We're triggering a discrete and intentional resonance of emotion(which itself is chemical balances and electrical dances across meat stages when you get down to it really) through the use of aesthetics, right? This emotional synchronization is the result of sucessfully communicating an idea that the viewer at least shares enough reference to understand. I am feeling this to be the opposite of the universal trend towards disorder. Misunderstanding. Randomness. Art(music/photos/whatever) are often described as "moving" when they're particularly powerful. I'd guess less powerful art is still "nudging," and there are many things everyone passes by in a day that their mental attention span simply filters out.
To this extent, I'd guess popularity of a piece of art is suggestive that it stumbles across an objective thing that people experience. That they should be so moved. Seeing as moving requires effort, the Newtonian default is to be unmoved. Then we need to tease out when something's popularity is grand enough that the default of being unmoved changes to a default of being swept along by the momentum of the path of least resistance, at least until that social current slows.
alright so you're trying to science juice.
using a frame of reference to experience something has absolutely nothing to do with entropy as you describe it. i can literally not fathom the connection.
i've taken a few passes at what you're trying to say, because it's bluntly buck wild - it's not because your language is unclear, but because of... yea. - anyways, ok, so - you're saying that because of entropy, we can't engage with art through a reference of framing. none of the two have any whatsoever to do with each other*. it's especially confusing from you, since studying art is so chaotic from the scientific perspective you're appealing to.
like, it doesn't even compute with whatever you think entropy is. framing the same thing** with different genres, genres that sometimes change even, is the very core reason there's indeed a lot of what i think you believe is misunderstanding and randomness. (to the aesthetician, it's
neither; the reality of the experience isn't innately important, and may only become a question down the line.) like, how can you look at this and think such an approachs tends
away from a state of disorder, when you use this train of thought?
bluntly, it's like saying that because of entropy, i can't sit down in my chair.
no, i'm serious. we're not at the heat death of the universe yet. i can sit down and remain reasonably still. and then i get up again...
*as for chemical balances and such, as i noted earlier in the thread, we may figure a scientific formula for "art" out someday, but in spite of some wacky headliners i assure you all attempts so far are completely bonkers.
**yes, art most often involves a material, however if you deal with the subject matter seriously, you'll soon realize the lack of universality sprouting from the material itself. this is why serious scholars today moreso deal with
why people like something, rather than why they
should like something. what good aestheticians do is basically to generalize about tastes within their contexts, and then make prescriptive writings about that. i have no clue why you'd think such a thing runs contrary to a state of disorder. both tastes and contexts change.