Maybe Im Wasabi〽️ on Farcaster

mark mollé pfp

Sharing a condensed version of a framework for communicating ideas in the age of Al-empowered creation. To make matters more memorable, the #IdeAction framework backronyms IDEA: inspiration, description, emotion, action. https://paragraph.xyz/@marmo/ideaction-an-intraconnected-framework-for-activating-ideation

2 replies

0 recast

0 reaction

Maybe Im Wasabi〽️ pfp

Maybe Im Wasabi〽️

Very interesting read. Were you thinking primarily of visual art (ai) when writing? How do you feel this format differs from a typical Artist’s statement?

4 replies

0 recast

0 reaction

mark mollé pfp

As to how it differs from typical artists’ statement, artists’ statement (a) don’t necessitate the inclusion of specific categories of information, whereas the IdeAction framework does require these four specific categories (inspiration, description, emotion, action);

2 replies

0 recast

0 reaction

Maybe Im Wasabi〽️ pfp

Maybe Im Wasabi〽️

I’m stuck on the emotion part; my own work is intwined in emotion, but is all art? Should all art be? I’m afraid we may get to the what is art debate here. Would love to hear more of your thoughts here

7 replies

0 recast

0 reaction

mark mollé pfp

I love the postmodern thinkers, and cite Derrida in this piece, but we don't really get a definition of art from them; instead, they tell us about the margin between of art and non-art. The essay on Van Gough's shoes, and the relationship between Meyer Shapiro and Heidegger is as masterful as it gets on that point.

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

mark mollé pfp

Art and science are our means of "making more impressive." This seems tautologically simple, but it subverts the other criteria for definition, which always bring in the power of established definitional authorities, like Arthur Danto argues, post-Duchamp, the artworld defines what is art.

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

mark mollé pfp

I would like to contend that, had the phenomenology of Merleau-Ponty progressed past where he was in eye and mind and fully fleshed out his fleshly theory, we would have ended up with this "impressively intraconnected" framing of art and science.

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

mark mollé pfp

The point is that anything but an "impressive" and "intraconnected" understand of art and science ends up steeped in either the subject/object dichotomy of Cartesian origin and phenomenological glory, or the cultural/epistemological paradigm shift analyis that really hits its stride during the postmodern era.

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

mark mollé pfp

And Popper and Khun, in the "what is science realm," in effect, argue that the moments of the "paradigm" create the revolutionary distinctions between science/non-science, or, of course, you could cite Foucault's epistemological break and his many genealogical studies on that point as well.

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

mark mollé pfp

I celebrate the "what is art" debate, and don't think think through this question nearly enough, and the way to do so is in conjunction with the interconnected question: what is science? Science, in my framework, is "making more impressive by taking apart." And there's no bringing together without taking apart.

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

mark mollé pfp

This is such a good direction to go in! I do, admittedly, have an expansive definition of art. I would define art, post-Duchamp, as "making more impressive by bringing together." "Impressive," in this sense, is to make more impactful upon the impressive faculties (the senses, sure, but, also perspective + agency)

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction