I want to argue that people consume art not because of the intrinsic properties of art, but because they can define themselves through the extrinsic properties of art. The intrinsic properties are those that one can perceive from the artwork itself. These include the colors of a painting, the melody of song, the material of a sculpture. Then there are the extrinsic properties: who is the artist, which orchestra is playing, what century it was created, what “original” meaning it had. These are things that are hard to directly observed from the artwork itself.
I would argue that the extrinsic factors of a piece of art far outweigh the intrinsic factors. Some aspects of the art world speak to this argument:
1. If intrinsic factors were as important as we think they were, we would see a competition for skills in the art world. The most accurate depiction of a landscape, or the cleanest soprano would be our most valued one. Of course, that is not the case, suggesting that maybe intrinsic factors are not so important.
2. On the other hand we constantly talk about extrinsic factors of art. Museums around the world exhibit more biographical writing of the displayed artist than his/her actual art. Another example are classical music radio stations around the world. In Austria, OE1 introduces every piece of classical music by mentioning the Orchestra playing, the visiting conductor, the location at which it was recorder… I always wonder whether the breakfast of the 3rd violin might also play a role in what I am about to hear.
In my mind these extrinsic factors are completely arbitrary, but absolutely crucial. The only thing that matters is that we can define ourselves through those extrinsic factors. We can learn and study the art and artist and then show off to our friends, family, and future spouse. It’s a game of “look how much unnecessary things I know about X”. This can help you position yourself in society. If you want to be an established man of culture you might want to read up on Mozart and memorize his pieces, linking them to random extrinsic factors. If you want to be a rebel go ahead and tell me how this techno DJ is resident in this S&M club in Berlin. I think its great that we can position ourselves via our costly information acquisition on different types of art. But one thing is clear: No one likes intrinsic factors of art. The only reason we consume art is to tell ourselves and others who we are via the extrinsic factors of art. I don’t believe you actually like this kind of music or that kind of painter – I think you want others to know that you like this kind of art – That’s all.
To read more on this you should definitely read Hanson and Simmler’s Book “The Elephant in the Brain”. Chapter 11 discusses Art and Signalling.
KAILUA! I really enjoyed reading your comment. I think it's fantastic that you are on the very opposite end of the spectrum. Not only philosophically but also on a personal level.
I truly think that art cannot be captured emotionally. I think people deceive themselves, saying they love this high brow artist or this ancient sculpture. I think you example of chris brown is great. It can be seen as uncool, or in some cases as counter-cultural, but never as good music, because there is no good music.
I personally do not listen to music when alone. I dont like it. I dont see the point. If people come over to mine for dinner (i.e.) I play Thai massage…
If you really wanted to argue that in the individual reception of art in todays world the extrinsic factors outweigh the intrinsic ones, you would first have to define the VALUE of these factors - aka. the terms „quality“ and „context“ in art and what those terms mean to us collectively at this exact point in history.
I mean, what you mustn’t forget is that there actually WAS a time when the most accurate depiction of a landscape was considered the best one. Where skill / talent was synonymous with craftsmanship.
In my opinion, that can largely be attributed to the fact that until the mid-19th century an accurately painted landscape would have evoked a far deeper emotion in…
BIG S ( Sean) I think I agree with you... I think you are right in saying that Kandinsky and Picasso cannot be seen with fresh eyes. They are part of a wider world of "discourse and community". But I think that speaks to my point. I just call this discourse and community extrinsic factors of art... Am I misunderstanding something?
GIOOV! I agree... Its a bit of a chicken and egg problem: What came first the intrinsic liking or the extrinsic liking. I also LOVE your comparison to my blog. I think its a perfect analogy. Of course most of this blog is to show off. And I am not fooled that people actually value the intrinic value of what I say in these blog posts. The fact that most of the engagement I get is from close friends speaks to the fact that they value the extrinsic factors of ME writing this rather than what it actually says. At this point 150 people read this blog and out of the 5 comments 3 are my closest friends (including you…
Great comment norskulk
"increasing social capital" is a perfect way of putting it (I should have thought of this). I'm not sure about artistic skill being an extrinsic factor. Maybe I used the wrong term here. What I am thinking of might be these amazing videos of Stephen Wiltshire who is able to draw the landscape of NYC from memory (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JL6NAIVpl54). There are different degrees to how many windows one can memorize and he is probably the world leader when it comes to that. This to me is a skill in art that is intrinsic and measurable, and should thus be valued. But his drawings arent being sold for hundreds of millions....