RE: Agnosticism IS the most dishonest position
March 4, 2020 at 10:40 pm
(This post was last modified: March 4, 2020 at 10:42 pm by Belacqua.)
@Objectivist
Still thinking of examples...
So let's imagine that at the dawn of man, certain cavemen started scratching pictures in the sand. After they had made enough of these, much later, they were able to abstract from the actual drawings the concept "drawing." Drawing as a noun.
So people knew what "drawing" meant even when they didn't have a specific example in mind.
Long long ago I was working at a museum that decided to have a juried group exhibition of drawings. Lots of people submitted works. Right away, the judges realized they had a problem -- a lot of the pictures looked like paintings instead of drawings. (Artists are notorious for not following guidelines well.) Clearly, they had a concept which was not well-defined. What is the boundary between painting and drawing.
So they spent the first hour of the jury time by defining the concept. Eventually they decided that a drawing can have color if the medium is dry (e.g. colored pencils), and it can be a wet medium if it's monochrome (e.g. brush and ink). But if it's both wet and colored, it's a painting, and not eligible for the show.
What's interesting about that, I think, is that they set up the whole show with a very fuzzy definition. Then they refined the concept when necessary. Though no one had the clearer concept earlier in the day, they all thought the definition they went with was easy to accept. (They didn't ask me, I was just there to carry stuff.)
No quantification is possible in the arts. The drawing show was organized before they had a clear definition.
Is "drawing" not a concept? Does it fail to meet the criteria in some way? It sounds like one to me.
Still thinking of examples...
So let's imagine that at the dawn of man, certain cavemen started scratching pictures in the sand. After they had made enough of these, much later, they were able to abstract from the actual drawings the concept "drawing." Drawing as a noun.
So people knew what "drawing" meant even when they didn't have a specific example in mind.
Long long ago I was working at a museum that decided to have a juried group exhibition of drawings. Lots of people submitted works. Right away, the judges realized they had a problem -- a lot of the pictures looked like paintings instead of drawings. (Artists are notorious for not following guidelines well.) Clearly, they had a concept which was not well-defined. What is the boundary between painting and drawing.
So they spent the first hour of the jury time by defining the concept. Eventually they decided that a drawing can have color if the medium is dry (e.g. colored pencils), and it can be a wet medium if it's monochrome (e.g. brush and ink). But if it's both wet and colored, it's a painting, and not eligible for the show.
What's interesting about that, I think, is that they set up the whole show with a very fuzzy definition. Then they refined the concept when necessary. Though no one had the clearer concept earlier in the day, they all thought the definition they went with was easy to accept. (They didn't ask me, I was just there to carry stuff.)
No quantification is possible in the arts. The drawing show was organized before they had a clear definition.
Is "drawing" not a concept? Does it fail to meet the criteria in some way? It sounds like one to me.
