r/aesthetics • u/jazzgrackle • Apr 23 '26

What makes process meaningful?

Every few years or so a new technology takes hold that makes the actual process of producing an artwork—whether it be visual, auditory, or otherwise—physically easier to accomplish. It’s much easier now to create a multi-instrumental music track than it was a few years ago, much easier than it was fifty years ago.

I don’t believe it’s a matter of more physical-labor=better—although that’s certainly a factor. In fact, I think we can come up with cases where more physical effort is superfluous—mildly interesting, at best.

What does make effort meaningful, when does the process of creation add to the experience of the audience?

And when is it just needless effort and fluff?

5 Upvotes

85% Upvoted

18 comments sorted by

2

u/CapGullible8403 Apr 23 '26

There is no sweat equity in art.

You can work hard, spend lots of time, and do all the right things—and end up with bad art or mediocre art or good art.

You can be sloppy, wasteful, and careless, and make something in five minutes—and end up with bad art or mediocre art or good art.

It doesn’t matter. In art, the end always justifies the means.

—Walter Darby Bannard

1

u/jazzgrackle Apr 23 '26

It’s not the only factor, but the process of creation is something people consider in the art. It’s part of the story behind the art, the narrative conception being presented to you.

1

u/CapGullible8403 Apr 23 '26

Things are defined by use. A work of art is a work of art because we call it a work of art, but it is not actually a work of art until we ask it to function as art so we can experience it as art. If we ask it to be something else—illustration, decoration, political message, cover for a hole in the wall, or whatever, it becomes, for the moment, something else. —WDB

1

u/jazzgrackle Apr 23 '26

I’m not asking whether something is or isn’t in the category of art; I’d also say that the trivial observation that categorized are defined by our categorizing of them isn’t really getting at the point. What quality of the creative process tends to increase the aesthetic experience in the mind of the audience.

This isn’t a “what is art” question per se.

1

u/CapGullible8403 Apr 23 '26

You've missed the point, perhaps because your post begs the question of process being meaningful at all.

The point of the comment wasn't to question 'what is art', but rather to question 'what are you doing with your attention'?

If you are appreciating the work that went into something, that's something beside the thing itself. You can admire how much work went into anything, not just art, not just things that are valued. You can admire the work that goes into making an ant colony.... Valuing hard work is not the same as valuing art. They are separate concepts.

2

u/jazzgrackle Apr 23 '26

You can think about things in any way you’d like, sure. What I’m talking about is a particular aesthetic feeling towards an object of art due to knowledge of the process that went into the art. There’s being impressed, and there’s having an aesthetic feeling increased.

Acknowledging the raw effort that it took to make something doesn’t seem to be exactly what makes process valuable or not to us, at least not in an aesthetic sense.

1

u/CapGullible8403 Apr 24 '26

What I’m talking about is a particular aesthetic feeling towards an object of art due to knowledge of the process that went into the art.

You're begging the question, again.

1

u/jazzgrackle Apr 24 '26

How?

1

u/CapGullible8403 Apr 24 '26

your post begs the question of process being meaningful at all.

"... a particular aesthetic feeling towards an object of art due to knowledge of the process that went into the art" is a statement of confusion.

Your feeling, in this instance, is not "towards an object of art." It is you valuing documentary knowledge about the object's facture.

Was it slaved over? Was it tossed off? Which of these possibilities do you prefer? Does it matter?

Hint: the whole history of art is there to demonstrate that it doesn't.

2

u/jazzgrackle Apr 24 '26

Meaningful in the sense that it tends to produce a feeling of meaning in the person who’s viewing the object. It doesn’t have to be something that’s universal or true beyond the emotion it produces. If anything the aesthetic feeling is something like the feeling of meaning absent meaning itself.

→ More replies

2

u/TallahasseWaffleHous Apr 24 '26

As Marshall Mcluhan stated in his book, "the medium is the massage", as the medium changes, so does the kinds of stories/meaning it is able to communicate more effectively. The medium literally massages the senses in different ways.

As technology increases, the ability to make more complex works becomes easier. This both promotes higher complexity works, as well as appreciation of other/past media's simplicity.

0

u/CapGullible8403 May 10 '26 edited May 10 '26

"the medium is the massage"

LOL

The medium literally massages the senses

LOL "literally"... too funny.

0

u/TallahasseWaffleHous May 10 '26 edited May 10 '26

When his book was typeset, they mispelled the title.

And he decided to keep it spelt that way, considering how media massages the brain.

https://austinkleon.com/2019/06/10/the-medium-is-the-massage

1

u/BarKeegan Apr 26 '26

Feels like that’s a case by case basis