,
balance, golden mean and whatnot—are non-starters, but I have yet to see one finish.
And, yes, you certainly do run into cultural issues. Impressionism has been the
epitome of “beautiful” painting for a long while now; but the Impressionists were
accused of shooting the paint on to the canvas with a pistol. Not good. Though today
we'd probably think of that as a great idea; after all, Pollock didn't go in for brushes,
either.
FN:
I, as one occasional participant in this dialogue, love in particular your com-
ments and deep insight, the insight of a life in art and science, Harold. By necessity
our discussion must get closer and closer, as it continues, to the fundamental philo-
sophical question of objective vs. subjective. This discussion would then have to ask
what the “thing” would be, what the “work” would be, and much more. . .
We all know to some extent that these issues cannot be solved (as a mathematical
equation may be solved), but that they remain the eternal discourse of philosophy.
It produces the question itself in new forms, and therefore also with new answers.
Our question here is, of course, much more pragmatic and mundane. I guess a
few statements could be made in this regard. Like, perhaps:
The making of art is subjective. The appreciation of art is subjective. The mak-
ing of art relies on certain general and specific objective conditions. So does the
appreciation.
Humans, as cultural groups or as individuals, like to emphasise how nice it would
be to have objectivity. But there is only a little objectivity when humans are in-
volved. There is, however, also little subjectivity if “subjective” is what pertains to
this individual, here and now. If the striving for objectivity is taken as an attempt
to enter discourses with others (individuals, groups, living or dead), and conduct
such discourse with passion and patience, decidedly and forgiving, ready to accept
a position, ready to give in and not to win but to convince—if factors like those
determine the process then those involved will eventually agree that there is little
objectivity, little subjectivity, but lots of historic and societal impact.
Judgement is different from evaluation. The absolute pre-condition for program-
ming (and thus for using computers) is formalisation and computability. This is so
even in the most interactive and sensor-prone situation.
The concreteness in your argument, dear Harold, is marvellous, it is telling, it
is itself artistic. You know that—if I understand my own thinking well enough—
I totally agree with your sentiments. You summarised them beautifully by saying:
“at the lowest level of machine evaluation, I can see that the program might be able
to tell me which images
not
to print”. More, I also think, is not possible. The others
say: “we are just at the beginning, give us enough money and time”. Birkhoff and all
those of the 1930s debate failed. Bense and all those of the 1960s debate (including
Nake) failed.
