It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
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 criticism...
Originally posted by JoshNorton
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 looking at?
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?
Heh, yeah, we're acquainted (not great friends or anything, but I suspect we'd be closer if I knew French...) I'm at least familiar with many of the works of Baudrillard, Foucault, Lyotard, Derrida, etc. I've read more Barthes and a handful of general surveys of post-modernism. I guess I'm taking this from less a sign/signifier to more of what additional values are contained by the signifier, perhaps from the intent of the author/artist that can be gleaned by the observer, and how important is it to our enjoyment of the work that we know the minutia of the back-story?
Originally posted by Byrd
Josh, meet the Anthropological-Linguistic field called "Semiotics." Semiotics, meet Josh.
Seriously, there's a whole huge academic field that studies this. It's terribly interesting.