Teemu Lahteenmaki wrote:
>
> This message was  originally submitted by [log in to unmask]

> Greeting to you all,
>
> This problem has occupied my mind in recent times, and as I haven't
> been able to arrive to any conclusions, perhaps someone here could
> enlighten me a bit..
>
> First of all, I approach art as a way to have a "constructive impact"
> in the perceiver (be it reader, viewer or other). That is, to have
> the end-user of art to experience something that benefits him/her mentally.
> I suppose this might be self evident for some (?), that one major thing
> why, in the end, art is so valuable to our species is this therapeutic
> effect it has, both for the artist and the perciever.
>
> To clarify my terminology, in the following I consider the
> "constructive impact" to consist of the kind of aesthetic experience
> of art that has some positive (in any sense) cognitive effect.
>
> Now then, my quiestuin is that what kind of differences there exist
> between these "cognitive impacts" art has? More precisely:
> could there for example exist one poem, one novel and one painting
> which all shared the same kind of impact? Or are the different mediums
> of art fundamentally so different, that the effects of experiencing
> them cannot be compared?
>
> My own intuitive experience says that, for example, a poem and
> a painting could have the same overall impact. This is to say that
> the invoked feeling or perceived ambience is fundamentally the same.
> Perhaps this is because we might use the same kind of mental proccessess
> to decrypt the interpretation out of usually somewhat semantically
> mystified artpiece?
>
> Obviously the different genres of art have also their own effect
> on the impact. For example, perhaps romantic poems might have the same
> overall effect as romantic paintings, etc?
>
> I know I am moving in the vague domains of psychology and cognitive
> sciences here, but in the end my intents are not very scientific.
> I have been toying around with an idea to begin evaluating art
> purely by the results it does to a person, and examine into what
> kind of light this would put the current value systems of art.
>
>   PS.
>
>   I have been following your discussions with great interest, and find
>   the different accounts of creative proccesses quite intruguing.
>   My own approach to psychology of art is a bit dualistic: on the
>   other hand, I am doing my masters thesis on artificial measuring
>   of visual aesthetics, while also being an creative individual my
>   areas of interest being in visual art and literature.
>
> --
> Teemu Lahteenmaki
> [log in to unmask], http://www.jyu.fi/~tola/
> Student of digital media, University of Jyvaskyla, Finland