I don't know what "verticality" or "convexity" mean, represent, or imply with visual art — T Clark

Don't tell me you don't know that in abstract painting most trees stand vertical and their leaves are convex. Same for realistic work. Vertical, up-down linearly, convex, spherical.

That's the experiment. — thaumasnot

Sounds exciting. Could we discover elements the artist wasn't aware of?

Don't tell me you don't know that in abstract painting most trees stand vertical and their leaves are convex. Same for realistic work. Vertical, up-down linearly, convex, spherical. — Raymond

Just thanks.

Could we discover elements the artist wasn't aware of? — Raymond

Possibly yes. (But to be fair, that's not specific to the reconstructionist method. An artist can read a traditional interpretation of their work, and roll their eyes.)

As a matter of fact, you made me turn on some music! It looks like a soundscape to be discovered. Still... What should an objective conceptual reconstruction look like (I haven't read all your work yet)? Does our mind logically reconstruct somehow? New pattern seems to "click" into existence somehow. What pieces of sound are objective properties?

New pattern seems to "click" into existence somehow. What pieces of sound are objective properties? — Raymond

For reconstruction, it's mostly about melodic structure. For example, phrases, or segments within the phrases. There's a certain grammar we all perceive, and that helps us organize what would otherwise be chaos.

What pieces of sound are objective properties? — Raymond

A very basic one would be relative position of notes (whether note is higher or lower than another note). This is constantly used in reconstructions.

But where "reconstruction" refers to? By the way, the music I listen to:

Construction time again

Do you mean you want to reconstruct the song? My method is to memorize the shape of the melodies as the music plays (doesn't have to be perfect). When a phrase happens, I compare it to previously encountered melodies in the song, and correlate motifs within them. This process is reiterated in real-time until the end of the song. A medium-specific narrative thus emerges, and if I find it great, I will write it down. Note that it can take many listens, because it's not always easy to memorize, especially with complex pieces like in classical music, and it requires an attention span that is not compatible with our "instant consumption" (or fast-food consumption, if you will) tendencies. I have a lot of experience, so it helps. Of course, whether the resulting medium-specific narrative is rewarding depends on your experience/value system, and the song. No amount of reconstruction will make a song sound great if its medium-specific narrative isn't.

I posted the song, the album, because the title was appropiate: (re)"Construction time again". How to reconstruct that?

What you mean by medium specific narrative? Stories told about different media used in art, or other traditions? In science there exists logical reconstruction. Are yours and this similar somehow? Both are reconstructions.

What you mean by medium specific narrative? — Raymond

Have you read the Manifesto? This would save me from repeating myself.

Have you read the Manifesto? — thaumasnot

Not all of it. I'll try to find it.

The mosaic is predisposed to distract from the content, as if through centrifugal force. Reviewing is known to relate to the content in the following ways:

* Description for the blind or deaf (for example, enumerating the instruments in a musical piece, or, if there’s a tree in a painting, saying, with style, that there’s a tree)
* Analysis “through the microscope”, that is, features of the mosaic are individually looked at in detail (for example, the rhyming structure of a poem, or the references and historical context of a painting)
* Myopic overviews, mostly in the form of categorizations (for example, categorizing a Beethoven piece as Romantic-era classical music) — thaumasnot

We could give a mosaic of essential features, without being myopic, blind or deaf, or analyzing through a microscope. But who determines what parts of the piece are mosaic parts? Can this be determined objectively, as well as communicated objectively? The work that is conceptually reconstructed has to be looked at in an a priori defined manner. Somehow, your theory reminds me of the scientific approach to reality, where empiricism plays a role.

I will try to come up with a narrative for a painting. The narrative, by definition, has to be spoken or written or spoken. Or can we give a visual narrative of music, and a sound narrative of a painting?

But who determines what parts of the piece are mosaic parts? — Raymond

It's a mix of convention, habits, utility. Cf. intro paragraphs.

The work that is conceptually reconstructed has to be looked at in an a priori defined manner. Somehow, your theory reminds me of the scientific approach to reality, where empiricism plays a role. — Raymond

It's basically the hedonistic thing.

I will try to come up with a narrative for a painting. The narrative, by definition, has to be spoken or written or spoken. Or can we give a visual narrative of music, and a sound narrative of a painting? — Raymond

It's described further down in the Manifesto.

Don't tell me you don't know that in abstract painting most trees stand vertical and their leaves are convex. Same for realistic work. Vertical, up-down linearly, convex, spherical. — Raymond

Yes, I know what the words mean, but not in the context they are being used. I don't know their significance, why we should be paying attention to them.

don't know their significance, why we should be paying attention to them. — T Clark

In Mondriaan's depiction of the man and the wife, only two orthogonal black lines are used, horizontally and vertically. The frame is rotated 45 degrees. If we conceptually reconstruct it, we need to use verticallity only. The painting is conceptually reconstructed:

-Two black lines, one vertically, Man, one antivertically, Woman.
-Woman and Man shake the boundaries. The house containing them ain't big enough for the both of them.
-Man and Woman push each other into the corner, mutually orthogonal.
-Convexity is absent.

Can we apply verticallity to poetry or music?

Can we apply verticallity to poetry or music? — Raymond

You seem to have a better grasp on what's going on here than I do.

Yes, I know what the words mean, but not in the context they are being used. I don't know their significance, why we should be paying attention to them. — T Clark

That's the sort of things the other thread was about.

The painting is conceptually reconstructed — Raymond

Do you have a link to the painting?

The music is “quoted” and a correlation (the repetititon) is noted. What is not objective for you here ? — thaumasnot

As I said, the content, and the medium itself, is inherently subjective, as it is chosen by the artist. This choice is the very base of a subjective expression which is the artistic expression. The choice of medium is the subjective base.

To quote the piece is simply to copy it. When you copy it, it is not your creation but someone else's, so you can create the impression of objectivity, by showing that it's something which can be copied, i.e. it has objective existence. The piece itself remains inherently subjective, freely created by a subject. To have an objective copy would be to copy it exactly as it was composed. But you choose not to copy, you choose to reconstruct. So you do not end up with an objective copy, you end up with a subjective reconstruction, which you claim is based in some kind of objectivity. It isn't though, because you do not copy the piece you only choose which parts you want to copy. So I don't think you should represent this style of interpretation as any more objective than any other style. It is a different style, but there appears to be nothing in your principles which would make it objective.

So I don't think you should represent this style of interpretation as any more objective than any other style. It is a different style, but there appears to be nothing in your principles which would make it objective. — Metaphysician Undercover

If we want to really nitpick, here are exact quotes relevant to our exchange:

Works are reconstructed in objective, constructive terms — thaumasnot

What’s objective is the quoted content and the correlations. — thaumasnot

So I’m not claiming exactly that reconstruction is objective. From a very strict reading of this, you could say that “What’s objective is the quoted content and the correlations” is not true, but reader with a pragmatic mind would just guess that what I meant is that the quote and the correlations can be verified.

So yeah, we agree. Reconstruction is not objective in an absolute sense, and I don’t care, this was never the point. I only care that people can relate it to the content without ambiguity.

I\m trying to grasp what the point to this style of interpretation is. It's a complex system without any real value scheme. Doesn't that leave it worthless? See if you can answer this question for me. What is the overarching goal behind this reconstruction system? Is the goal to produce good quality interpretations, as reconstructions, or is the goal to produce a complex formal system of interpretation?

Take a look at it this way for example. There is a relationship between any particular reconstruction and the original piece which is chosen. Is that a relationship of value? So we might say that if an interpretation adds something to the original it is a good interpretation, and if it takes something away from the original, it is a bad interpretation. And we could judge the interpretation as good or bad because it has some value for the person trying to experience the full affect of the original.

If there is no value in this relationship, then the reconstruction just exists in some parallel relation, and we have to ask what is the purpose in producing it. Then it might turn out that this is just a meaningless practice of following some principles, as a hedonistic self-indulgence, with no real purpose except to be the recipient of the gratification derived from having followed the principles. If this is the case, then the challenge is to build the system, creating a more and more complex system, making it increasingly difficult to follow, thereby increasing the gratification received from having followed it.

Mondriaan

It depends how the poem is looked at, as all things. A vertical poem seems militant, aggressive, or coming at ya. It won't bow, it's strict and reaches for heaven. To be read in staccato.
A convex poem is modest, resilient, and inviting. Written with a lot of vowels, spoken with round lips.

You can imagine what the horizonal and ellipsoid poems hold in store for us.

You can imagine what the horizonal and ellipsoid poems hold in store for us. — Raymond

If those metaphors work for you, that's good. If you hadn't explained them, I probably wouldn't have known what you were trying to say. Those are probably not words I would use to describe poetry.

It are just words. Like hyperbolic, circular, linear, square, harmonic, spherical, tangent, projective, isomorph, injective, stochastic, conic, fractal, invertible, chaotic, infinitesimal, differentiable, continuous (a continuous poem need not be a differentiable one, while a differentiable poem is always a continuous one), singular, regular, particular (not to be confused with a singular poem), integrable, etc. You name it Or you don't, as seems to be the case, and you are allowed. It's an efficient way though to communicate a conceptual reconstruction of a poem in a strict, objective, consistent, effective, and unambiguous directive. No further questions to be asked. Like nature can unambiguously be captured by math, so can poems. Effectively reasonable.

I\m trying to grasp what the point to this style of interpretation is. It's a complex system without any real value scheme. Doesn't that leave it worthless? See if you can answer this question for me. What is the overarching goal behind this reconstruction system? Is the goal to produce good quality interpretations, as reconstructions, or is the goal to produce a complex formal system of interpretation? — Metaphysician Undercover

In a vacuum, a reconstruction is worthless. Let's use this example again:

"The music starts with a motif M (0:2 to 0:8) that gets repeated in the next phrase (0:10 to 0:18)."

Those are observations that anyone can make. While this is true, there is value because:

* People tend to NOT listen making these kinds of observations, don't care about patterns and correlations, etc. They're distracted by other factors, including emotion, aesthetics, immediate sensations
* It's hard to apply the same discipline of observation over a whole song. The reconstruction, as a whole, helps to conceptualize a wide narrative resulting from correlating many observations distributed throughout the song.

So what is the goal ? To provide a guide to consumption that can improve sensations/enjoyment. The payoff is different when you follow the guide (or more precisely listen to the song like the guide suggests) from when you listen to the song casually or interpret it along different axes of analysis (represented by the mosaic defined in the Manifesto). The nature of this improvement has other benefits listed in the Manifesto, including social (cf. section "social and cognitive impact of reconstruction").

Take a look at it this way for example. There is a relationship between any particular reconstruction and the original piece which is chosen. Is that a relationship of value? — Metaphysician Undercover

It has value only relative to the reader/listener, as a helper.

-Two black lines, one vertically, Man, one antivertically, Woman.
-Woman and Man shake the boundaries. The house containing them ain't big enough for the both of them.
-Man and Woman push each other into the corner, mutually orthogonal.
-Convexity is absent. — Raymond

OK I looked at the painting. Athough this isn't expressly forbidden by the reconstructionist method, I wouldn't use "Man" and "Woman" or "house" to describe the lines, that's just confusing and calls for an allegory that is contrary to reconstructionism (it's something you'd find more in traditional interpretation). I would just say the "vertical line" and the "horizontal line" for example. The next point that is missing from the description is the "medium-specific narrative" dimension. Each point in your description is isolated and doesn't interact with the others in a visual way. I'm not saying that you can find interactions that are interesting, this depends on the content.

Somehow this discussion looks like a discussion I read on this forum.Look here.

There is spoken of a manifesto, like you speak about it. And in the same way, more or less, a conceptual reconstruction of science and its foundation is made. I don't say you have to read it, but the similarity is remarkable.

The medium specific narrative. The kind of paint used? What underground is used? Objective properties?