Jon Johanning <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>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.

Molotov cocktail-throwing mode: on.  Has Jon (or anyone else) every
heard of an self-proclaimed experimental artist accepting that a work was
a failure because the audience judged against it? It doesn't happen; which
is why i think demonstration is a more honest terminology than experimental.
Experimental implies the possibility of failure; & artistic experimentation
(in its common usage, rather than as an Platonic ideal) rejects the
concept, generally as a fault in the audience.

(One devil's dictionary-type work described the meaning of _experiment_ in
art as precisely the opposite of it's meaning in science: deliberately
provactive; but not an unarguable proposition)

>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.)

Don't agree @ all: falsification - when followed properly, which
scientists (like everyone else in the known universe) aren't always guilty
of succeeding at - means that a theory (whether scientific; or aesthetic)
ultimately succeeds or & fails on a measuring stick which is independent
of the theory, etc (ie, the facts that are being theorised about...
experimental evidence which is useful only when subjected to on conditional
interpretations may still be helpful in weeding out the intellectual field;
but is always open to re-/alternative interpretation, & therefore much less
ideal that that the good stuff); whereas acclimatisation merely means to
an increasing degree of tolerance to the devices being used.  Most
contemporary audience members tolerate a greater degree of what the average
19th century listener would consider dissonance, to use only the most
obvious example; but does that _really_ make _Tristan und Isolde_
experimental?

(Beckettian, sure. My weirdest multi-anachron fantasy would be to hear
Wagner setting Godot...)

While Popper's definition of falsifiability is extremely precise (not so
surprising; since he's building an ideal of intellectual process around it)
& therefore an ideal in itself; it does reflect the general assumption that
to call something an experiment means your running the risk of failure
(like launching a rocket nowadays, say).  For a number of reasons, this
limiting assumption hasn't be honestly translated to the term's usage in
the arts (not just contemporary CM, i should add); which is why i feel it
should be struck from the record....

All the best,

Robert Clements <[log in to unmask]>
<http://www.ausnet.net.au/~clemensr/welcome.htm>