• Log In

The Partially Examined Life Philosophy Podcast

A Philosophy Podcast and Philosophy Blog

Subscribe on Android Spotify Google Podcasts audible patreon
  • Home
  • Podcast
    • PEL Network Episodes
    • Publicly Available PEL Episodes
    • Paywalled and Ad-Free Episodes
    • PEL Episodes by Topic
    • Nightcap
    • Philosophy vs. Improv
    • Pretty Much Pop
    • Nakedly Examined Music
    • (sub)Text
    • Phi Fic Podcast
    • Combat & Classics
    • Constellary Tales
  • Blog
  • About
    • PEL FAQ
    • Meet PEL
    • About Pretty Much Pop
    • Philosophy vs. Improv
    • Nakedly Examined Music
    • Meet Phi Fic
    • Listener Feedback
    • Links
  • Join
    • Become a Citizen
    • Join Our Mailing List
    • Log In
  • Donate
  • Store
    • Episodes
    • Swag
    • Everything Else
    • Cart
    • Checkout
    • My Account
  • Contact
  • Mailing List

PREVIEW-Episode 28: Nelson Goodman on Art as Epistemology

October 31, 2010 by Mark Linsenmayer 24 Comments

http://www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/traffic.libsyn.com/partiallyexaminedlife/PREVIEW-PEL_ep_028_10-17-10.mp3

Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 31:18 — 28.7MB)

This is a 31-minute preview of a 2 hr, 10-minute episode.

Buy Now Purchase this episode for $2.99. Or become a PEL Citizen for $5 a month, and get access to this and all other paywalled episodes, including 68 back catalogue episodes; exclusive Part 2's for episodes published after September, 2020; and our after-show Nightcap, where the guys respond to listener email and chat more causally.

Discussing Goodman's Ways of Worldmaking (1978).

What's the relationship between art and science? Does understanding works of art constitute "knowledge," and if so, how does this relate to other kinds of knowledge? Goodman describes art as a symbol system (including art like instrumental music that doesn't seem representative), which can symbolize successfully or not. While there is no one set of concepts by which to judge all art (different types of art and other descriptive endeavors establish incommensurable "worlds"), neither is art an anything goes endeavor where the individual spectator is the only determinant of quality.

We're joined by painter Jay Bailey to bring up lots of amusing artwork examples (The Monkees! Thomas Kinkade! Self-mutilation as art!) and tell us how well Goodman's account accords with his understanding of artistic practice (his answer: not so well).

Buy the text.

End song: "Staple Gun" by Mark Lint and Stevie P (1999).

Looking for the full Citizen version?

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

Filed Under: Podcast Episodes Tagged With: epistemology, Jay Bailey, Nelson Goodman, philosophy of art, philosophy of science, philosophy podcast, relativism

Comments

  1. Josh Davis says

    November 3, 2010 at 5:38 pm

    I enjoyed the concrete examples that Jay brought to this abstract subject. I take it that Goodman was trying to give art some sort of epistemic status, to consider the subject with whatever degree of percision that it allows (Aristotle). I listened to it a couple of days ago, and one of the things that stuck out to me was the talk about the difference between a swatch of cloth, a symbol, things that denote, etc, and the different elements of a work of art (expression or whatever). Interesting, but, admittedly, it wasn’t very clear to me, and an explanation would be helpful.

    This podcast seemed to me also to relate to the (excellent)Lewis Lancaster lecture (posted earlier here). Lancaster talks about a religious “relic,” like a piece of a saint’s bone or a piece of the cross that a martyr was crucified on. He contrasted a “relic” with a work of art, arguing that early Buddhists did not have artistic representations and they didn’t need them, because they had relics. It was only after Greek influence that they began to make representations of say the Buddha.

    Reply
    • Mark Linsenmayer says

      November 3, 2010 at 11:41 pm

      One of the things we were having trouble with was that I don’t think Goodman’s very clear re. concrete examples when it comes to works of art exemplifying thing and doesn’t exactly spell out how identifying an exemplification relates to aesthetic judgment and, relatedly, to the success of a work in creating a world… or participating in an existing world?

      Here are the basics: A work can denote something, either by literally containing a message or metaphorically containing one. At one point he says that works of fantasy, instead of being literally true of some fictional world, can be metaphorically true of our world; so 1984 is saying something about our fears and about totalitarian tendencies in the governments of the Orwell’s time.

      A work can also express an emotion, again, either literally, because it has passionate words in it that are usually used by people to express such things (or passionate characters in a play acting out emotions), or metaphorically, as when a painting or music or building through some convention specific to its form mimics expression or “feel” of such an emotion.

      Lastly, a work can exemplify something. It can be an example of a style of art. It can exemplify that artist’s specific style. It can through similarities to other works refer to or even quote those works.

      As said on the podcast, these functions are not specific to artworks, though all artworks perform at least one of them (so there is no “pure,” non-representational art; even the most abstract pieces represent by exemplifying). He also makes it clear that you can’t really understand a work of art until you understand these references, at least in part… until you can understand what style it is, how it relates to other work, what the words (if any) literally mean and what the metaphors and symbols mean. If I listen to Indian music, I may not understand quite what emotions are supposed to be expressed by what, as there are some cultural differences in how emotions are expressed, though of course there are many seemingly universal elements about that too (e.g. it’s been found that the smile is universal, present even in isolated tribes).

      A “world” has to do with the standards by which a work has to be judged; it’s the realm in which the work (or scientific theory, or potentially other kinds of expressions like a political endorsement, though he doesn’t use any examples like that) is created and determines the ontology of that realm, logical rules within it (e.g. what counts as a legitimate inference or an expression of something), how we know the truths of it, whether there even are truths; it’s an open-ended concept, as the idea of a world is supposed to be open-ended, and we can best understand it by thinking of the examples he uses which in art correspond roughly, I guess, to stylistic elements, though, really, I think you could have, e.g. two texts written in a very similar style which nonetheless have very different intent (e.g. a journalistic, factually true piece and a piece of realistic fiction) and so constitute different worlds.

      Artistic failure is possible because of (among other reasons, presumably) incoherence; if you ripped the ending off a James Joyce novel and shoved it into a Charlotte Bronte book, it would be violating its own rules and wouldn’t really work. …Which is not to say you can’t have a whimsical work, but in that case, the whimsy is the rule.

      As Wes hinted at in the discussion, this assumes that works, to be really successful, have to be innovative: like a new, successful scientific theory, it has to accord with current practice (i.e. our observations) but challenge some theoretical piece, which drives us to make new experiments and look in different directions than before. A good piece of art, then, has to resonate (it has to somehow make sense to the audience), but should challenge something, to, for instance, express something in a novel way, or express some novel content. It can exemplify a unique combination of features (merging musical genres interestingly, for instance, or contrasting the tone of the words and music in a cool way).

      Even some of what I have here is speculation on my part, not having read “Languages of Art,” and I’m guessing that even there he doesn’t address the whole issue of “what makes good art” or the individual spectator’s experience, because that just wasn’t the kind of philosophy he was trying to do: he was trying to help us understand how we perceive and judge works, not which works should be judged good… for that, we can look at established opinion for clues, but just as in science the majority can be wrong, and even generalizing from some works, we can’t come up with a general theory that would apply to all works; that would violate the pluralism he’s arguing for.

      Reply
      • Wayne Schroeder says

        January 19, 2014 at 7:13 pm

        Mark, just listened to this podcast, and your written clarification here is excellent.

        Reply
  2. John Corfield says

    November 12, 2010 at 12:42 pm

    I found this podcast a really useful introduction to Goodman, though I struggled to understand much of it. Goodman’s ideas seem to explain why I regard my work as art (see http://www.blackvanilla.org.uk). My sculptures reference my world (including my experiences of the art world) and (playfully) tries out new objects(symbols?) that give (me) visual pleasure. For me an essential element in successful art is ambiguity in what it could represent, leaving space for the viewer to bring to it his own world and to have it expanded by experiencing the work.
    Art and scientific research have so much in common – are they the same human pursuit? Original scientists with their existing world (of experiences of other scientist’s worlds, etc.) play with new ideas (symbols, concepts etc) to see what effect they have on their world – if they are pleased with the outcome they exhibit (publish) them!

    Reply
  3. nicolas romanacci says

    November 17, 2010 at 4:19 pm

    thank you a lot for this. i do base my »approach to an applied cognitive aesthetics« on the work of goodman. and bullt my master thesis in »Bildwissenschaft/MediaArtHistories« regarding »pictorial ambiguity« on it, if you like, here’s an excerpt (see part 3 regarding epistemological aspects of pictorial ambiguity:

    http://www.bildwissenschaft.org/image?function=fnArticle&showArticle=161).

    and, great, you did post this right on my birthday! for this birthday gift, my comment, particularly. finest thoughts, nicolas

    Reply
  4. Kelvin Billingsley says

    April 4, 2013 at 10:52 am

    Goodman’s ideas on world making, opposing conceptual schemes and explanations of objectivity seem fuzzy partially because the inherent abstract nature of art and aesthetics. However, I’d suggest that a reading of the latter half (including Section X) of “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” by Thomas Kuhn might help further nail down this material. In brief, most people would consider society’s scientific pursuits (particularly, in the natural sciences) as reaching towards some objective truth about the material world. However, Kuhn argues that throughout history scientists operate within a particular paradigm. This paradigm colors the questions that can be asked, the phenomena that are observed and even the results that are found. Although the objective does exist, the scientific worlds will be altered depending on the time period (or paradigm) they operate within and new worlds will be created with novel explanations to anomalies of a given conceptual scheme. Interestingly, Kuhn also would say that arguments over the truth of a particular paradigm in comparison to other paradigms/worlds is a moot point. Scientific explanation inside a given world is the goal inquiry. Goodman (as the podcasters teased out) echoes many of these sentiments when describing the nature of art. However, as a scientist myself, Kuhn’s analysis of science with historical examples seems to make the overall thrust of the philosophical theories more tangible.

    Reply
  5. Wayne Schroeder says

    January 19, 2014 at 7:50 pm

    Art or Epistemology:

    Just listened to this podcast, and can’t help but compare Goodman’s project to that of Wittgenstein, who turned on his own failed effort to make logic the primary foundation of language, and instead refuted logic/inherent knowledge of truth in favor of language games, the usage of language.

    What Goodman does is apply this same paradigm of Wittgenstein’s language games to art (self imposed limitation on ability to know truth, a pragmatism which shows up for Goodman as nominalism). Then he proceeds to identify what those art games are, which includes expression, exemplification, or representation, (most generally as symbolization) with implications for right and wrong art.

    Underlying Goodman’s epistemology/ontology of reality is the basis of World Making, which compares with Wittgenstein’s Life Form. These are the default categories of reality which both Wittgenstein and Goodman simply refer to as the background which underlies and grounds reality. This is a relinquishment to the impossibility of access to noumena, that we can not know it directly, but it underlies how we know (nominalism).

    Thus, the value of Goodman and Wittgenstein are practical efforts to categorize and elaborate how language or art works with the circumspection that there is no privileged knowledge to define “understanding” but that knowledge is subservient to usage.

    Reply
  6. Thalo says

    July 10, 2015 at 11:28 am

    I just started reading ‘RELATIVISM: Cognitive and Moral’, with the first paper being from ‘Ways of Worldmaking’ by Nelson Goodman. A quick search of the P.E.L. website pointed to Episode 28: ‘Nelson Goodman on Art as Epistemology,’ which I downloaded and listened to immediately. Great podcast!!! Hope you gentlemen someday devote a full podcast to epistemological relativism. Anyway, thanks for the great discussion.

    Reply

Trackbacks

  1. Catherine Elgin on the Epistemic Efficacy of Stupidity | The Partially Examined Life | A Philosophy Podcast and Blog says:
    November 5, 2010 at 8:36 am

    […] of the chapters that I referred to from Nelson Goodman’s final book, Reconceptions in Philosophy and Other Arts and Sciences,was “The Epistemic […]

    Reply
  2. Goodman and Quine's Nominalism | The Partially Examined Life | A Philosophy Podcast and Blog says:
    November 5, 2010 at 8:43 am

    […] « Episode 28: Nelson Goodman on Art as Epistemology If I Were a Rightie […]

    Reply
  3. Nelson Goodman on Induction (Grue and Bleen!) | The Partially Examined Life | A Philosophy Podcast and Blog says:
    November 6, 2010 at 9:47 am

    […] our Goodman episode, I start out by trying to give a short explanation of Goodman’s “New Riddle of […]

    Reply
  4. Yukio Mishima and St. Sebastian | The Partially Examined Life | A Philosophy Podcast and Blog says:
    November 7, 2010 at 12:13 pm

    […] it isn’t.  It also is going to determine what the art work is doing for you, now (see this comment by Mark).  So by learning about a particular work, you might go from seeing it as silly lines and […]

    Reply
  5. Philosophy of Art and Stephen King’s “Duma Key” | The Partially Examined Life | A Philosophy Podcast and Blog says:
    November 10, 2010 at 12:44 am

    […] not fitting his experience as an artist. Goodman’s thesis, which I’ve tried to lay out here for those of you who weren’t clear about it from the podcast, posits (among other things) […]

    Reply
  6. Art That Jay Mentioned | The Partially Examined Life | A Philosophy Podcast and Blog says:
    November 12, 2010 at 9:48 am

    […] Note: Jay Bailey, excellent guest from our Nelson Goodman discussion, has been good enough to help us make sense of some of the art references. […]

    Reply
  7. Are You Experienced? Are You Ready to Rock? | The Partially Examined Life | A Philosophy Podcast and Blog says:
    November 13, 2010 at 11:38 am

    […] Goodman argues convincingly (in chapter 2 of Ways of Worldmaking) that the style/content distinction is […]

    Reply
  8. Boghossian vs. Goodman on Fact Constructivism | The Partially Examined Life | A Philosophy Podcast and Blog says:
    November 15, 2010 at 9:54 am

    […] book we’d mentioned on the episode as a counter to Goodman’s epistemology was Paul Boghossian’s Fear of Knowledge: Against […]

    Reply
  9. Malcom Gladwell on Plurality in Taste | The Partially Examined Life | A Philosophy Podcast and Blog says:
    February 14, 2011 at 10:33 am

    […] Thanks to listener David Emerson for suggesting this video on plurality of tastes (in response to some of the things we said back on our Danto episode, but equally applicable to our other aesthetics one on Goodman): […]

    Reply
  10. Paul Boghossian (via Philosophy Bites) on Moral Relativism | The Partially Examined Life Philosophy Podcast | A Philosophy Podcast and Blog says:
    November 8, 2011 at 12:37 pm

    […] discussed Paul Boghossian and his book against relativism a bit in our Nelson Goodman episode. See my blog post on this from last […]

    Reply
  11. Irony in Music II: Jonathan Coulton | The Partially Examined Life Philosophy Podcast | A Philosophy Podcast and Blog says:
    June 27, 2012 at 3:34 pm

    […] counts as rock (or in the case of Hitchcock, surrealist ranting) rather than comedy. To bring in Goodman here, of course “Baby Got Back’s” success as art and humor (if it’s not […]

    Reply
  12. Topic for #64: Celebrity, with guest Lucy Lawless | The Partially Examined Life Philosophy Podcast | A Philosophy Podcast and Blog says:
    September 12, 2012 at 11:29 am

    […] a regular PEL episode than a fawning celebrity interview. Much as when we have had a comedian or artist on in the past, Lucy was there to provide a reality check on our wild speculations about that […]

    Reply
  13. Good X-Phi and Bad Art | The Partially Examined Life Philosophy Podcast | A Philosophy Podcast and Blog says:
    June 19, 2013 at 12:46 pm

    […] We spent a little time making fun of Kinkade back on ep. 28. […]

    Reply
  14. Topic for #85: John Rawls’s Theory of Justice | The Partially Examined Life Philosophy Podcast | A Philosophy Podcast and Blog says:
    November 10, 2013 at 11:58 am

    […] (The Stanford Encylopedia attributes this method, though not the name reflective equilibrium, to Nelson Goodman, […]

    Reply
  15. Creationism and Structural Relations between Sciences | The Partially Examined Life Philosophy Podcast | A Philosophy Podcast and Blog says:
    July 14, 2016 at 9:24 am

    […] problem in philosophy, the problem of induction. For more on this, see Russell’s Chicken or Nelson Goodman’s concept of […]

    Reply
  16. Episode 163: Guest Stewart Umphrey on Natural Kinds (Part One) | The Partially Examined Life Philosophy Podcast | A Philosophy Podcast and Blog says:
    May 8, 2017 at 12:26 am

    […] perhaps more often considered views that reject this kind of metaphysics, covering folks like Nelson Goodman, Whitehead, Dewey, and Kuhn (in addition to […]

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

PEL Live Show 2023

Brothers K Live Show

Citizenship has its Benefits

Become a PEL Citizen
Become a PEL Citizen, and get access to all paywalled episodes, early and ad-free, including exclusive Part 2's for episodes starting September 2020; our after-show Nightcap, where the guys respond to listener email and chat more causally; a community of fellow learners, and more.

Rate and Review

Nightcap

Listen to Nightcap
On Nightcap, listen to the guys respond to listener email and chat more casually about their lives, the making of the show, current events and politics, and anything else that happens to come up.

Subscribe to Email Updates

Select list(s):

Check your inbox or spam folder to confirm your subscription.

Support PEL

Buy stuff through Amazon and send a few shekels our way at no extra cost to you.

Tweets by PartiallyExLife

Recent Comments

  • Larry Young on Ep. 310: Wittgenstein On World-Pictures (Part One)
  • Wes Alwan on PEL Nightcap April 2022
  • Wes Alwan on Ep. 305: Cormac McCarthy’s “Blood Meridian” (Part Three for Supporters)
  • Wes Alwan on Ep. 305: Cormac McCarthy’s “Blood Meridian” (Part Three for Supporters)
  • Wes Alwan on Ep. 306: Dworkin and the Dobbs Decision (Part Three for Supporters)

About The Partially Examined Life

The Partially Examined Life is a philosophy podcast by some guys who were at one point set on doing philosophy for a living but then thought better of it. Each episode, we pick a text and chat about it with some balance between insight and flippancy. You don’t have to know any philosophy, or even to have read the text we’re talking about to (mostly) follow and (hopefully) enjoy the discussion

Become a PEL Citizen!

As a PEL Citizen, you’ll have access to a private social community of philosophers, thinkers, and other partial examiners where you can join or initiate discussion groups dedicated to particular readings, participate in lively forums, arrange online meet-ups for impromptu seminars, and more. PEL Citizens also have free access to podcast transcripts, guided readings, episode guides, PEL music, and other citizen-exclusive material. Click here to join.

Blog Post Categories

  • (sub)Text
  • Aftershow
  • Announcements
  • Audiobook
  • Book Excerpts
  • Citizen Content
  • Citizen Document
  • Citizen News
  • Close Reading
  • Combat and Classics
  • Constellary Tales
  • Exclude from Newsletter
  • Featured Ad-Free
  • Featured Article
  • General Announcements
  • Interview
  • Letter to the Editor
  • Misc. Philosophical Musings
  • Nakedly Examined Music Podcast
  • Nakedly Self-Examined Music
  • NEM Bonus
  • Not School Recording
  • Not School Report
  • Other (i.e. Lesser) Podcasts
  • PEL Music
  • PEL Nightcap
  • PEL's Notes
  • Personal Philosophies
  • Phi Fic Podcast
  • Philosophy vs. Improv
  • Podcast Episode (Citizen)
  • Podcast Episodes
  • Pretty Much Pop
  • Reviewage
  • Song Self-Exam
  • Supporter Exclusive
  • Things to Watch
  • Vintage Episode (Citizen)
  • Web Detritus

Follow:

Twitter | Facebook | Google+ | Apple Podcasts

Copyright © 2009 - 2023 · The Partially Examined Life, LLC. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy · Terms of Use · Copyright Policy

Copyright © 2023 · Magazine Pro Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in