Aesthetics...100% subjective?

[obie]

Your confusion???

My sarcasm filter is on the fritz.

[bvartist]

Yes, I am serious about my confusion. I have education and training in Design, Drafting, Architecture, Chemistry, Engineering and Computers. I am an artist. I have never in all my education, reading or discussions heard of anything in design that is "absolute". mathematics, yes. But in design everything is either relative or subjective. Yet there seems to be these "absolute" design elements in pipe making that I am unaware of. And if these design elements aren't met the pipe cannot be considered aesthetically pleasing. And as of yet have no clue what these "absolute" design elements are. Some say they are variable, yet to me that says subjective, open to interpretation. Yet by Tyler's posts and more recent ones, I am wrong in this. They are not subjective. Which says to me "absolute". And I'm just trying to find out what the absolutes are.

[obie]

Okay, first off, you're looking waaaay too hard at the concept of beauty being absolute. It's not an issue of beauty being absolute. It's an issue of beauty being a mixture of objective and subjective factors.

However, there are rudiments of composition. Many photographers use the 'rule of threes' - that is, something important should (in principle) be placed at one of the intersections of lines dividing your frame in thirds vertically and horizontally. The Greeks established the 'golden section' - that harmonious relationships in nature are often based on a ratio of 1: square root of 2 (and by extension, square root of 3, square root of 4, square root of 5...). This arrangement forms the basis for ancient Greek architecture as well as the entire European paper system (which is sheer genius).

So, you may notice that in these particular examples, I'm talking about mathematical relationships. Might be something there. Frank Lloyd Wright and R.Buckminster Fuller were all over this stuff - so was A.M. Cassandre, Jan Tsichold, and Norman Rockwell... and for that matter, Bill Watterson and Stan Lee. Don't tell me you studied Architecture and Design and never heard of the golden section or the rule of threes?

Music is foundationally mathematical. Pitches relate to each other by evenly-divided frequencies. Harmonies have mathematically proportional relationships to each other. Rhythm is all about dividing time. Why is most music in 4/4 and 3/4? Why don't we hear more songs in 7/8 or 5/4?

Color relationships are all about physics. Photons, cone receptors, etc... why does warm gray look so bad against lime green? Why is green type hard to read on a red background? Are these things subjective or objective?

I'm not saying any of these are absolutes, but they all hold some clues as to what would make a pipe (or a piece of art, or a song) balanced and harmonious. Nobody is saying that aesthetics are absolute either (at least that's not what I'm saying); I'm saying that in many cases aesthetics have an objective foundation, and beyond that, they're a big pile of subjectivity. And I'm saying that understanding that foundation can make you a better artist.

I can understand how this may be discouraging... you need to know where to look to find this stuff out. And all the criticism floating around here can seem like it's lacking foundation, so it seems entirely subjective. And in some cases, it is... but that's not to say that there aren't some objective principles you can learn that will improve your pipemaking. Do take a look at that Geometry of Design book I recommended - it will blow your mind.

And don't take this to mean that you're doing it all 'wrong' - that's not necessarily the case. This is just more stuff to think about, is all. If you're interested in getting into this, I'm happy to help. Like I said, it shouldn't make it less fun, it should give you a better, sharper set of tools to work with.

Hope that helps, and I apologize if I'm coming across like a jerk.

All the best,
Graham

[bvartist]

I've got a library of design books and years of study. The problem I'm having is none of it is absolute. Yet it seems from this thread that there should be absolutes in pipe making. I'm looking for those absolutes. Such as if the bowl is x.xx inches tall the shank needs to be x.xx inches long to be aethetically pleasing. If the shank can be in a range of x.xx inches to x.xx inches then there is room for interpretation, and for me that is considered to be subjective. I guess its all semantics. The only absolutes I see are design, harmony/balance, symmetry and porportion. But within each of those there is room for interpretation, IMO. And since there is room for interpretation, they are subjective. I've made between 35 and 40 pipes, and have sold 16 of those. I am hoping that the people who bought those pipes found them aesthetically pleasing. I would hate to think of someone buying something they didn't find attractive. However, since I didn't put a ton of time into design principles or measurements or anything like that, chances are by these standards my pipes aren't aesthetically pleasing. Which disturbs me. I am getting better, its a long process, and like most artistic endeavors will never end. There is no such thing as a perfect pipe, or a perfect painting. If the pipe is perfect there is no reason to continue with another because the ultimate goal has been achieved. So if perfect, or even nearly so is the only way to be aesthetically pleasing, I'll probably sell clunkers all my career.

[Tano]

Hi All,
I beleive that rules are necessary for anyone to embark in a field that has to do with art or craft. I'm sure that when,( I use Piccaso because most of us can relate to), started off, he was quite capaple of redering the human figure as realistic as any common person would accept. However in his overall abstract development we see a change in his style that even today, some people, would not be considered as beautifull or visually pleasing. Consider on the other hand, the contribution that he has made to the ART world. Did this not happen by allowing himself freedom of expression? Did he stay close to the rules? If he had followed set and firm rules, would his work ever have been what it is today?
I beleive pipemakers should understand techique, but should allow themselves the freedom to explore the potential of their creativity, then if the work is good it will stand on its own. In the end when the sum of it's parts, a pipe makes you feel good, then the job has been done.

Tano

[obie]

David, who on earth is giving you the impression that to be aesthetically pleasing, your pipes need to correspond with specific measurements? Your pipes are plenty aesthetically pleasing. Why should there be absolutes in pipe making? There aren't absolutes in art. What I've been trying to say the whole way is that there are objective principles that help in design. I'm not saying that you can't get to 'aesthetically pleasing' outside of those principles - just that you shouldn't take it for granted.

Maybe it is semantics. For me, objective does not mean absolute - it just means consistent despite my opinion. Subjectivity to me does not define a 'range of acceptability'. It means that it is only subject to opinion, period. Also, there is a difference between a principle and a rule. A principle may be objective (by my definition) but it needs to be contextualized or enacted to be effective. And that contextualization (translation into specific methodology) is subjective, even though the principle is objective. Make sense?

It seems like you're taking this thread as a personal criticism of your work and process. You're not doing anything wrong. I certainly apologize if that's the impression I've given.

I guess I don't understand what's happening here. Maybe I need to do less talking and more listening...

[bvartist]

No Graham, you've got it right, or wrong! Depending on how we look at it. To this there is no right or wrong answer. My point is no matter how hard we look at things ourselves, someone else is always going to have their own objective and subjective views. No matter what we do, personal likes and dislikes will come into play. My point is of the "literal" nature, if there is room for variation, if there is room for interpretation, then it is subjective. And Tyler stated there was variation within form, symmetry, balance, etc. And variation to me is subjective, and anything not subjective(or variable, or differing point of view) should be absolute. So where specific measurements comes into play, For my way of thinking, if aesthetics aren't 100% subjective, there needs to be some absolute goal to achieve. And the easiest absolute goal in the literal sense is a set of absolute measurements. I probably made my point badly because I think a heck of a lot faster than I type so when I get to the words I've forgotten what I wanted to say. I am a non-conformist and dislike the idea that I have to follow a certain pattern of symmetry, balance, etc. to fit into what others perceive as "normal" or even pleasing. As long as it pleases me, I'm ok with it. Like I said, I create what makes me feel good about what I did, and then hope there are people out there that will appreciate it also.

Personal criticism of my work??? No! I don't take it that way. Just irritation from being a non-conformist in a society that expects conformity. And not directed at anybody here. But society in general. People should have the freedom to be individuals.

Hope I got things a little clearer this time?????

And thank you for your comments about my pipes! Much appreciated!

David

[Tano]

David Look at it this way.
If you are making a tobacco pipe are there rules? Yes, it must have a tobacco chamber, an air hole, so that smoke will travel comfortably. The rest falls into the category of preserntation. How you choose to present that pipe is your ability to craft it. Some people will like it others won't. Nobody should confuse the craft of making pipes with art. In the styling process there should be no rules otherwise we would not have those wonderfull shapes today that were non existent years ago. The big question is, do you want to make pipes that are recognized as your style, or make pipes for the general public? The later will definetly impose more rules on you.

Tano

[bvartist]

Thank you Tano,

You said in those very words what I was trying to say yesterday (and not doing a good job of it! sorry)

From my point of view, in order for anybody to look objectively at my pipes, they have to know the goals I set out to acheive. Since I am the only one who knows what goals I set for the pipe, I'm the only one who can objectively look at the pipe. (my opinion) For anyone else to objectively look at my pipes there would have to be an established and defined set of perameters to look at. Everything else would be subjective to personal opinion, likes and dislikes. (my opinion)

David

[obie]

Now I understand what you're saying, but I still think that the line between objectivity and subjectivity is much more subtle and much more blurry. Sometimes we like things because we subconsciously realize that they conform to the patterns we see in nature (objective), or visual principles which we may or may not be consciously aware of (objective). Sometimes we like them because they fit our taste (subjective).

I realize that I look at this as a commercial artist, which means that I am far more willing than a typical fine artist to have these principles imposed on my work. That's fine. I am a moderate conformist, but that's not to say I don't strive for originality and beauty rather than mass appeal.

I guess I just define things differently. But whether we like it or not, there are subconscious objective principles at work here. If this were truly an 'anything goes' beyond the working requirements of the pipe, a few things would happen - pipes as a whole would look much different than they do from one to the next, and there never would have been any 'classic shapes'. Like I said before, consistent mass subjectivity has the tendency to become objective principle over time.

We can all look at the shape of a pipe and judge it according to principles: it's in balance, has a smooth flow, feels harmonious. Those are objective things - even though we can't necessarily define them, we can see them and understand them and agree on them. They're not absolute, but they are not really subjective either.

We can also look at it and judge it on engineering and craftsmanship: holes are in the right place and cleanly drilled, fit and finish is quality. These aspects get closer to definition, and are aesthetic in a sense, but still not absolute.

Finally, we can judge it subjectively: I like the shape, I don't like the shape. I like the color, I like the stain, I like the grain, I like the stem material. I would buy it, I wouldn't.

Anyway, I think I'm done here. We'll continue to go back and forth on this until we die, and it won't really matter.

[ToddJohnson]

Thank you Tano,

You said in those very words what I was trying to say yesterday (and not doing a good job of it! sorry)

From my point of view, in order for anybody to look objectively at my pipes, they have to know the goals I set out to acheive. Since I am the only one who knows what goals I set for the pipe, I'm the only one who can objectively look at the pipe. (my opinion) For anyone else to objectively look at my pipes there would have to be an established and defined set of perameters to look at. Everything else would be subjective to personal opinion, likes and dislikes. (my opinion)

David

David,

Free advice is always worth what you pay for it, so let that preface my comments here. Having read this entire thread, I'm still a bit confused about the point you're pressing. If you're arguing semantics here, you're probably doing yourself and your interlocutors a disservice. Sure, in a formal scholarly discourse, it's important and necessary to split hairs when defining a particular term, but this is a pipe bulletin board, and people expect to speak much less formally. If, however, formality is your wont, I might suggest the following: instead of speaking in terms of objective and subjective, it may be more helpful to think in terms of a priori versus a posteriori. Certain elements are a priori necessary for any pipe to be beautiful: e.g. it can't be lumpy and amateurish. It can't be a model of discontinuity, etc. Now at this point you could object and say "But what if I like lumpy amatuerish pipes and think they're beautiful," but this takes for granted that everyone's opinion is equally valid and should be given equal weight. Yet, the inherent flaw in democracy is that the ignorant and ill-equipped are still validated, and thus feel justified when positing something that is stupid or wrong. There is a necessary concept in hermeneutics called the "ideal reader" and it basically sets a certain bar for consideration of opinions. Not altogether egalitarian, but it saves discussions like this one from going down the "but what about the guy who really enjoys the taste of feces" path. Simply put, these a priori elements of pipe design are all things that could be agreed upon by decently informed reasonable persons. Worth noting is that such things have nothing whatsoever to do with precise measurements.

The a posteriori elements correspond to what have been referred to as "subjective." That is, by your experience and observance, do you like straight pipes, bent pipes, pipes with plateaux, pipes with green stems, etc., ad infinitum. a posteriori you may not find a pipe appealing even though it possesses all of the a priori necessary elements for beauty in pipe design. It would be exceedingly difficult, however, for any reasonable person to find beauty in a piece that possessed none of these a priori design elements. Not an absolute principle perhaps, but it cuts one hell of a broad swath.

To speak directly to the above quotation, I couldn't disagree more strongly with the underlying logic. "The goals you set out to achieve" are largely irrelevent. It matters not at all what your intention happens to have been, it only matters what you achieved. One need not be informed about your state of mind during the carving process to be an apt critic of the resulting creation. Intentionality matters in pragmatic discourse, both written and oral, but in aesthetics, we ask, "is it beautiful." If so, it is there for the world to see, regardless of your initial goals.

Secondly, you're the last person who can look objectively at your own pipes. By definition, you're already invested in them as their creator. For instance, you might create something that for one reason or another you find especially attractive, but can't give away, much less sell. Conversely, you might do battle with a piece for days and downgrade it because of how frustrating the process was. Yet an informed buyer does not bring the baggage to the piece that you do. It sells in an hour on your website. Believe me, the market is far more objective about your pipes than you are, so ignore it at your peril. You've stated that you're a non-conformist, and that is all perfectly well, but do not kid yourself. If you offer your pipes for sale to the general public, then you are, by definition, a commercial artist. Do not show contempt for those who would support you in your craft. The anti-establishment line may put you on the fast track to a mountainside trailer in Colorodo. Contrary to popular non-conformist oppinion, it is possible to have both your artistic integrity and a BMW. You may find the starving artist persona just doesn't suit.

Best regards,

Todd

[bvartist]

The anti-establishment line may put you on the fast track to a mountainside trailer in Colorodo.

Being from Colorado, and being born to parents that lived in a mountainside trailer at the time, I actually wouldn't mind that!

My "problem" with this whole thread is probably a character flaw, and opinions that may not be shared by anyone else. I emotionally resist anyone telling me that something has to be done a certain way, or look a certain way, or be created a certain way to be aesthetically pleasing. My first question will always be "Why?" And my next will always be "Who says it has to be that way?" Although I know the answers to both questions, there is still the emotional part of me that will always resist the answers. I'm talking in a broad sense here and not on anything specific. Much of what I wrote was from a purely emotional resistance to what was stated. And for that I apologize. I know better than do that but couldn't stop myself.

From my point of view, nobody can look objectively at any art or craft. Not to say people can't be objective in their views. But initial reactions, and subsequent critiques are always going to contain some measure of subjectivity. People are emotional creatures, and their initial emotions about the piece they viewed will always be part of their critique. Well, actually I probably shouldn't say that because there are people who can resist their emotions enough to be objective. But for the most part, likes and dislikes will always come into play when viewing any work of art created.

I'd also like to say that I agree in all or part with Tyler, and with Obie about their statements. Aesthetics aren't 100% subjective, because there is an established "norm" within the community that buys and makes pipes. And there are design elements that need to be achieved for a pipe to be aesthetically pleasing. My resistance is "Who establishes the norms, and why can't they be broken?" I know who establishes the norms, and I also know that they can, in small measures be broken. Yet the emotion for me is still there. And I’ll always take the attitude of why do I have to conform to what other people think is “right” or “normal” or “pleasing” or “beautiful”. And because of that I may be on a fast track to “van Gogh” syndrome and die broke, missing one ear, and have serious mental problems. (the positive of that is after I’m gone, my pipes (and my art) may increase in value!!!)

Now I shall retire to my mountainside trailer with a view of Maroon Bells to contemplate my next move of resistance to society!

David

[bvartist]

OOPS, I forgot to add this to my previous post.

I don't for the most part create pipes that are "against the norm" or off the wall. In fact most of my pipes can probably be considered "traditional". I try to adhere to standards of form and symmetry (and as my skill increases I may actually be able to meet those standards!) I'm intelligent enough to know that if I want to have some measure of acceptance, and the possibility of actually selling pipes, I need to follow some implied standards. My resistance is the thought that I "have" to follow standards if I choose not to. But the real truth is for the most part I "choose" to follow them.

David

[ToddJohnson]

OOPS, I forgot to add this to my previous post.

I don't for the most part create pipes that are "against the norm" or off the wall. In fact most of my pipes can probably be considered "traditional". I try to adhere to standards of form and symmetry (and as my skill increases I may actually be able to meet those standards!) I'm intelligent enough to know that if I want to have some measure of acceptance, and the possibility of actually selling pipes, I need to follow some implied standards. My resistance is the thought that I "have" to follow standards if I choose not to. But the real truth is for the most part I "choose" to follow them.

David

Well, David, I'd say that as long as you object to these established norms privately, you're unlikely to do yourself any great harm in the market place. Of course, everything you do as a pipemaker is a choice, and it sounds like you just don't like the idea of being unable to choose what you will make. As long as you don't have to support yourself or a family with your work, and don't really care if it's commercially viable, you'll never need to compromise, ever. If, however, you need to to create salable work, your perspective might need to shift. This has nothing to do with "selling out," only with having a healthy respect for your potential market. Simultaneously holding non-conformist views and having the need to make sales can put you in a tough spot though. You run the risk of making yourself irrelevent to all but perhaps a few frenchmen. And that's no way to try and make a living. That's all I was saying.

Best,

Todd

[JSPipes]

I don't really have anything to add. I'll just say that I've found this discussion very interesting and it goes along with some things that I've discovered over the past 4 or 5 months.

Joel

[KurtHuhn]

The anti-establishment line may put you on the fast track to a mountainside trailer in Colorodo.

I just *KNEW* this thread would get exciting sooner or later!

BTW, Todd, you owe me a keyboard. I sprayed belgian ale all over it after reading the above.

[ToddJohnson]

The anti-establishment line may put you on the fast track to a mountainside trailer in Colorodo.

I just *KNEW* this thread would get exciting sooner or later!

BTW, Todd, you owe me a keyboard. I sprayed belgian ale all over it after reading the above.

Witbier or Lambic? I imagine it's getting to be the time for those holiday ales in the Northeast.

Todd

[KurtHuhn]

[quote[Witbier or Lambic? [/quote]

Witbier, of course! There just isn't a way to get Lambic around here. People are scared of it. :dunno:

I imagine it's getting to be the time for those holiday ales in the Northeast.

It's getting close to holiday ale time, but for now the emphasis is on Oktoberfest styles. Myself, I prefer a strong Scotch Ale - something on the "heavy" side of a wee heavy.

Just put one in the fermenter this afternoon, in fact.

[alexanderfrese]

Wooah, two days off and the thread explodes. Might have been expectable, since terms like beauty rest in a word-field of semantic perception overloaded with emotion. Since this is hard to express, how could we possibly match these terms to build some kind of given (or even new) standard.

Within all the different opinions, there is some sort of point saying "being creative" (in any field of art or design) is contradictionary to the principle of sticking to any kind of rules. Now this is right and wrong at the same time, and people tend to freak out recognizing they have to live with a contradiction in what they do, believe or live up to.

The rules that are there, be it for beauty or for aesthetics, let them be culturally based, universal or given by some higher spirit are the tools you need to make your way in design work. Knowing them, trying them out, correlating the outcome with your own intention and leaving those rules alone is an interesting process I watched over the years.
Follwing those rules (and collecting all the craftmanship within by doing so) will probably lead you to a more or less pleasing outcome. It will not lead you to something outstanding, since you did not yet make a statement of your own within that work.
Now there are two points to start from on that long and winding road to that own statement:
You can start from scratch, express yorself wildly, against all given schemes, trendy guidelines and even common taste. Trying yourself without having to achieve a (self) given goal to reach. Be surprised by the outcomes (both on the way and in the final "product"). We tend to call this the real creative way. We amateurs believe, this is the way a true artist works. This may be true for some of those artists. Though they probably don't give a %$& for the way we think they do their thing. It's a romanticism, but it roams around in many heads, even in those of the artists.
The other way is to learn about all those tools (i.e. all those rules) and try to work with them in an own way. Be some sort of a mediæval scholar travelling from master to master over the years to learn about their ways and then leave them all to do something new. May it be a variation, may it be something leaving the given path, or even something contradictionary. This sounds a bit old school. It is a romanticism, too, but let's look at this pov as a principle example.
I personally still find the second way more attractive, since it gives me as a thinking being more of a chance to reflect over why making a step leads to a certain outcome. Intellectual reflection might be standing in your way, when you want to be creative, and it's great when you can switch it off for some moments. But then again you have to come back and look what you've done. And if you're able to reflect your work to your own standards and intentions and (second round) to given standards and intentions, only then you can optimize your work even further. Optimization can go any way you want. If you want to make your things sell better, you can opt for the public trend. If you want to scare the crap out of the public, even this is possible. So there is nothing "foul-tasting" within this, since this reflection only is another tool for the artist to bring his work to a point.

Jan Tschichold as a (typographic) Designer of the 20th century was mentioned before. Interesting thing is: He had learned everything in the field of typography from the basic craftmanship. Then he was some kind of a stubborn revolutionary mind in typo-design of the 20s and 30s (if I remember the figures correctly). He tried to match a new design to the "new aera" he felt then. Later on he tended to be a seemingly conservative typographer, analyzing ancient proportion schemes, digging the qualities of old typefaces, and so on. All in all every impulse of his life as a typographer is inspiring, the wild one's, and the elderly's.
Many musicians you watch also tend to return to a seemingly simple form in their older days after having spend a lifetime on making "noise" and trying things out. For my perception they don't do it, because their fingers do not longer follow their minds, but in the later days they return to some of those "universal" concepts as an ultimate challenge. And if these minds do so, then there is a great chance to make something "beautiful". They have lerned all the tools, they have gone wild and have stretched the limits. Now they work on a plain 12 bar blues scheme and maybe just change a single note. And this tiny tiny tiny tiny alteration only they do touches the string inside our minds that lets us feel "beauty".

So knowing the rules, learning and mastering them to stand upon them as a solid basis (to fly from to the sky by leaving them behind) is a way that is not contradictionary to being a creative mind. It may not be the only way. But there is no need to curse the rules. Knowing them very intimately is even better, when you want to work against them.

[obie]

So knowing the rules, learning and mastering them to stand upon them as a solid basis (to fly from to the sky by leaving them behind) is a way that is not contradictionary to being a creative mind. It may not be the only way. But there is no need to curse the rules. Knowing them very intimately is even better, when you want to work against them.

Very nicely put. Thanks Alex.

Thinking back, your analysis of Tschichold's career is exactly why I thought him a good example of this. He started out in 'classical' typography, and became a vocal proponent of the 'new typography', boldly rejecting previous styles... but later in his career he re-embraced classical typography - only that time he applied to it the principles he had learned and developed while he was establishing the new style. His career goes to show what can come out of intimate knowledge of principle and the power that can give to develop systems of your own.