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

What you see, and how they interact with each other. Examples : linear transformation, parallelism/intersection, mutation, similarity. The goal is to find a "narrative" : a story of such interactions. Can we find one that is revealing/rewarding ? I must warn you that it's not always possible.

How would that look like for the two lines? What are the objectives everyone sees? How do you tell someone who doesn't see the painting? Or should he see it during the narrative? Do you offer generally applicable instructions to conceptually reconstruct? I haven't read the whole theorem you offered yet, but is that the aim? A kind of objective theory of everything in the realm of products of art? With the aim to intensify pleasure?

How would that look like for the two lines? — Raymond

That could look like this :

1. The horizontal and vertical lines intersect so that each line is divided into a short and long segment (before and after the intersection point).
2. The long segment of the horizontal line hypostatizes the horizontal dimension of the diamond (by being contained inside, and running across uninterrupted). You can see that this wouldn't work if the horizontal and vertical lines intersected right in the middle of the diamond.
3. The long segment of the vertical line hypostatizes the vertical dimension of the diamond (by being contained inside, and running across uninterrupted).
4. So the horizontal and vertical dimensions of the diamond only "visually intersect" when hypostatized

There are other reconstruction candidates, but that's one.

What are the objectives everyone sees? How do you tell someone who doesn't see the painting? Or should he see it during the narrative? Do you offer generally applicable instructions to conceptually reconstruct? I haven't read the whole theorem you offered yet, but is that the aim? A kind of objective theory of everything in the realm of products of art? With the aim to intensify pleasure? — Raymond

The reconstruction needs to be read with the painting side-by-side. There are no instructions for reconstruction. Follow your instincts. If nothing comes out of it, say the painting a Jackson Pollock-like mess, well too bad. The goal is to intensify pleasure, yeah.

say the painting a Jackson Pollock-like mess, well too bad. The goal is to intensify pleasure, yeah.
10mReplyOptions — thaumasnot

A JP like mess is sufficient for pleasure...A sufficient, but not necessary condition. Two orthogonal lines do just as well. Unless you don't view a JP-like mess as sufficient for pleasure...

A JP like mess is sufficient for pleasure...A sufficient, but not necessary condition. Two orthogonal lines do just as well. Unless you don't view a JP-like mess as sufficient for pleasure... — Raymond

Well, pleasure is subjective, so obviously, JP can be a source of pleasure, and that goes without saying. That said, it can also be interesting to reconstruct, if it's not a homogenous mess. I just used it as a metaphor for "homogenous mess", but just to illustrate a point, not intending to say JP is a homogenous mess.

Regarding the reconstruction of Mondrian above, I don't claim any expertise. What I do believe, is that most people can arrive at the same narrative instinctively if they let go of any preconception and just look with good awareness. The reconstruction just helps to accelerate the process.

if they let go of any preconception — thaumasnot

But doesn't need a conceptual reconstruction a preconception also? If you were born in old Greek, maybe the instinctive narrative is different from ours? You think all people share the same instinctive narrative? Sounds like scientific realism. We all see the same world. Doesn't the view, the worldview, so to speak, depend on the narrative? If you value the scientific story (and there are a lot of different stories in the book of these stories, short ones, long ones containing dozens of chapters, basic stories, and they feature a wide variety of characters) then that's what you see. If you value other stories then you see different things. But I know what you mean. It's a great story you wrote!

You think all people share the same instinctive narrative? — Raymond

It's a hunch, not a profound thesis. If I read my reconstruction, I don't see any observation in it that another person couldn't make. On the other hand, if I tell that the lines are a Man and a Woman, I don't expect people to share the same idea.

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

OK, I understand now, it is intended to add to the experience. It's not just something that the interpreter takes from the piece for one's own pleasure, it's also intended to give something to others. I'd say it's sort of like the traditional "Coles Notes" or "Cliffs Notes". These were published as study guides for common high school, college, and even university readings. The idea is to read them as a companion to the original, to assist in understanding the original. You couldn't write your assignment just from reading the Notes though, because it would be evident to the teachers who generally knew the contents of the Notes, resulting in a low mark.

Now that I've got the general idea, I want to understand your approach to the medium, what I call content. You seem to call the whole piece "the content", I like to break the piece into form and content, in a more traditional way. So let me start with what you call the narrative to produce an example.

A narrative is like a story, so it is necessarily extended in time. Time is built in to a narrative, but the narrative need not proceed chronologically so long as the proper indications are made to avoid confusion which would lose the narrative. A static piece, like a painting or a photograph cannot show a narrative, however, a narrative may be implied. So a photograph or painting of activity has an implied narrative, but no real narrative. The implied narrative is open to the imagination of the mind of the interpreter, such that the further you get from the snapshot of the picture, in your interpretation of what is going on, the more imaginary the interpreter's narrative is. There is really no narrative offered by the artist, just a snapshot.

Can you accept this division for me, between what is shown right there, explicit, in the content (the piece) and what is left to the imagination, or implied? And would you agree that the artist's mode of operation is often to stimulate the imagination, this being fundamental to the aesthetic experience? So we might find a sacrifice of the explicit, the artist presenting a vague or unclear content, (metaphor for example), for the sake of the implicit, leaving as much as possible to the imagination of the audience. Perhaps "implicit" is not the right word because it connotes a logical working of the imagination, and here I am talking about a more base form of correlative or associative meaning. Of course there is a fine balance between the two, for the artist to maintain, otherwise one would hand the audience a blank piece of paper and say 'use your imagination'.

How would you personally deal with this gap which exists only in principle? I say it exists only in principle because we generally can't look at a piece and divide it cleanly, saying this is what is explicit and this is what is implicit. From the very top, or the very bottom, everything must be considered as implicit to begin with. What is explicit is a sort of arbitrary judgement. Everything is open to interpretation. In your example, "The music starts with a motif M (0:2 to 0:8) that gets repeated in the next phrase (0:10 to 0:18)", these two might be better expressed as one part of a larger whole. A 6/8 time might be expressed as a 3/4 time if the bars are halved and the eigths are turned into quarters.

So it appears like your goal is to start with what is what I called "explicit", and build upon this, to produce an approach to the implicit. But a good artist knows how to intertwine the implicit with the explicit to the extent that what is explicit is only implicit, meaning that the way to judge what is explicit is only implied. So if an interpreter latched on to certain aspects saying this is what is explicit, and produces an interpretation based on that assumption, it would be fundamentally incorrect from the base up, because what is explicit is only implied. The artist might have created something in which everything is implied (such as abstract art), but it appears as if certain things are explicit, or even the things which appear to be explicit are meant to be metaphoric, etc..

That's long and drawn out, but I'll get to the point now. In the case of producing study Notes for textbook learning, it's pretty much non-controversial as to what is explicit, and "said" by the piece of work, so there's not much of a problem here, though there is enough variance for the teacher to determine what is Notes based. But in the case of much artwork, what is "said" by the piece, (what I call "content") is often the most controversial aspect. What this means is that there is disagreement as to what is explicit. So if you propose to start with what is explicit, and build on that, how do you get beyond this problem of determining what is explicit? A simple mistake in this primary judgement would turn the project into a hinderance for understanding rather than a helper, by pointing the reader in the wrong direction.

Can you accept this division for me, between what is shown right there, explicit, in the content (the piece) and what is left to the imagination, or implied? And would you agree that the artist's mode of operation is often to stimulate the imagination, this being fundamental to the aesthetic experience? — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes to both questions.

So if you propose to start with what is explicit, and build on that, how do you get beyond this problem of determining what is explicit? — Metaphysician Undercover

I think that the division implicit/explicit might be too academic for what reconstruction is trying to achieve. It's not so much implicit/explicit that matters here, than the ability to match the reconstruction to the content. So if I say "The music starts with a motif M (0:2 to 0:8) that gets repeated in the next phrase (0:10 to 0:18)", it doesn't matter that what I observe is explicit or implicit.

So the real problem is not determining what is explicit versus implicit, but determining what I choose to focus on while experiencing the content (implicit or explicit). Since the motivation is hedonistic, this is an empirical problem. In reconstructionism, the choice is to focus on things like melodic motifs. As you noted, motifs can be looked at from different perspectives, in practice it's not too much of a problem because the way the music is, motifs will often jump at you without you spending much effort. In addition, in your example of looking at a larger structure, you can do it at the same time as keeping in mind the repetition of M (that's the attention span I talk about). Networks of correlation are difficult to keep in mind (many data), and a compromise must typically be struck, where you'll ignore certain parts of the medium. For example, when I listen to listen to metal music, I will focus on the guitar riffs and not pay too much attention to the drums or vocals. There is a certain sensuality in the medium of music that helps filter "useless" correlations (it's empirical of course, and not always the best choice, which is why we share reconstructions, so that others may improve on them or improve theirs). Why would someone do this exercise, which sounds like tedious work ? Because there's sometimes a big payoff at the end, in the form of "beautiful" resolutions (that only narratives can bring). Triumph can only be attained through great adversity.

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. — Raymond

I read the claim and chuckled. It's actually the type of paper that I would reconstruct for fun. I might do it.

I think that the division implicit/explicit might be too academic for what reconstruction is trying to achieve. It's not so much implicit/explicit that matters here, than the ability to match the reconstruction to the content. So if I say "The music starts with a motif M (0:2 to 0:8) that gets repeated in the next phrase (0:10 to 0:18)", it doesn't matter that what I observe is explicit or implicit. — thaumasnot

The point was that the content isn't necessarily explicit. So if you take what appears to be explicit content, when the true content is implicit, then you have a false start. You are not really starting with the content at all. Are you familiar with Wittgenstein's rabbit-duck? Suppose you see an explicit duck, in a scenario like this, and you state "duck" as the content. Someone else might call the same content "rabbit". If you do not see it as both a duck and a rabbit, as that is what is intended by the author, and describe it as both, you have not correctly represented the content. So when the content is open to interpretation, i.e. there is nothing explicit, it is all implicit, how do you know that you are describing it correctly? Maybe your technique is only good for certain types of work?

So the real problem is not determining what is explicit versus implicit, but determining what I choose to focus on while experiencing the content (implicit or explicit). Since the motivation is hedonistic, this is an empirical problem. In reconstructionism, the choice is to focus on things like melodic motifs. As you noted, motifs can be looked at from different perspectives, in practice it's not too much of a problem because the way the music is, motifs will often jump at you without you spending much effort. In addition, in your example of looking at a larger structure, you can do it at the same time as keeping in mind the repetition of M (that's the attention span I talk about). Networks of correlation are difficult to keep in mind (many data), and a compromise must typically be struck, where you'll ignore certain parts of the medium. For example, when I listen to listen to metal music, I will focus on the guitar riffs and not pay too much attention to the drums or vocals. There is a certain sensuality in the medium of music that helps filter "useless" correlations (it's empirical of course, and not always the best choice, which is why we share reconstructions, so that others may improve on them or improve theirs). Why would someone do this exercise, which sounds like tedious work ? Because there's sometimes a big payoff at the end, in the form of "beautiful" resolutions (that only narratives can bring). Triumph can only be attained through great adversity. — thaumasnot

To me, this sems to contradict what you said, that the value of the reconstruction is as a helper. If you just pick and choose from the content, to decide how you want to represent it, how can this help anyone else? Any other person might just pick and choose in one's own way, so why would they want to be influenced by someone else, who might actually ruin one's own experience of the piece. It would be like study notes where the author of the Notes just arbitrarily decided which parts of the work to focus on. That would not be a help.

The point was that the content isn't necessarily explicit. So if you take what appears to be explicit content, when the true content is implicit, then you have a false start. You are not really starting with the content at all. Are you familiar with Wittgenstein's rabbit-duck? Suppose you see an explicit duck, in a scenario like this, and you state "duck" as the content. Someone else might call the same content "rabbit". If you do not see it as both a duck and a rabbit, as that is what is intended by the author, and describe it as both, you have not correctly represented the content. So when the content is open to interpretation, i.e. there is nothing explicit, it is all implicit, how do you know that you are describing it correctly? Maybe your technique is only good for certain types of work? — Metaphysician Undercover

You’re not taking into account the hedonistic goal of reconstruction. It’s not to be correct (in fact, I find trying to reach correctness a boring over-valued speculative endeavour, which is one of the reasons for reconstructionism), although, as I stated before, it does stick to the content like a dog to his bone. In fact, in most cases, for reconstruction the author or authorial intention isn’t even in the picture. So, using your example, yes I might only see the duck and build a narrative around that. Not a problem. It’s not about being correct, but whether the narrative, even with just the duck, is interesting. If one day I read another’s reconstruction speaking about the rabbit and find merit to a narrative with both the rabbit and the duck, I may change my reconstruction. In fact, if the duck-only narrative is better, I’ll keep it and ignore the rabbit.

To me, this sems to contradict what you said, that the value of the reconstruction is as a helper. If you just pick and choose from the content, to decide how you want to represent it, how can this help anyone else? Any other person might just pick and choose in one's own way, so why would they want to be influenced by someone else, who might actually ruin one's own experience of the piece. It would be like study notes where the author of the Notes just arbitrarily decided which parts of the work to focus on. That would not be a help. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is answered in one of my previous posts regarding music reconstruction:

* 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. — thaumasnot

So whether a reconstruction helps a given person depends on a few factors, such as their culture, their experience. It can indeed be revolutionary to the person, or banal. But even if it’s banal, it’s still useful. For example, for me at this point this is banal, but I’d be interested to read others’ reconstructions. Because reconstructions are an occasion to re-live the content through others’ eyes (the reason why many of us read reviews of things we already know) in a way that, for me at least, is much more interesting and productive that traditional criticism/reviewing (cf. Manifesto). Through others’ reconstructions, I can also find out new things. Don’t underestimate point 2 above (or even the variance that you mention in regard to implicit stuff).

Another benefit is that reconstruction changes the mindset of consumers. Since the focus moves to the medium-specific narratives, people are more likely to reconstruct great medium-specific narratives. So their selection of what to reconstruct becomes instantly more interesting to a person like me. That’s a potential basis for a reconstructionist community.

It would be like study notes where the author of the Notes just arbitrarily decided which parts of the work to focus on. — Metaphysician Undercover

So regarding the "arbitrary" part : the individual observations of a reconstruction are arbitrary when taken in isolation. That's one of the things another poster in this thread had a hard time dealing with. They read in a reconstruction of a painting "there are verticalities" and don't know what to make of it, probably because they find it arbitrary. The thing is that reconstruction is a narrative, like a story. The reconstruction is made because the reconstructionist found observations that build up to an interesting narrative, with a beginning, a middle and an end. So of course, if you extract any part out of the narrative, it looks arbitrary. It's like quoting anything out of context. For example, "the prince picks a sword" in isolation is arbitrary if you don't know that he picks it to slay the dragon which keeps the princess captive.

The recontruction of a painting then needs context too. I referred to the other thread because also there a context is eliminated. The same kind of context you refer to. It focuses on knowledge, like you focus on a piece of art. There is no piece of art, knowledge, or any kind of material, existing in a vacuum. The duck and the rabbit
can be narrated like a duck, a rabbit, both dubbit or a rabbuck, or just a curvy black line. Or as a collection of particles on a white underground. Any narrative will do when both viewers agree on the narrative. What's the real view? Is the creator of the work important? Is it important what they wanted to say? What if it's an image of gods or a mathematical expression? Or an image trying to convey the meaning of freedom or suffering? What if we look at the Quernica picture by Picasso? Should we take the war or his family into consideration, or just the painting "as it is"?

What's the real view? Is the creator of the work important? Is it important what they wanted to say? What if it's an image of gods or a mathematical expression? Or an image trying to convey the meaning of freedom or suffering? What if we look at the Quernica picture by Picasso? Should we take the war or his family into consideration, or just the painting "as it is"? — Raymond

All these considerations are obsoleted in a hedonistic endeavour. Choose what you're interested in, and find a medium-specific narrative based on the chosen context/content.

What's the real view? Is the creator of the work important? Is it important what they wanted to say? What if it's an image of gods or a mathematical expression? Or an image trying to convey the meaning of freedom or suffering? What if we look at the Quernica picture by Picasso? Should we take the war or his family into consideration, or just the painting "as it is"? — Raymond

To help you get an idea why these questions become trivial in the hedonistic context of reconstruction, let's take the Mondrian reconstruction. I could say the painting is by Mondrian for example. That it was painted in a certain period of his life, that it was inspired by other paintings. Now that we've decided that we'll use these facts, the merits of all these considerations can be empirically assessed in relation to the painting. If you take the reconstruction I gave, you can see that these considerations are not necessary at all to the described narrative. For me, they're tacked-on fluff, overused interpretation clichés. In fact, they're not more interesting than if I pretend it was Freud or Einstein who did the painting. So I don't care for them, and don't use them. This is a hedonistic process, not a quest for truth. Now, if you care for them, use them, although I doubt you'll find an interesting medium-specific narrative for them. Traditional interpretation is more suited than reconstruction for that sort of things.

The problem I find is that in many cases the whole narrative might be arbitrary, imaginary, fictional, simply made up. Like in my analogy of a photograph, or still painting, there is absolutely no objective narrative in that medium, because there is no temporal extension, regardless of whether it's a snap shot of an action scene, as a narrative requires temporal extension. So whatever narrative which one comes up with, it would be imaginary, fictional or made up.

This is why I suggested that reconstructionism might be better suited to some forms of art than others. If there is already some form of narrative within the content then a narrative in the reconstruction is justified. But then I don't understand the point, because to be true you'd just want to copy the original as close as possible, and I don't see the purpose to intentionally making a different narrative from the one proposed by the artist, because you might as well just make your own piece of art. This would just be like a disguised plagiarism.

What type of art do you consider is more suited to reconstruction? One with temporal extension, and a real narrative, or one without temporal extension, therefore no inherent narrative?

The problem I find is that in many cases the whole narrative might be arbitrary, imaginary, fictional, simply made up. Like in my analogy of a photograph, or still painting, there is absolutely no objective narrative in that medium, because there is no temporal extension, regardless of whether it's a snap shot of an action scene, as a narrative requires temporal extension. So whatever narrative which one comes up with, it would be imaginary, fictional or made up. — Metaphysician Undercover

In a hedonistic mindset, the fictionality/non-fictionality dichotomy is not a problem. It so happens that in reconstruction, we insist on "pure referentiality" (i.e., everything it says must be traceable), so that may look like an attempt at reaching pure objectivity, but it's not. The only thing that matters is what we can get out of the reconstruction in hedonistic terms.

This is why I suggested that reconstructionism might be better suited to some forms of art than others. — Metaphysician Undercover

It is. Why would one want to reconstruct a painting that is a uniform blue (Yves Klein)?

But then I don't understand the point, because to be true you'd just want to copy the original as close as possible, — Metaphysician Undercover

Not really. There are many things in a medium that can be redundant, distracting (e.g., as I mentioned, drums and vocals in metal music), or not an essential part of the narrative ("essential" here is subjective, dictated by the appreciation of the reconstructionist).

Furthermore, as you said, there's the ambiguity of the implicit/explicit content that makes a partial copy a bit tricky.

What type of art do you consider is more suited to reconstruction? One with temporal extension, and a real narrative, or one without temporal extension, therefore no inherent narrative? — Metaphysician Undercover

Undoubtedly, music. Then, on par, I'd go with text, movies, comics. Then groups of paintings (triptychs). Last would be standalone paintings. So you can guess that the main criterion is the ability to lay out a narrative temporally. Music is first because it's a focused and still very malleable medium. In theory, movies should be first, but in practice they are not (the medium is comically under-exploited IMO).

Not really. There are many things in a medium that can be redundant, distracting (e.g., as I mentioned, drums and vocals in metal music), or not an essential part of the narrative ("essential" here is subjective, dictated by the appreciation of the reconstructionist). — thaumasnot

I wouldn't agree with your interpretation of metal music. Drums are essential to all rock music, setting the intricacies of the rhythm. And in metal music, drums not only set the rhythm but they fill the space for the effect of varying volume densities, which is essential to that genre. That's why compression is not a simple tool for the engineer, and is often avoided. "Loudness" is actually a tricky concept. And vocals are essential to set the attitude. Why concentrate on the guitar, when it all sounds the same from one piece to the next? But that's just personal taste.

Undoubtedly, music. Then, on par, I'd go with text, movies, comics. Then groups of paintings (triptychs). Last would be standalone paintings. So you can guess that the main criterion is the ability to lay out a narrative temporally. Music is first because it's a focused and still very malleable medium. In theory, movies should be first, but in practice they are not (the medium is comically under-exploited IMO). — thaumasnot

I can see why music suits the style, because it is the classic temporal art form, and your interpretation is based in narrative. Narrative is a temporal expression.

I wouldn't agree with your interpretation of metal music. Drums are essential to all rock music, setting the intricacies of the rhythm. — Metaphysician Undercover

That's why I said reconstruction is a helper. A reconstruction of metal music would totally change how you listen to music (whether it's for the better remains to be seen), even though it just "copies". Your analysis of rock music is very typical (in fact, it isn't far from what in the Manifesto is described as "description for the blind/deaf"), and reconstructionism is historically a separation from the trend it represents.

Why concentrate on the guitar, when it all sounds the same from one piece to the next? — Metaphysician Undercover

That's the most revealing part of what you said. I constantly said throughout our conversation "let's use the example of the motif M that gets repeated". Why? That's because people have that tendency to go away from it, and you saying "it all sounds the same" is one instance of it. If you focus on things like motifs and correlations, facts like "it all sounds the same" don't even enter the picture. There's a whole new world for you to explore. If you want to explore it is your choice. If you're perfectly happy with rock music, maybe you don't need to, and I'm not here to tell you what to do. I offer an alternative to people who still seek a way to tackle music/art that's deeper and more intellectually rewarding.

Like in my analogy of a photograph, or still painting, there is absolutely no objective narrative in that medium, because there is no temporal extension, regardless of whether it's a snap shot of an action scene, as a narrative requires temporal extension. — Metaphysician Undercover

There is nothing instantaneous about the way we encounter something like a painting. A painting tells a story that unfolds temporally as one’s gaze moves from one object to another within the frame, and then circles back after having formed bits of narrative to be embellished or reconfigured by further looking. The more we stare at a painting, the more it seems
to be doing and changing.

Given that a movie is a series of frames, it constitutes merely a more temporally extended version of what is already a fundamentally temporal affair.

That's why I said reconstruction is a helper. A reconstruction of metal music would totally change how you listen to music (whether it's for the better remains to be seen), even though it just "copies". Your analysis of rock music is very typical (in fact, it isn't far from what in the Manifesto is described as "description for the blind/deaf"), and reconstructionism is historically a separation from the trend it represents. — thaumasnot

I guess I just don't understand why I need help to enjoy something I already enjoy. Perhaps if I didn't enjoy it, but wanted to enjoy it, that might help. But what would be the motivation to make me want to enjoy something which I do not. It's as if you treat me like a child and I don't want to eat my peas. You say, follow this technique and I'll help you to make peas taste good. Well, if peas are supposed to be good for me, I might want to develop a taste for peas, therefore follow the technique. But how is something like metal music good for me, so why would I want to develop the taste if I didn't already have it? And if I already had the taste for it, that taste would be based in something personal, so how would the reconstruction do anything but subtract from my enjoyment of it, through distraction?

A painting tells a story that unfolds temporally as one’s gaze moves from one object to another within the frame, and then circles back after having formed bits of narrative to be embellished or reconfigured by further looking. — Joshs

The point was that this "story" is not explicit, therefore whatever story you imagine, it's not at all objective.

The more we stare at a painting, the more it seems
to be doing and changing. — Joshs

Oh sorry, I didn't realize this was a school of art appreciation for acid trippers.

The point was that this "story" is not explicit, therefore whatever story you imagine, it's not at all objective. — Metaphysician Undercover

Oh sorry, I didn't realize this was a school of art appreciation for acid trippers — Metaphysician Undercover

I’ve done a fair amount of painting. Any artist will tell you that the design of a painting explicitly directs the viewer’s
attention as a temporal unfolding. So the view may not recognize the story as explicit, but the creator of the art does.

Any artist will tell you that the design of a painting explicitly directs the viewer’s
attention as a temporal unfolding. So the view may not recognize the story as explicit, but the creator of the art does. — Joshs

I agree, that this is the case once in a while. But often the artist wants the viewers to use their minds to create one's own narrative. In this case, the creator does not know the story, because the intention is to allow for whatever story the viewer wants to come up with. One viewer produces one narrative, another produces another, and the artist would say they are both acceptable, because the art was produced without a specific story in mind.

I tried to express the notion of freedom in a painting. There is a wall with an aperture. Barbed wire spans the aperture. In front of the wire we look at a gigantic back of a bold head. The head is bashed in. Inside the head we see the silhouette of an armed police man, with a helmet and machine gun. Behind the barbed wire, in free space, we see the clay-like shape of a person (no face, only a form with a big head, and a dancing body). The figure dances on a rope in space, holding a stick with a curly ribbon. A view to freedom. Is the notion of freedom an objective feature of the painting?

Is the notion of freedom an objective feature of the painting? — Raymond

I'm pretty sure I would not see that painting as an expression of freedom. It's far too violent, and from the description the violence appears to be in the foreground. Try a dove maybe?

Well, if peas are supposed to be good for me, I might want to develop a taste for peas, therefore follow the technique. But how is something like metal music good for me, so why would I want to develop the taste if I didn't already have it? — Metaphysician Undercover

To be more accurate, it’s not really metal music that’s the subject, but medium-specific narratives. They’re not specific to metal music. They’re actually genre-less. The more you pay attention to them, the more concepts like genre will appear arbitrary and silly. It just so happens that metal has some of the most interesting medium-specific narratives, and at the same time, it could perfectly be argued that a lot of metal (most actually) don’t have interesting medium-specific narratives. So I said “metal music,” but that’s actually a confusing choice of words.

Back to your question. So why would you want to develop the taste if you didn't already have it [taste for medium-specific narratives]? I don’t know. Could be:

1. Curiosity, taste for experiments
2. Existential questioning: if it “all sounds the same”, why have different motifs? In music with more structure than verse/chorus, why bother with such intricate patterns and elaborate song structures? Etc.
3. Doubts regarding traditional analysis/reviewing: the way we talk about music, and how analysis/reviews talk about it, are not how we experience music. What is this gap? The natural extension of this line of questioning is the development of our awareness for medium-specific narratives.
4. Intuition that there’s something more to music. How most people (and that includes 99% of metal fans) listen to music is what I call passive consumption, or superficial, mindless entertainment (I know, because I still listen that way when I’m not concentrating, which is most of the time).
5. The promise of a different type of sensations/payoff. Very roughly, it will lead you to something like big Eureka moments. In metal, you can superficially spot where these moments tend to occur. Traditionally, it’s in the form of “riff breakdowns” that are announced “theatrically”: the vocalist sometimes emit a distinctive exclamative roar, there’s a big break in the drumming, or there’s a striking aesthetic transition (for example, Metallica’s Master of Puppets when it switches to clean-sounding guitars). In the context of “great” medium-specific narratives, these kind of moments gain a whole dimension of significance. In other genres like classical music, these moments are not so much theatricalized. For example, in Vivaldi (who is my go-to when it comes to medium-specific narratives) the moment can aesthetically look like any other moment, and someone with no awareness of the narrative will just not hear anything different.

And if I already had the taste for it, that taste would be based in something personal, so how would the reconstruction do anything but subtract from my enjoyment of it, through distraction? — Metaphysician Undercover

Since it’s a totally different way of listening, it lives in a separate plane of enjoyment, so to speak. You can always revert to your old ways. That’s what I do, you can’t always listen with the focus required by the medium-specific narrative, that would be mentally taxing.

Is the notion of freedom an objective feature of the painting? — Raymond

Are you trying to play a game of Dixit or what? (Sorry for the sarcasm...)

I had to look up Dixit. First time encounter for me, so I could not have tried to play it. How can the objective view on the painting reveal that what it's trying to convey? I can give you an objective description of the letters in the word "PHYSICS", first letter, a small vertical with a semi-circle attached right above, second one two parallel verticals with a small horizontal in the middle, etc. but what does the word mean? And even the objective description needs an agreement about what's an objective feature.