I
recently had a discussion with a philosopher in which he brought up the Wollheimian concept
of "seeing-in." He claimed that an expert talent-scout working for a
modelling agency would be able to see - literally perceive - potential in the face of a prospective
model. Sadly the discussion was interrupted and I didn't get a chance to
explore his view further.
It
may be the case that he was using the term "perception" figuratively as an equivalent of "appreciation", "evaluation" or "inference". Potential in this sense is a projective notion, specifically a notion about a possible or even likely future. It's an
anticipatory account, image or expectation. If
I say that someone has potential, I don't mean that I literally see
anything. If the person in question leaves the room, the potential I see
doesn't walk out of the door with them. So to see something in this sense is not to perceive it in anything like the sense in which we might readily see the shape or size of objects around us.
Expertise may sometimes involve a degree heightened perceptual awareness developed through practice and experience. But to see indications, signs, suggestions, evidence etc. involves skills beyond those of mere perception. Even when
we see dark clouds looming and say "It looks like it's going to rain" we can only say this because we know from past experience that dark clouds often precede
rain and we can use this knowledge to inform our judgements about the
future.
Expertise
is thus at least partly a condition of being acquainted with certain causal regularities. Experience
and education about these regularities furnishes experts with exemplars that
allow them to make more accurate predictions. But these predictions are not
properties of the world. This is why even experts
are often wrong, especially about long-term events.
So,
to say that we see potential in a student is to hedge a bet based upon their
previous achievements. It is certainly not a kind of mysterious emanation that
only experts can sense. It is not a perceptible thing or energy of any kind. It
is a supposition, based upon evidence and supported by experience without which
the determination of potential would be impossible.
If beauty were a perceptible
property of a prospective model then every perceiver - other life forms included - would
have to be capable of perceiving it. I don't think anyone would be confident of
that view. Beauty and meaning etc. are socially negotiated attributions. They are ideas we closely associate with certain kinds and
configurations of perceptible attributes and objects.
When
we give gifts we often try to conceal their identity by wrapping them. It is
never the point of gift giving that the recipient should be able to predict the
contents. Such a skill would render the ritual of wrapping meaningless. One of
the great pleasures of wrapped gifts is the expectation they elicit, an
expectation that is often most pronounced in childhood. This has two important
consequences. Firstly, it encourages self control; a vital life-skill.
Secondly, it encourages powers of imagination that are of inestimable value to
us as a species.
-------------------
4 comments:
Jim, if a philosopher argued the case for a 'talent-scout' ("she" or "he") looking for a particular thing, in this case surface beauty in a prospective model, this would be an entirely different thing from arguing the case for 'talent' in art. There is nothing in the assessment of 'talent' (an old-fashioned word which I take to mean a mix of inherited and otherwise acquired abilities and potential) that relies upon "mysterious emanations". Assessing what in old-fashioned politically-incorrect terms was called 'talent', is exactly - as you say - "hedging bets based upon their previous achievements". How else can you assess someone's potential in the 'visual' arts but by looking not at them, but at their work? You may want to try and assess something of their character, based upon your experience, that might help you decide if they are sincere, but that is a little risky, and perhaps not even relevant if their work is good. I think we are agreed on this? I think we differ in our notions of what is meant by 'appearances'. The appearance of a prospective model is exactly what the 'talent' scout is looking for, mainly. That is her or his potential in that business. The appearance of an artwork IS - to a large extent - the artwork (if it is in the 'visual' arts) or at least of significant importance, positively or negatively. But the appearance of the artwork in this sense is not the same as the appearance of the model. You might like to read Adorno's work on "semblance", where he points out that art's semblance is in opposition to the reality it appears to be. A real philosopher would argue from that point, I imagine.
I thought you might have mentioned genes again, in this case what I would call an 'unselfish' gene. That is, a gift given by nature (evolution, and more besides) for us to use for our joy and fulfilment.
I just pulled down Adorno's book from the shelf. I'd forgotten what a thicket it is to stagger through. Adore? No! Not in my case anyway. Another life perhaps.
The genetic angle is definitely important. But, as I've mentioned before, I think the story of representation is going to turn out to be far more extensive than simply "joy and fulfilment" or art and artworks for that matter.
By the way Brian, on the subject of appearances again. Objects don't have "an" appearance. They have an infinitely divisible multitude of possible appearances at any given moment. The only way to make coherent sense of appearances is to recognise that the concept (including looks, as in "looks-like") is a culturally evolved assimilation into language of non-verbal strategies of representation. The next time someone says to you (or you catch yourself saying) that something looks-like something else, make a note of the efficacy of the strategy. It's absolutely extraordinary how we can use language to offer these substitutions. We, not just artists but humans in general, are truly gifted in this skill of representation and we do it near effortlessly.
Well, I'd better let you get on with it then … and Merry Christmas to you, too.
Post a Comment