#veniceconference - Would it be possible to start with Carlson's ideas about Ziff, then move on to Sibley? ## Sibley text • **Non-[[aesthetic judgments]]** involve properties like 'large', 'circular', 'green', 'slow', or 'monosyllabic'. Recognizing these does not require aesthetic sensitivity or taste. • **[[Aesthetic judgments]]**, conversely, involve qualities like 'graceful', 'dainty', 'garish', 'balanced', 'moving', or 'powerful'. Recognizing these _does_ require aesthetic sensitivity, perceptiveness, or taste. ### dependence Sibley outlines several ways aesthetic qualities depend on non-aesthetic ones: 1. **General Dependence:** Aesthetic qualities cannot exist in isolation from non-aesthetic ones (like a grin needs a face). The reverse is not true. 2. **Determination/Emergence:** The non-aesthetic qualities of an object determine its aesthetic qualities. Aesthetic qualities are 'emergent' properties arising from the non-aesthetic base. Changes in non-aesthetic features lead to changes in aesthetic character. 3. **Total Specific Dependence:** The specific aesthetic character of an object results from the _totality_ of its relevant non-aesthetic characteristics. Even minor, seemingly insignificant non-aesthetic details contribute because changing them could alter the aesthetic effect. This relates to [[the idea]] of the uniqueness of artworks, where "everything exactly as it is" creates the specific aesthetic result. 4. **Notable Specific Dependence:** Critics often focus on identifying _particular_ salient non-aesthetic features that are _notably_ or _especially_ responsible for a specific aesthetic quality (e.g., "these wavy lines give it a restless quality"). This is a common and central task in criticism, distinct from just stating the general dependence or the total dependence. Often, small changes to these notable features drastically alter the aesthetic effect. • Sibley notes that acknowledging 'notable' features doesn't contradict 'total' dependence; the notable features achieve their effect partly because other, less obvious features allow them to. ## brainstorm Okay, so here's half an idea. If we accept Carlson's idea that to aesthetically appreciate something we must appreciate it as what it in fact is, we can say that connoisseurs are in a better position to be able to [[know what]] an image generating system is than some ones than people who are not connoisseurs. Okay, notice that this is a different claim to saying that they know the thing in its entirety. Okay, I mean, we'd say the same thing about [[scientific knowledge]] of the natural world. For example, a geologist and a, I don't know, a biologist might have just as much a claim to say that they understand [[the state]]. Their knowledge is equivalent in some way, right? That's the only thing to say is that we wouldn't say that the biologists are sort of higher up the tree of knowing the true nature of nature than geologists. Okay, they just, they know about different aspects of it. We can say the same thing about image generating software and connoisseurs. Okay, a connoisseur can know a certain subcategory or categories of visual culture. Okay, this is a very broad definition of what a connoisseur is. So let's just say a connoisseur is someone who knows a great deal about perceptual culture. Notice also that perceptual culture knows about perceptual culture necessarily, I would say, involves knowing it through perception as well. That was just this side. Okay, so... So [[the idea]] here would be that, erm... ... ## Definition and Character of Connoisseurship #llmtext • **Proposed Definition**: "A connoisseur is someone who knows a great deal about perceptual culture" ▪ This is intentionally broad to accommodate various specialized domains ▪ Could include expertise in specific artistic movements, technical understanding, historical context, etc. • **Crucial Sibley Connection**: Knowledge of perceptual culture necessarily involves perception itself ▪ Not merely intellectual/conceptual knowledge ▪ Requires the developed sensitivity Sibley emphasizes ▪ Creates a synthesis: Carlsonian [[knowledge requirement]] + Sibleyan perceptual sensitivity ## note By contrast, DLSAM are sampled from a continuous [[latent space]] that has not been shaped by the desiderata of a single specific output, but by manifold learning. - **Analogy:** Tuning an Instrument. Think of tuning a violin. The musician doesn't directly perceive the mathematical ratios of frequencies. They perceive the resulting sound's aesthetic quality (consonance, dissonance, richness, "in-tuneness"—all emergent [[aesthetic properties]] in Sibley's sense). They adjust the tuning peg (manipulating a physical parameter, analogous to changing a prompt word or adjusting a latent vector) and perceive the change in the aesthetic quality of the sound. Through repeated cycles of adjust-and-perceive, they develop sensitivity to [[the relationship between]] the physical manipulation and the emergent aesthetic outcome.
 ## brainstorm Okay, so maybe here is a good way of thinking about the connoisseur, is the connoisseur is gonna know the terrain in a way that non-connoisseurs will not. They'll therefore be able to be better at finding interesting parts of this domain. they'll be able to identify directions to go, dimensions to travel down in such a way that non connoisseurs would not be able to do. ## note Sibley's Core Argument Against Rules: Sibley's fundamental insight is that [[aesthetic concepts]] (like 'elegant', 'dynamic', 'garish', 'unified') are not condition-governed in the way concepts like 'square' or 'red' might be. You cannot create a definitive checklist of non-aesthetic features (e.g., "has curving lines," "is predominantly blue," "has X symmetry") such that if an object satisfies the checklist, it must logically possess a specific aesthetic quality like 'elegance'. People possessing taste or sensitivity need to see the elegance emerge from [[the particular]] configuration of lines and colours. There are no guaranteed recipes. Knowledge of the non-aesthetic "ingredients" doesn't guarantee the aesthetic "flavour."