If a person is admiring a work of art that is said to represent some concept and that person has some positive response as to how such concepts relates to their life - if this individual is then told that the artist was blind and merely spilled paint on the canvas, should this negate the value the individual found in the piece?

Likewise, should we understand a statement or a critique about a particular religion's origin, e.g., unfounded or even insane, to diminish the value of a religion may have to an individual? Would it be more prudent to separate a statement of a religion's origin from the religion's value to a person?

I'm not sure it is possible to separate your perception of art from your perception of its inception. Even not knowing the inception of art adds an element to our perception of the piece.

I don't think "not knowing its origin" means our understanding of art exists in a vacuum void of any interpretations.

I would agree that "not knowing its origin" doesn't mean the work exists in a vacuum.

I am asking if knowledge the origin of the piece should affect our value statements of the piece?

Should someone feel silly that value was found in a piece of art that was created by an accident of a blind man? Or does knowledge of the origin merely create some historical knowledge of the art that doesn't or shouldn't affect any perceived value of the piece?

Yes, and I'm saying lack of knowledge affects our knowledge of the piece... and not by its absence or a "vacuum", but by setting a tone in itself.

Thus you can't get a scenario where the piece is free from being influenced by our knowledge of it.

Value is a subjective property - an expression of a relationship between subject and object, if you will - so there doesn't seem to be a reason one should feel silly in the scenario you describe.

This kinda depends on exactly what is being expressed though. If you look at the art and say "clearly here the artist is attempting to convey X, Y, Z", and are therefore attempting to claim some objective factual knowledge of the artists intent, then one might justifiably feel silly.

It is silly because it's been shown to be pretentious and wrong. One shouldn't find value in random splodges.

"Should" is a dangerous word when it comes to art.

So I agree with this but I think our subjective evaluation will have as a premise a prior relationship between the artist and the art.

In the OP's example the subject doesn't have a relationship with the artists other work. Given the type of work that may be produced by a blind man in that manner I'd argue they should feel pretty silly trying to claim any factual knowledge of the artists intent regardless.

I suppose that they can infer some intent from the concept they are given but I'd still be loathe to take it as knowledge, so yeah they may justifiably consider themselves silly.

Where I think the question may be more interesting is if the art presented is presented as produced by an artist the subject has prior knowledge of.

To look at the other half of the OP I think it's entirely possible to critique a religions origin or some of it's fundamental assumptions and continue to separate the religions value to individuals. I don't think it's the same as dismantling a persons entire relationship such as with a piece of art. It's why I prefer the idea of removing a single piece of an artists larger body of work. You can take that piece away and leave the relationship with the rest intact.

I also think it's healthier for churches to have to respond to genuine critiques whether of method, origin or doctrine.

Don't bother. Cwococ is already contradicting his previously held position ("just because religions get the morals from a non-existent source doesn't mean their morals are wrong") for the sake of trolling. Responding seriously to him just gives him the oxygen of implied legitimacy.

Yes, I think if someone conflates "origin" and "value" - "I feel X,Y & Z from this piece of art; therefore, the artist intended to convey X,Y & Z" - then you should probably feel a bit silly upon learning there wasn't any intention to convey X,Y & Z.

What if this idea was taken to religion? I guess what I am thinking is that we shouldn't confuse statements of "origin" and "value." I feel that a lot of theists, when the "origin" of the religion is discussed and arguments are made that maybe its unfounded, see that these "origin" arguments somehow reduce the "value" of religion. I am not sure this is the case.

I think that theists who takes the religion literally can rightfully be criticized for conflating "origin" and "value." Also, in the same vein, an atheist that says since the "origin" is unfounded there can be no "value" would be guilty of the same mistake.

Ha ... I was just going to reply to his post, since I thought he would be rather sympathetic to this idea.

Trolls gonna troll.

I think the order of events matters here.

1. The person is admiring the work of art, then hears an explanation
vs
2. The person hears the explanation, then admires the work of art

In the first, there would be no reason to feel silly if the explanation turns out to be foolish since the admiration wasn't based on the explanation at all. In the second there may be.

The second case is very unfortunate in some cases since that scenario doesn't only represent fake things made to look real, it also represents good things that are attempted to be exaggerated, but are instead badly misrepresented by incompetent salesmen/preachers/politicians/etc. It can be extremely difficult to remove the bias that gets attached to something and try to give a proper personal assessment.

Yeah ... I am not saying abandon any kind of rational assessment and you are right that it can be difficult to examine and observe our own bias. To question the basis for the value statement is still reasonable.

But I still think a proposition of origin does not negate or necessarily lead to a value statement. If the origin of the painting is describe prior to any viewing - you may decline to view it and someone else may say what the hell, I'll take a look - that is OK. However, I don't think you could refute that person's value statement of the painting merely by stating that it is an accident. A person could say, I know this painting is the result of an accident, but there is still something pleasing in its symmetry (or something).

Similarly, the incompetent salesman may still have a valuable product, the unscrupulous preacher or corrupt politician may still have an idea worth exploring.

The context can change depending on the origin, if we think a painting mediocre but find it was done by someone with no arms.

Or if someone paints a computer and later its found out it was done well before they existed.

The question arises I think because the painting is not necessarily the entire scope of the art.

As for religion, the religion itself decides the meaning of the past. By that definition I think it is not really able to contradict itself, or defile itself.

Well, a painting can still be mediocre even if done by someone with no arms. A painting is more than technique; it is also about flair, creativity and message (amongst others). You don't necessarily get a pass merely because you lack arms and you are hindered in technical ability. Certainly, technical skill can be a nice complement to artistic ability - but it is not all that.

I don't understand what you mean by a religion deciding the meaning of its past. By that token we'd have to excuse some cult for killing members yesterday based on their feelings about it today.

There's no contradiction here as there is no valid analogy to be drawn. Religious morals are not random like a blind man splashing paint about. I find it mind boggling that you seem unable to grasp simple concepts and instead lash out with ad hominem attacks when your philosophical verbiage is challenged. Why is that stuff allowed on here btw ? We have a perfectly good philosophy forum and I want to discuss religion not Kant and all that philosophy stuff.

Art is not about craftsmanship or draughtsmanship at all. Many modern artists don't physically produce their art they get others to do it for them. Art is about expressing ideas and visions. That's where the value of it lies.


Going back to your earlier post that is why no value Should be attached to random splodges on canvas unless randomness as a concept is part of the intention of the vision being put forward by the artist.

Looks like mods have been at work in here.

its trivial to disprove an absolute claim on a subjective subject so i don't know why you open yourself up with such a ridiculous statement.

of course craftsmanship is a partial contributor to the value of some pieces of art. Some works of art, the value is primarily a result of the craftsmanship of the piece.

You can marvel at the technique which may be exceptional and if it's unique it has value but lots of people can reproduce the original art works to more or less the same standard as the original artist so it's not about craftsmanship.

this still doesn't support your claim that craftsmanship holds no value, specifically because for some works of art, reproductions can hold more value than the original they were based on because of increased quality. look at fields like photography or architecture.

I am not understanding your statement here ... granted this is a bit far from my the intention of my OP -

As a side bar, I am little out of the loop and just wanted to see if anyone had ideas about William James, I'm sure most recognized it. James was concerned about the lack of academic study of religion and felt "Religious Experience" was worth studying. Its turn of the century, so I'm sure it has been picked apart - and if there was some major flaw, someone here would say something. Yes, I was using RGT as some litmus test, dangerous? ...

Returning to Cw's statement, you say that art is not about the skill of the craft, but that it is about the transmission of "ideas." In that line of thought:

1. Is some minimal skill of the craft necessarily involved in being able to transmit those ideas in some artistic form?

2. If the artist intends to convey some concept in a painting, but I get something totally different out of the painting - does my value proposition of the painting become meaningless?

This is equally as wrong. While technical ability isn't necessarily a part of art, it can be a big part of art.

The vision of the artist can be an intended part of the communication, but so is the receiver's interpretation. In many cases artists will even play on the receiver's interpretation as part of their message - René Magritte is a classic example, and his most known work is even an RGT-debate classic for exactly that reason. There is certainly no "rule" about what the artists's role should be, however.

Trying to shoehorn art into narrow confines of "shoulds" and "musts" is always doomed to fail. Many artists even base their works on challenging such notions.

Actually, I wasn't trying to make any definitive statement about Art or any rules about the artists role ... Though I will still maintain that statements regarding the origin are a separate matter from statements of value. Other than that - I wasn't intending any deep discussion of Art. Though its cool if people want to...

James talks of El Greco and a belief that El Greco had an astigmatism - though this "medical" knowledge would not factor into any value statement of his art. I was merely trying to make the situation a bit more extreme.