posted on May, 17 2009 @ 11:51 AM
I've been reading Algorithmic Aesthetics
lately, and its gotten me thinking a bit about how
we see the world, and to what extent that view is based on how informed we are about what we're seeing.
The authors start out by defining Aesthetics as
concerned with how existing works of art can be described, interpreted, and evaluated and about
how new works of art can be created. The description, interpretation, and evaluation of an existing work of art is called
Later they go on to describe how two paintings may look identical, so from that standpoint they're aesthetically equal. But
if you gain knowledge (through something other than simple observation) that one of the two paintings is a forgery, that extra-sensory knowledge
effects the aesthetic judgement.
I began to think about this in terms of abstract art. If an image is not particularly representational, or at least it's not obvious what the image
represents, do you as an observer change how you feel about that piece of art if the title or some other descriptor tells you what it is that you're
How much visual stimuli do we gloss over in our daily lives that would take on new meaning if there were some other additional knowledge we could know
that would give it more meaning?
 I wanted to start this from the art point of view, but obviously such discussion could also cover the conspiratorial realm as well... what we
see vs what it really is.
[edit on 5/17/2009 by JoshNorton]