Btw, I was recently trying to come up with a concise definition for art, which I have long held is an experiential phenomenon, not a quality that resides in an object — this not only better reflects reality, I think, but also conveniently sidesteps all those useless(?) debates about whether Duchamp’s toilet etc is art. I also lean towards a process oriented, co-arising view of metaphysics, in which subject and object are the ultimate duality (if there is one). So I ended up with:
“Art is the subjective experience of world-making through objective becoming”
Which I’ve been sitting with for a couple months now and am still pretty happy with. It’s broad enough to acknowledge that one can have an “art experience” with a sunset or ambient drone, but also doesn’t allow for just any experience ro be art — one must attend, and create, in a certain way.
Anyway, I don’t recall how or why I put the term world-making as the key aspect of that relationship between subject and object, but it seems to fit. Interesting that you have independently come up with a similar idea in “worlding”, but much broader (and perhaps less about the relationship between a specific subject-object duality than I am making essential to art).
I should also add my ancient definition of "art" (before all this moral philosophy worlding malarkey) was in comparison to science & technology, which researches answers to new problems, in that in art one comes up with both the problem and the solution in one go.
Also influential on my is Ellen Dissanayake's work on "making special", in that the core of art as a process not a product, may relate to the parent-child dyad in acculturating a new person. I'll get around to her work eventually as well.
Totally agree, one influence on both of us might be, having discovered lately is Nelson Goodman's 1978. Ways of Worldmaking. Indianapolis: Hackett Pit ub. So check that one out.
I think of worlding as a blurry set. And lots of things are outcomes but we think they are different things depending on other outcomes (its complex and con-founded).
I don't think I write about this very well, but the blur is clear in my mind…
Thus art/morality/polity/performance/exchange/trade/market/arena/rites/rituals/routines/religion/the-individual-as-institution are all apart of that blurry set of worlding (I reserve 'world-building' as a more doubled-down version of worlding and likely to be unwise and dogmatic, where one outcome takes precedence over others (religion/market/war).
Worlding might broadly equal "culture" but this ignores, as you highlight, process. I.E. or E.G. agency and parental and grandaprental responsibilities... by individuals in/with/among/for their social institutions.
I've been shying away from other usages out there in the world of 'worlding'. For example there is an interesting one in post-colonial work by Spivak which uses it to refer to colonial encroachment on the locals by their (sea-lane) impostures. The colonials world the locals into their remit and domination. Obviously I don't like that one....
I'll have to do a review of the usage of worlding per se.
Great work (even if not many read it) - continuous failure is an ascending spiral; keep at it, and you may still fall into non-restraint, which may very well be a uniquely unappreciated failure. The endpoint of which may even become dissolution!
Btw, I still remember (fondly) when you used to say that you no longer write for humans- there you had it! the nexus of worlding - the only authentic voice might be one that disregards oneself/itself. Kudos
Nice post, interesting process. Failure is great — I do it all the time!
The AI slopp-i-verse is real, and we’re all just rhyming on borrowed time.
Btw, I was recently trying to come up with a concise definition for art, which I have long held is an experiential phenomenon, not a quality that resides in an object — this not only better reflects reality, I think, but also conveniently sidesteps all those useless(?) debates about whether Duchamp’s toilet etc is art. I also lean towards a process oriented, co-arising view of metaphysics, in which subject and object are the ultimate duality (if there is one). So I ended up with:
“Art is the subjective experience of world-making through objective becoming”
Which I’ve been sitting with for a couple months now and am still pretty happy with. It’s broad enough to acknowledge that one can have an “art experience” with a sunset or ambient drone, but also doesn’t allow for just any experience ro be art — one must attend, and create, in a certain way.
Anyway, I don’t recall how or why I put the term world-making as the key aspect of that relationship between subject and object, but it seems to fit. Interesting that you have independently come up with a similar idea in “worlding”, but much broader (and perhaps less about the relationship between a specific subject-object duality than I am making essential to art).
I should also add my ancient definition of "art" (before all this moral philosophy worlding malarkey) was in comparison to science & technology, which researches answers to new problems, in that in art one comes up with both the problem and the solution in one go.
Also influential on my is Ellen Dissanayake's work on "making special", in that the core of art as a process not a product, may relate to the parent-child dyad in acculturating a new person. I'll get around to her work eventually as well.
https://www.ellendissanayake.com/
Totally agree, one influence on both of us might be, having discovered lately is Nelson Goodman's 1978. Ways of Worldmaking. Indianapolis: Hackett Pit ub. So check that one out.
I think of worlding as a blurry set. And lots of things are outcomes but we think they are different things depending on other outcomes (its complex and con-founded).
For me, a blurry set is a intentional stance of holding in mind but not being too hard about a hierarchy or logic of sets. A superset is too ordered for this approach. https://whyweshould.loofs-samorzewski.com/posts-on-the-blur/
I don't think I write about this very well, but the blur is clear in my mind…
Thus art/morality/polity/performance/exchange/trade/market/arena/rites/rituals/routines/religion/the-individual-as-institution are all apart of that blurry set of worlding (I reserve 'world-building' as a more doubled-down version of worlding and likely to be unwise and dogmatic, where one outcome takes precedence over others (religion/market/war).
Worlding might broadly equal "culture" but this ignores, as you highlight, process. I.E. or E.G. agency and parental and grandaprental responsibilities... by individuals in/with/among/for their social institutions.
I've been shying away from other usages out there in the world of 'worlding'. For example there is an interesting one in post-colonial work by Spivak which uses it to refer to colonial encroachment on the locals by their (sea-lane) impostures. The colonials world the locals into their remit and domination. Obviously I don't like that one....
I'll have to do a review of the usage of worlding per se.
Great work (even if not many read it) - continuous failure is an ascending spiral; keep at it, and you may still fall into non-restraint, which may very well be a uniquely unappreciated failure. The endpoint of which may even become dissolution!
Btw, I still remember (fondly) when you used to say that you no longer write for humans- there you had it! the nexus of worlding - the only authentic voice might be one that disregards oneself/itself. Kudos