# [[Meeting with Elsa and Arianna 28 Apr 2025]] #meeting Okay, I understand. I will reformat the text with proper markdown headings and apply a slightly finer granularity to the linking of philosophical concepts, while still adhering to the rule of linking names only on their first appearance. Here is the revised text: This document analyses a discussion transcript involving a postdoc and two PhD students, arianna and Elsa, focusing on the development of their respective research projects. The analysis extracts [[key concepts]], identifies decision points, maps connections, and highlights methodological and strategic considerations, examining the intellectual trajectories as they navigate research questions in aesthetics, social media, and philosophy of art. The postdoc noted an intention to type notes during the discussion and potentially use AI (ChatGPT) afterwards to generate further points for consideration. The discussion proceeded with Arianna presenting two ideas, followed by Elsa discussing her research direction and strategic considerations. ## Arianna: Digital Aesthetics, Spectatorship, and Atmospheres %% fold %% Arianna's research explores the intersection of aesthetics and social media, branching into two primary areas: [[the nature]] of viewership and [[the concept]] of digital atmospheres. ### Aesthetics of Spectatorship/Audience in [[Social Networks]]: %% fold %% Arianna initially proposed examining the "Aesthetics of spectatorship," shifting from her prior focus on speech act production. Her interest lies in analysing how [[social networks]] shape practices of viewing and engagement, encompassing a spectrum from passive consumption ('lurking') and minimal interaction (likes, standardised comments) to active content creation. She contrasted this with [[contemporary art]] contexts where the audience typically has less impact on the artwork's production compared to the influence users seem to exert on social network content circulation ("People have much more weight in deciding what they want to circulate"). A point of conceptual clarification arose regarding the term "spectator." The postdoc observed that in English, "spectator" often evokes sports audiences and might not be typically used for, say, a theatre audience, suggesting "observe" might be more fitting for static objects. Arianna clarified that in Italian, "spectator" is synonymous with "audience" and "public." The discussion tentatively moved towards using "audience," with the caveat that the specific meaning and [[its relation]] to aesthetics and artworks require precise definition. [[The idea]] of an active/passive dichotomy in audience engagement was also noted. ### Digital Atmospheres: %% fold %% Arianna's second concept concerns "atmospheres," specifically extending [[the idea]] beyond physical, embodied presence. Drawing on literature where atmospheres relate to "feeling the body in a specific space," she proposed analysing how the mind engages with digital environments where the body "does not have an actual role." This involves examining affective and cognitive faculties and how atmospheres emerge from interactions with digital stimuli and other users. These digital atmospheres were characterised as potentially digital affective, given the centrality of emotions on [[social networks]], and social or interpersonal, arising from interactions without physical co-presence. The postdoc suggested this concept connects to current discourse on online communities having "vibes" (e.g., being "toxic" or supportive). Platform specificity was raised, with examples like Reddit being associated with "toxic atmospheres," Tumblr with "creativity and helping each other," and Instagram with "narcissism." Arianna connected this back to her previous work on the interplay between technical and social constraints shaping [[speech acts]], suggesting this interplay could also explain the emergence of specific platform atmospheres. The postdoc further elaborated on the dynamic, noting how atmospheres (both online and offline, citing research group examples) can be altered by small changes, such as algorithmic tweaks or the actions of a single individual ("one idiot in a Reddit group"), highlighting a bidirectional influence between the environment (technical structure, algorithm) and individual actions shaping the collective social atmosphere. ### The Static-Dynamic Continuum: %% fold %% A distinction between static content and dynamic content emerged as an organisational principle. Static content was exemplified by early social media like MySpace, where users curated profile pages with specific elements (music tracks, wallpapers) intended for others to visit and observe, analogous to a painting or display. The postdoc contrasted this with modern social media's emphasis on dynamic, temporally unfolding content. Dynamic content includes algorithmically ordered feeds, interactions like comments unfolding [[over time]], and the general sense of ongoing activity. This was compared to event-based art (performances like theatre, comedy, music) or watching sports or 24-hour news – observing events unfold rather than viewing a fixed object. The feed was identified as a "core Central, temporal plank" of this dynamic aspect, constantly updateable. This static-dynamic distinction was proposed as a potential "working definition" to delineate Arianna's area of interest within the broad category of "social media," differentiating it from blogs or certain YouTube content focused on displaying finished products. It was acknowledged that this is likely a continuum rather than a strict binary. Instagram, for instance, was seen as incorporating both: static elements like curated profile grids (used for understanding followers or presenting an "aesthetic persona") and dynamic elements like feeds and Reels (similar to TikTok). TikTok was positioned towards the dynamic end, being feed-centric and less focused on persistent profiles. [[The concept]] of users constructing an "aesthetic identity" or "chosen aesthetic identity" by collecting and displaying aesthetic items (films, songs, experiences) was also discussed in relation to profile curation (on MySpace, MSN statuses with songs/emojis, Instagram). ### [[Theoretical Frameworks]] %% fold %% 1. Event-based aesthetics: Theories related to performance, theatre, and other temporally unfolding art forms could be applied to analyse the dynamic aspects of social media engagement. 2. Phenomenology of digital experience: Extending phenomenological approaches beyond embodiment to account for cognitive and affective engagement in digital spaces, potentially engaging with or distinguishing from work like Lucy Osler's on interpersonal/online atmospheres (noted as being potentially more phenomenological than aesthetic, possibly influenced by Dan Zahavi). 3. Technical-social interaction: Frameworks examining how technical affordances (algorithms, interface design) interact with social practices and norms to produce specific outcomes, such as distinct platform atmospheres. 4. Aesthetic identity construction: Theories of identity, self-presentation, and potentially persona development are relevant to understanding curated profiles and the presentation of an "aesthetic self." ### Development Pathways for Atmospheres Research %% fold %% The atmospheres concept was viewed as having strong potential. Pathways include: 1. Comparative analysis: Detailing the distinct atmospheres of platforms like Reddit, Tumblr, Instagram, linking these to specific technical features and community norms. 2. Translation question: Systematically examining how concepts from physical atmosphere research apply or need modification for digital, non-embodied contexts. 3. Environmental-individual dynamics: Analysing the feedback loop where platform environments shape user behaviour and individual actions collectively shape the platform's atmosphere. 4. Technical mechanisms: Investigating how specific algorithmic designs or interface features contribute to or detract from particular atmospheric qualities. A literature search was recommended to check for existing work in journals like the _British Journal of Aesthetics_ or _The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism_. ## Elsa: Creativity, Heresy, and Ontology of Art %% fold %% Elsa's research navigates the conceptual space between the ontology of art, social evaluations of art, and the nature of creativity, involving strategic decisions about disciplinary scope. ### Heretical Artworks and Prototypes: %% fold %% Elsa's starting point involves defining 'heresy' in the context of artworks and artefacts, connecting it to conventions, normativity (in art and technology), and prototype theory. A key aspect is the social dynamic where artworks or artists initially rejected are later accepted or celebrated. ### Social Constraints on Creativity: %% fold %% A primary interest is the social definition and social constraints of creativity. Elsa focused on how the "dynamic of rejecting an artwork and then accepting it" relates to how creativity is perceived or attributed socially. This positions creativity not just as an intrinsic property but as significantly shaped by social reception and context. ### Ontology of Art and Prototypes: %% fold %% Elsa possesses an existing foundation in social ontology, artefacts, artworks, and prototypes, which could serve as a base for exploring creativity. ### Philosophy of Mind and Psychology/Neuroscience: %% fold %% Elsa expressed interest in expanding into philosophy of mind, creativity, and imagination, potentially drawing on psychology (where she has a background, mentioning work with Glăveanu and sociocultural approaches) and neuropsychology. Her interest lies particularly in socially oriented cognitive science that examines contextual impacts on creativity, rather than purely internalist accounts. The aim is to engage with this literature to inform her philosophical work, not necessarily to conduct primary psychological research herself. ### Conceptual Distinctions: %% fold %% The need to differentiate creativity from related concepts like imagination, talent, and genius was acknowledged ("it's about choosing the right concept to work with"). Scepticism about the concept of creativity itself was also raised – whether it's a genuinely useful or coherent concept, or if it can be reduced to other processes (like imagination or problem-solving). The postdoc mentioned the "million monkeys" thought experiment and the idea that perhaps there is "no such thing as a creative spark." The potential relevance of AI (specifically Large Language Models) was briefly touched upon, referencing a chapter suggesting LLMs might possess imagination, contrasting with the common view of them as uncreative regurgitators, potentially highlighting tensions in defining creativity/imagination. Predictive processing accounts of cognition (mentioning Andy Clark's Surfing Uncertainty and a Buckner book) were suggested as a recent cognitive science framework potentially relevant to creativity and imagination. ### Potential Pathways Between Ontology and Philosophy of Mind %% fold %% Several pathways were discussed for bridging Elsa's existing work with her interest in philosophy of mind/creativity: 1. Prototypes to Creativity: Using her work on prototypes as a foundation to analyse how creative works relate to, deviate from, or establish new categories. 2. Heresy as Hyper-Creativity: Exploring the intuition that artistic 'heretics' might be "hyper-creative" individuals whose work exceeds contemporary understanding ("ahead of her time"), while acknowledging this intuition needs scrutiny. This connects heresy directly to a level or type of creativity. 3. Social Ontology to Social Creativity: Applying social ontological frameworks developed for artworks/prototypes to the social construction and social attribution of creativity. 4. Experiential vs. Non-Experiential Artifacts: Investigating potential differences in the creative process for making experiential artefacts (like art, requiring consideration of audience experience, perhaps a 'theory of mind') versus non-experiential/functional artefacts (focused more on problem-solving). ### Strategic Academic Considerations %% fold %% 1. Dissertation Structure: The option of a unified dissertation versus a collection of papers was discussed. The postdoc suggested supervisor Enrico would likely be relaxed about the linkage between papers if that route were chosen, but advised double-checking university regulations. 2. Career Positioning: Broadening into philosophy of mind/creativity was seen as potentially advantageous for the academic job market (e.g., postdocs), as it increases the range of job descriptions her profile might match. The risk of being filtered out if lacking keywords ("Well, she hasn't done anything with mind") was mentioned. 3. Knowledge Building Strategy: The "stepping stones" approach was proposed: Paper 1 on ontology/heresy, Paper 2 linking ontology to social creativity, Paper 3 engaging more deeply with philosophy of mind/psychology. This allows incremental knowledge building. 4. Interdisciplinary Navigation: Elsa acknowledged the challenge of shifting from her psychology background to the specific reasoning styles in philosophy of mind ("I need to practice it"), viewing the PhD as the right time to start this ("better to start working on it now than certainly a couple of years"). 5. Seeking Advice: The postdoc recommended discussing strategic decisions with supervisors (Enrico) and other faculty like Eliza, who has a broad research base. Enrico's suggestion of exploring creativity (potentially collaborating with Patrick Engel) was seen as a positive sign. ### Conceptual Intersections: Creativity, Heresy, and Prototypes %% fold %% 1. Temporal Trajectories: Both concepts involve time and changing social reception. Works deemed heretical might later be seen as highly creative. 2. Categorical Deviance: Heresy implies deviance from norms/prototypes; creativity involves modifying or transcending existing categories. 3. Levels of Innovation: Heresy might represent a radical level on a spectrum of creativity/innovation. 4. Social Reception: Both concepts are heavily dependent on social judgment and evaluation within a community or field. ### Methodological and Strategic Considerations %% fold %% **Definitional Approaches** • Arianna needs a working definition of "social media" for her scope, potentially focusing on the dynamic/temporal aspect. • Elsa needs to carefully define and distinguish between creativity, imagination, talent, and genius. **Comparative Methods** • Arianna can compare platforms, and digital vs. physical atmospheres. • Elsa can compare models of creativity (philosophical, psychological) and creative processes across domains (art vs. function). **Interdisciplinary Integration** • Arianna integrates aesthetics, digital media studies, phenomenology. • Elsa integrates ontology, philosophy of mind, psychology/neuroscience. **Conceptual Connections Across Research Areas** **Temporality and Reception** • Arianna: Dynamic, unfolding experiences on social media. • Elsa: Changing reception of heretical/creative works over time. Both highlight temporal processes in evaluation. **Social Construction of Aesthetic Categories** • Arianna: Emergence of collective atmospheres. • Elsa: Social attribution of creativity. Both engage social ontology/collective judgment. **Technical and Social Constraints** • Arianna: Platform design/algorithms shaping experience. • Elsa: Artistic/social conventions constraining/defining creativity. Both examine constraint systems. **Potential Research Directions** **For Arianna** 1. Platform-Specific Atmospheric Analysis: Case studies (Reddit, Tumblr, Instagram, TikTok) linking technical features and social norms to atmospheres. 2. Spectatorship Spectrum Framework: Mapping engagement from passive lurking to active creation in social media contexts. 3. Comparative Atmospheres Study: Analysing translation of physical atmosphere concepts to digital spaces and identifying unique digital qualities. 4. Algorithmic Influence on Aesthetic Experience: Investigating how feed/recommendation algorithms shape atmospheres and engagement. **For Elsa** 1. Heresy-Creativity Relationship: Theorising the link between heretical art and creativity (e.g., is "ahead of their time" = "more creative"?). 2. Creativity Scepticism Analysis: Evaluating arguments against creativity as a distinct concept, exploring reduction to other processes. 3. Experiential vs. Functional Creativity: Comparing creative processes for art vs. functional objects, focusing on audience/user consideration. 4. Social Ontology of Creative Attribution: Analysing community practices for attributing creativity, constructing creative identity/reputation. (Potentially referencing the suggested book on the "myth of genius"). **Collaborative Possibilities** 1. Digital Creativity and Reception: Examining how digital platforms (Arianna) shape creative production and reception (Elsa). 2. Atmosphere and Creative Communities: Exploring how platform atmospheres (Arianna) affect online creative communities and vice versa. 3. Temporal Aesthetics: Developing frameworks for temporality in digital experience (Arianna) and creative evaluation (Elsa). ## **Conclusion** %% fold %% The research trajectories of Arianna and Elsa cover intersecting areas of aesthetics, digital media, ontology, and philosophy of mind. Both face decisions regarding scope, framework, and methodology. Their work addresses the social construction of aesthetic categories, the influence of technical/social constraints, and the temporal dimensions of experience and evaluation. These projects contribute to extending aesthetic theory into digital and cognitive domains. The postdoc suggested regular, brief follow-up meetings to maintain impetus.