If a great work of art is a constant source of new, deeper meanings, aren't the love songs about how the singer loved a woman/man good art?

The phenomena of discovering deeper meanings begins in the subject that's experiencing art. If one hasn't the interest to interpret a work of art, nothing new will come. And if the subject is willing to find new relations and interpretations in a work of art, he/she can decompose the chorus of "Gucci Gang" and have something frutiferous.

For me, if the aesthetics study's goal is to find objective hints of the existence of a property called "beauty", I'd take as principle remainder the fact that each person reacts to something differently.
It's then clear that aesthetical experience consists of a piece of work and a subject (a piece of work isn't art itself), and that is related to the subject's reaction.

And, if each subject reacts to a work of art differently, the good art explores this concept (this is why Duchamp's "Fountain" is so powerful; it produced the most different reactions. And this is why the silly love songs of the 80's are also so powerful; and they were played, everyone was sure what to do: to dance together with a partner). It is important to remember that my interpretation of good art is directly connected to the social context in which the piece of art is being experienced. And this is another attribute which good art explores: good art can cause the most different reactions or the most certain reaction for a longer period of time.

Maybe this is just another way of saying what you tried to say, but I'm using words less related to the piece and more related to the subject.

Cheers

(Very well formalized thesis, by the way)

I'm from São Paulo! Despite being really close to SP, I've never been to Curitiba :grimace: and thanks, I'm looking forward to study abroad and then come back to Brazil.

Decision is also a pretty interesting topic for philosophy and science, since it is related to the profound question of free will. With the discovery of the randomness in a atomic-scale particle's trajectory, it is doubtful to attribute our decisions to fundamental laws of human nature and a predetermined list of conditions for one to make a choice (it doesn't matter how complex is that list, if something physical is impossible to be fully predicted, a series of this processes is also going to have a random result!)

cheers, man

All of them? If your basis is what we know today, no. Only the ones similar to those already taken by machines. Only the mechanical and equation-related activities. Basically, all activities that are well-described by scientific formulas today, like mechanical or statistical problems. Because we don't have a concise, objective and physical explanation for the human mind (psycology is a possible one, but requires another human as an intermediate), there's no way to create an AI that simulates our creativity/intelligence.

If you believe in scientific determinism and in logical sentences as the supports to our universe, yes. Someday we will have access to every equation behind our powerful conciousness and will be able to translate binary codes into our life model and educational process.

It is important to ask ourselves this: what is the limit to trying to describe events with logical sentences? It is a big thread on philosophy today, as it is entagled to science and the natural aspects of work.

I am sorry for the poor english. I'm a brazilian sixteen year old that just got here.

Hey, I'm new to the forum and I just discovered this topic. I found it really interesting to read, and I would be pleased to participate in this search for knowledge, although I do not know how this topic is. It is also important to state that I'm Brazilian, so my english is not that advanced when it comes to writing...

unenlightened brought a very important point on: this discussion is widely present in femminist movements, specially those connected to marxist theories. I've read many texts questioning compulsive monogamy as both a manipulative tool. A powerful sexist (women are usually depicted as the cheaters of the couples) and capitalist tool used by big company groups that want to maintain their moral beliefs. If you think this way, in which monogamy is injected in your head through cartoons, movies and books, and you believe in the inalienable right of freedom of thinking and acting (what Rousseau and other french philosophers of the eighteenth century used to talk about), then yes, it is morally incorrect. But if you believe that culture is a intrinsecate trait to the human being and no manifestation of it in any context is incorrect, then no.

And if you're feeling worried by this, be sure that you're not the only one. When coming to taste, I'm a hopeless romantic, who writes about his beloved ones and likes to read Keats, Wordsworth, Byron and Brazilian writers such as José de Alencar and Álvares de Azevedo. No wonder that I would love to be in a monogamic relation.
But I try to keep my mind open, and do want to talk to someone who have the same worries.