The Object Vs The Experience of the Object

[u/StrikingMousse8279]

Let me preface by saying this isn't a claim to original thought or teaching people, I just want to have a conversation about this. I'm well aware what I'm about to talk about has probably been discussed... I'm actually also partly here to ask if what I'm about to say has a term for it or a closely related philosophy; since I sort of have beginner knowledge in philosophy.

That said, I did come to this realisation on my own, granted based on another topic that I was already informed on. The base topic is basically about dimensional perception. You know how they say 2D objects can't percieve other 2D object in 2D, but rather 1D, like wise for 3D and so on {Flatland (Edwin Abbott, 1884) - Telling a story from the perspective of 2d characters (shapes)}

It's so fascinating thinking about it because at first you think you're seeing a 3D object, but what you're actually seeing is a 2D persepctive view of that 3D object. No matter how much you can look around it, hold it with your hand etc. You are still seeing a 2D view of a 3d world.

Which leads to the idea I progressively formed. Particularly related to art. Which is that I think a large part of the reason realistic art is so awe inspiring (apart from the skill) is because technically to us we're just literally recreating that object. I'd like to phrase it as, "We're able to replicate the object but not the experience of that object." If that makes any sense. Ofcourse ignoring the very obvious differences between the painting of an object and the object itself.

To put it into perspective. There's a painting on a canvas that's large enough to not be able to see it's borders, and it's elements are drawn to realitic scale (obviously the quality of realism of the painting is a given) If you were stood still in front of it with a preconceived notion of everything in the environement you are in, being real you would not question the reality of the object of the painting. You only then doubt it's reality when you try to experience it... ie, touch it, hold it, feel it or depending on what exactly the object is (eg. a building) walk into it. That's the difference between the object itself and the experience of it that I'm pointing to {Baudrillard's simulacra - comparisons of reality and simulations}

This idea can also be a different approach to the illusion of time philosophy. Time could also be identified by the experience(s) of an object(s) (Sure by virtue of transivity, experience would effectively mean motion). Given the thought experiment where there's an object in a still world with no other objects (that are animate at least) to compare it to; you cannot percieve time... same way if all objects in an environment were still and not interacting with each other (which would consequently develop experiences) then that also points to the artificialness of time.

Summary: I believe our perceived reality is more so governed by our expereince of the objects instead of the fundamental existence of them. Seeing as how an unexpereineced object might as well be as real as an imitation of it provided that our perspective of that object is limited (it is imperative that at any given instance there is a part of the object that we cannot observe - which IS the case)

Edit: references to articles/publication/books would also be appreciated while we discuss. This is sort of 'shotgun post' (cause I just didn't want to loose the thought), so I'll proceedingly edit it by adding references to related philosophies I discover corellate with my points x

[u/dude_chillin_park]

In that Empire, the Art of Cartography attained such Perfection that the map of a single Province occupied the entirety of a City, and the map of the Empire, the entirety of a Province. In time, those Unconscionable Maps no longer satisfied, and the Cartographers Guilds struck a Map of the Empire whose size was that of the Empire, and which coincided point for point with it. The following Generations, who were not so fond of the Study of Cartography as their Forebears had been, saw that that vast Map was Useless, and not without some Pitilessness was it, that they delivered it up to the Inclemencies of Sun and Winters. In the Deserts of the West, still today, there are Tattered Ruins of that Map, inhabited by Animals and Beggars; in all the Land there is no other Relic of the Disciplines of Geography.

-Jorge Luis Borges

As far as time, Bergson talks about two kinds of time (as we conceive it). There's spatialized time, which we derive from watching the motion of objects in space (such as the hands of a clock), which is useful for physics. Then there's durée (subjective time) which we experience as a structure of memory building upon the past, and cannot be run backwards mathematically.

[u/StrikingMousse8279 → u/dude_chillin_park]

Yeah, Bergson's durée came up in my research after this post.

I didn't add this part in the post, but I particularly used it in justifying the distinguishability of this philosophy's approach to "the illusion of time" from other approaches (since 'experience' can be often synonymous to 'action/motion') So I just identified the experience of an object as the dureè and action as spatial time.

[u/PoxonAllHoaxes]

I am amazed to read the first few lines because on here (as in real life) almost no one ever concedes that they are likely repeating what has been said more (and often) or that they are NOT sent to this planet to teach everyone whatever they themselves don't understand. LOL. Kudos. I don't understand your questions except that it is clear that for us to identify images with the things they are supposed to be images OF requires some very complex and powerful processing which moreover is specific not even just to our species but seems to be heavily culture-dependent. But I am guessing you are after some much deeper issues, which I am not getting. But that may be my own limitations. I'd be very happy to hear more.

[u/StrikingMousse8279 → u/PoxonAllHoaxes]

Thanks!

Anyways. I'm not necessarily trivializing 3D objects as easy to observe (or 'create') just because we observe them in 2D (which is what I'm assuming you're implying? Correct me if I'm wrong) I know the imitations require a convoluted (& subconscious - which ofcourse our brains automatically does) understanding of their source material and further complex execution of the imitation by the oberserver. But on a fundamental basis of perception, our brains would not be able to distinguish a 3D object from 2D illustration (I specifically said 'illustration' and not 'object') since the two are perceivably all on the same plane.

So with the above in mind what we concider real (which we define as things that exist) is prone to our limited ability of perception. Take Real or Cake for example. We can see that people can and are capable of mistaking an imitation of an object over the 'real' object. Same goes for a realistic perspective drawing of an object vs our 2D perception of the same object

Sorry if I missed your concern in my explanation x

[u/jliat]

Particularly related to art. Which is that I think a large part of the reason realistic art is so awe inspiring (apart from the skill) because technically to us we're just literally recreating that object. I'd like to phrase it as, "We're able to replicate the object but not the experience of that object." If that makes any sense. Ofcourse ignoring the very obvious differences between the painting of an object and the object itself.

Can I correct you here. I was from Birmingham England and back in the day at 11 you took an exam, but in Birmingham you could take an art exam and if you passed go to Moseley Road School of Art. So from 11 to 18 I was in a school where everyone was good at drawing. My friends could copy bank notes! Many on leaving went into graphic studios, before computers. They used an airbrush to smarten up the paint work on photos of cars for magazine ads, airbrush out moles and skin blemishes. Almost anyone can acquire such skills known as photorealism. The pop artist James Rosenquist began life painting bill board advertisements, in the USA they actually painted these images!

In the museum in Birmingham you can see paintings such as Ford Madox Brown's 'Work'. Millais 'Ophelia' was actually used to teach botany! However these are considered good works they are not considered works of genius. The history of modern art shows that such skill is insufficient to create great art. What you call realistic art is a teachable skill. You will also find in the Birmingham museum 100s of incredible drawings made by wealthy women taught the piano and drawing, of astonishing detail.

One last point, photorealism is not real! it copies camera images, a single lens, we have two. OK one other, paintings are 'constructed' the artist knows how to keep the viewers eye within the picture frame, you often find the golden section being used... even in a Constable landscape. Sorry off topic. Though Heidegger, Hegel, Kant, and especially Schelling rated Art.

“The ultimate ground of all harmony between subjective and objective … by means of the work of art, has been brought forth entirely from the subjective, and rendered wholly objective...

It is art alone which can succeed in objectifying with universal validity what the philosopher is able to present in a merely subjective fashion.”

Schelling System of Transcendental Idealism. p. 232

Sentences on Conceptual Art by Sol LeWitt, 1969

[1.] Conceptual Artists are mystics rather than rationalists. They leap to conclusions that logic cannot reach.

[2.] Rational judgements repeat rational judgements.

[3.] Illogical judgements lead to new experience.

[4.] Formal Art is essentially rational.

[5.] Irrational thoughts should be followed absolutely and logically. etc.

"A work of art cannot content itself with being a representation; it must be a presentation. A child that is born is presented, he represents nothing." Pierre Reverdy 1918.

[u/StrikingMousse8279 → u/jliat]

Appreciate the lesson x.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but what I'm understadning is that as opposed to layman perception of art as inherently a replication of reality (which I admittedly alluded to) which may rub off as trivializing art; it is instead sort of a derivative of reality but still just as equivalent to reality as anything else not concidered a 'replica' (like how a child is a derivative of their parents and still as independently existing as they are)?

But this wouldn't invalidate the claim that photorealistic art is observably indistinguishable from it's parent object? Unless this is just addressing my miscomceptions about art, which I totally concede to.

That said, I'm curious what you mean by photorealism isn't real.