The role of meta-content in aesthetic experience: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of the Arts » The role of meta-content in aesthetic experience » The role of meta-content in aesthetic experience

The role of meta-content in aesthetic experience

Page: 1 2 3

The role of meta-content in aesthetic experience

Rigor_Mortis
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 20, 2003
Location: lost within
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 27

Posted 11/30/03 - 11:45 AM:	#1
With classic and modern philosophy, the focus of aesthetic perception has been placed on content. Beautiful, sublime, transcendental qualities, be they objective or subjective, can be traced back to the content of a representation. Regardless of the exact nature of the representation, or the reason why it is perceived as having aesthetical attributes, the fact remains that aesthetical perception is usually attributed to some (more or less) specific content, i.e. while aesthetic experience itself may not fall under the realm of reason, its source does, in the form of concepts. For example, I may not be sure what exactly makes me judge a painting to be beautiful, but I know nonetheless that it is the painting I am concerned with, something from which I derive both sensual intuitions and concepts. I may even go further, and realize that my aesthetic experience is actually derived from its hues, design, or some other element, but all of these can be said to be content. In modern times, however, we have seen the emergence of dynamic art, such as animation or movies for example, and this seems to raise some interesting questions. For unlike with static art (like painting, sculpture, etc), one can now have an aesthetic experience that is apparently not linked (directly) to content. A good example of this could be found in art animation: I can have an aesthetic experience based solely on the use of 'camera pan', or 'focus', and this is what I call meta-content. Strictly speaking, it is still a kind of content, since aesthetic experience is based on some initial perception, only this meta-content is not given, but rather derived (by reason) from the actual perceptive content. What, then, is the role of meta-content in aesthetic experience? As far as aesthetic perception is concerned, does meta-content constitute a form of indirect aesthetical attribute? Or is it perhaps that in the case of meta-content, there is no actual aesthetic perception, but rather the aesthetic experience is a result of an interaction between perceptive intuition and reason (in other words, meta-content does not guarantee an aesthetical value of the object)? This is especially important when confronting classic or modern aesthetic theories. In the aesthetic system created by Schopenhauer, for example, one can hardly find a place for meta-content. For him, the aesthetic value of a representation is given by the clarity with which it reflects a platonic Idea, and thus facilitates the transcendence onto the realm of Ideas. Yet how does meta-content relate to Ideas? Even if one were to accept the existence of an Idea for, say, 'camera pan', the fact remains that the aesthetic experience is not derived from a concept of 'camera pan' itself, but rather the way in which it was employed in a particular case (keeping in mind the fact that there is no one 'good way' to use 'camera pan', but many different ones, depending on the content they are supported on). What are your thoughts on this matter?

Rigor_Mortis
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 20, 2003
Location: lost within
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 27

Posted 12/01/03 - 11:11 PM:	#2
Judging from the lack of response, I am led to assume that this topic is either uninteresting, or else lacking sufficient clarity to engage in, therefore, I shall add some more thoughts of my own regarding the nature of meta-content and the questions it raises. The problem of meta-content has become evident with the advent of dynamic art, but is this to say that meta-content is strictly a feature of this dynamic art? This issue of dynamism concerns both representation and perception, and to see why this is, let us compare one form of visual art in both its static form – painting, and its dynamic form – animation. Animation, as we all know, consists of a number of individual frames displayed in rapid succession; by having such a distinct composite nature, animation can be ‘broken down’ into frames, and thus transformed from dynamic to static representation, with each frame being, in effect, a painting. Considering, then, that the dynamic nature of animation relies on an artifice of perception, one cannot help but question the nature of aesthetic perception itself, i.e. could it be that aesthetic perception is, in fact, static, with 'dynamism' being simply an additive of reason (a posteriori, and thus irrelevant to aesthetic judgment)? To put it in other words, does my aesthetic experience result from me seeing a 3 second animation, or any of the 90 individual frames (paintings) judged separately? In order to better understand this question, let us again refer to meta-content, and try to see whether it is solely the product of dynamic art, or whether it could be ‘translated’ into static form. One of my examples above was that of ‘camera pan’. But this, one could argue, can in fact, be ‘translated’ into static art, and thus it offers no evidence of dynamic aesthetic perception (by way of supplying it with some exclusive content, or as it were, meta-content). If one were to analyze the animation in its static form, ‘camera pan’ would translate into ‘composition’ in individual frames (paintings). This, of course, appears to be a valid argument, but in order for it to be true, it also has to be exhaustive – in other words, the translation must be complete. Yet in its dynamic aspect, ‘camera pan’, like many other forms of meta-content, is considered to be a ‘transition effect’. The importance of ‘transition effects’, is that they are not evident in individual frames, being in fact ‘bridges’ between different scenes – in other words, a ‘transition effect’ does not have a ‘place’ of its own (on a metaphorical animation sheet), but constitutes the border itself, and this offers a good indication of exactly why I call this ‘meta-content’. Thus, looking at individual frames we would see ‘angles’ (composition), but only when confronted with the dynamic whole does ‘camera pan’ itself (meta-content) become evident. The translation, then, does not appear to be exhaustive, and thus, following the fact that there is meta-content exclusive to dynamic art (for at no point have we shown that all meta-content is exclusive to dynamic art, merely that the example in question seems to be - we have not yet discarded the possibility of static meta-content), we could infer that either aesthetic perception itself is dynamic, or else aesthetic experience is based on retro-active analysis and composition of static aesthetic perception. But again, in the end, the question to be posed is how does all this translate into an aesthetics of Ideas (like that of Schopenhauer)? How does dynamic, ‘placeless’ meta-content connect with Ideas?

geoff23
Student

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 10, 2003
Location: Brighton, Sussex, England.
Total Topics: 85
Total Posts: 2650

Posted 12/02/03 - 02:58 AM:	#3
Sorry RM but......huh? "meta-content"? Try shortening it, and making it clearer. I have read both your posts twice now, and I haven't got a friggin' clue what you are talking about, even though it concerns Schopenhauer and Schopenhauer is both of interest to me personally as well as the flavour of the week on this forum. Without motion - without "dynamism" - without time - all we have is something which is static. This much I understand but the rest is lost on me.
The poets did not win; the philosophers surrendered. (Umberto Eco)

CarbonFilter
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 15, 2003
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 211

Posted 12/02/03 - 02:07 PM:	#4
The aesthetics of theatre are as old as the cave itself. Isn't animation a form of theatre?

CarbonFilter
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 15, 2003
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 211

Posted 12/02/03 - 02:39 PM:	#5
My previous post occurred as I was exiting the cave, actually.

zOOmz
ultraviolet

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 25, 2003
Location: SoCal
Total Topics: 33
Total Posts: 3965

Posted 12/02/03 - 03:11 PM:	#6
CarbonFilter.. Regarding your sig. (By the way love Botero's tubbys).. I feel just the opposite. I feel when I start a painting it is entirely inside of me, at the conclusion it moves outside as in being born into the external world. but of course I seldom paint from anything but my imagination and memory. As for meta-content, I don't see a difference between animation and static painting. I would see a difference if it was in reference to virtual reality and holographic projection.
got Zen? "Reality is that which doesn't disappear when you stop believing in it." Phillip K. Dick (thanks dimka)

Rigor_Mortis
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 20, 2003
Location: lost within
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 27

Posted 12/02/03 - 06:41 PM:	#7
@ geoff23 I realize that the notion of 'meta-content' may not be sufficiently clear and that is precisely the reason for this inquiry. The purpose of this thread is to come to a conclusion on whether meta-content is a valid concern, in which case it needs to be addressed, or if it a false problem (that is, my 'meta-content' can be reduced to actual content), in which case it should be dismissed. Of course, in order to engage in a discussion concerning meta-content, one must have some idea of what meta-content is. Of course, the main reason why this endeavor is somewhat problematic is that, to my knowledge at least, it has never been addressed before. Now due to the nature of this 'offender', I have thought it best not to start by attempting some formal, all-encompassing definition of it (since, given that we have just begun to notice the issue, a rushed definition might be lacking, and thus detrimental to the inquiry), but rather, to show some clear (and certain) examples, and analyze them so as to see whether the problem is valid, in which case a more formal definition should be created. I call it meta-content, due to the fact that, while it does seem to be relevant to aesthetic judgment, it is only by the way in which it reflects on normal content, and thus it does not itself seem to be judged. In order to clarify this ‘meta’ nature, I would draw a link to ‘meta-tags’ in HTML encoding. Two examples: a) white b) white In the second example, the text appears as bold due to some meta-tags which I have added to it. These tags themselves ( [ b ] and [ / b ] ) are not ‘content’ as far as your browser is concerned – they are interpreted and imposed upon the content which is presented to your perception. You see a bold text, but not the elements which made it so. What I am trying to show by this is that meta-content may serve a similar purpose in aesthetic perception. This meta-content is not strictly content because it is never itself the target of aesthetic judgment. To further exemplify this, let us consider two relational properties in artwork: on the one hand we have ‘perspective’ in a painting, and on the other we have ‘camera pan’ in an animation. While apparently similar in nature, I would say that the former is content, while the latter is meta-content. ‘Perspective’, even if it is a relational property, and thus derivative (i.e. not directly intuitive), is still content to aesthetic judgment because it is itself judged. ‘Camera pan’ on the other hand is not; at no point in experiencing (in an aesthetical sense, of course) an animation are we concerned with either the vectorial movement of the camera or the perspectives it creates in individual frames – the aesthetic experience may be said to result from the particular transition of perspective (i.e. the way in which frame A becomes frame B, and so forth). The point is that one must not be mislead into believing that since we are talking about ‘camera pan’, we have a concept for it, and it is on this concept that judgment can be employed; we do indeed have the concept, but this particular concept is in fact the pattern of a function – when in use, it is not the concept exemplified in some content that we perceive, but in fact the concept applied to content, and thus, while reason may infer its use, aesthetic judgment does not target it (as it would, say, ‘perspective’, which is a concept exemplified in some content). What I am (somewhat awkwardly, I agree) trying to show is that just as, when in motion, there are things which are not themselves seen (or rather identified - for example the actual frames of a movie, which are not distinct images, their content being constructed by addition), yet serve to construct the actual visual perception, so to, in regards to aesthetic experience, there are things which are not themselves judged, yet which may serve to create, in fact, that particular aesthetic experience (note that I keep reffering to aesthetic experience as generic, and not restrict it to any particular category like, beautiful, sublime, etc). There may be failings to my exposition of the problem, but then again, that is precisely the reason for an open inquiry, that the problems may be identified and resolved. ______________ @ carbonfilter Theatre and animation/cinema, while similar in some respects, for the purpose of this inquiry, they are different. The main reason for this is that on an intuitive level, theatre is static. Consider for instance a play and a movie: during the play, you, as spectator have a static perspective, a static point of view; in a movie, however, the point of view is dynamic due to the fact that there are, in effect, two perspectives: the one the director has created, and your own - to put it differently, you see a movie/animation through two different sets of eyes, the director's, and yours, and it is the interplay of these different perspectives that makes a movie/animation dynamic (and thus, possibly allows for meta-content to be inserted). P.S. When talking about 'camera pan', you do know what I am reffering to, right? You do know what 'camera pan' is?

geoff23
Student

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 10, 2003
Location: Brighton, Sussex, England.
Total Topics: 85
Total Posts: 2650

Posted 12/03/03 - 01:56 AM:	#8
Rigor.... Cheers for the elaboration, but what you are saying is still double-dutch to me. I am left wondering whether you have some sort of underlying point or question that is motivating this line of enquiry but which you haven't stated, because as it is I don't understand the point of it. What is the point in asking these questions? What are you aiming at? Maybe I'm just too stupid...... edit : well maybe I kind of understand what you are saying, but I'm mystified about why. Take music for example - how do you seperate "content" from "meta-content" and why would you bother? And what has it got to do with Schopenhauer? Are you saying that Schopenhauers philosophy contains some sort of "meta-content"? Geoff.
The poets did not win; the philosophers surrendered. (Umberto Eco)

zOOmz
ultraviolet

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 25, 2003
Location: SoCal
Total Topics: 33
Total Posts: 3965

Posted 12/03/03 - 05:08 AM:	#9
There are artists, and they love to play with life.. and that is all it is. Then there are people who love to analyze art and artists because artists provide unending entertainment and drama. Just take the Beatles. They liked to write silly verses. And of course serious people just knew there had to be a deeper meaning, cultish, sinister.. mysterious. When the artist is just really playing with their kid inside. That is my opinion, as an artist.
got Zen? "Reality is that which doesn't disappear when you stop believing in it." Phillip K. Dick (thanks dimka)

CarbonFilter
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 15, 2003
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 211

Posted 12/03/03 - 06:02 AM:	#10
Rigor_Mortis wrote: P.S. When talking about 'camera pan', you do know what I am reffering to, right? You do know what 'camera pan' is? Is this a test? I love tests. I know what a camera is. And I know what a pan is. Camera is twice as long as pan, but is 1/2 as useful when frying eggs. Do I get marks for analyzing at the micro level? Are my rolling eyes panning? I will conclude by stating, since you didn't, that camera panning is movement of the camera in a direction. But not the direction we observe in the movie 'High Anxiety' when the camera zOOms in on the dinner table and crashes through the french doors. (or is it freedom doors in the US?) Anyway, just messin with you and having fun. If I haven't passed the pan test, please tell me what it is. (ie: camera movement to the side, or something) I think your notion is very good. I don't agree with it yet, but it's got me thinking. Theatre, to me, is not static. If I am stationary and the actors are running around in the round, it seems no different than if I am running around and they are standing there, monologing or pining, say. Lastly, (notice the discrete paragraphs, which help to demonstrate the subtle movement from thought to thought as I ramble), I think animation is cool because it 'suggests' movement, which we create as we watch. If you take a look at really good animation, frame by frame (I have), you will see that all the action is not there... the mind fills in the gaps.. like some 'static' art. Omitting content actually produces it.. I shall call this Nihildata. Drum roll, please.

Page: 1 2 3

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.