Robert Clements wrote:

>Please note, however, that none of Stockhausen's should really be called
>experimental: by definition, art is hardly a falsifiable process; &
>without falsifiability, there's no experimentation ("Idiot's Guide to
>Popper", ch.2, pg7-9).

This is an interesting suggestion, but I think that the use of the term
"experimental" in reference to art works can be defended.  Indeed, I'm
tempted to say that any work of art which is not just following along
well-worn grooves is "experimental" in the sense that, while the artist
may be convinced that it is the greatest thing since sliced bread, the
rest of us won't be able to make up our minds whether it is great art or
horsefeathers until some time has passed and we have had time to see how
it wears on us.

This process of acclimation to novel kinds of art plays somewhat the
same role that falsification does in science (by the way, Popper's idea
of falsification has a lot of problems, but that's not germane to this
list).  The major differences, of course, are, first, that art is not about
describing the nature of things, as science is, and second, that there will
always be people in both the "great art" and "horsefeathers" camps, so this
sort of dispute never gets finally settled, the way it does in science.
(See, for example, our latest set-to about Tricky Dicky Wagner, in another
thread.)

Jon Johanning // [log in to unmask]