Form or Content?

[BigApplePi]

Please help me. I'm at my wits end trying to separate form from content. Two of the simplest things. Everything must have both. Surely these are different. If so, what separates them and how do we define them? I will give you some examples to show you my desperation.

1. This forum has form. Well defined rules. A modest amount of attention is paid silently to conforming to them as well as to openly challenging them. Yet isn't it the content which means the most to posters else they would not linger here?

2. Religion. Isn't form obvious? If you happen to believe the Earth is only six thousand years old, you are easily defeated by the scientifically oriented. But what the f? People go for religion because of its content, not its form.

3. A circle. All form; no content?

4. A dream of the future. All content; no form?

Kindly think of your own examples. Just think of anything you care about. It will have form and content. Just look hard enough.

Maybe I'm mistaken, but if content is so important, why are INTP's so concentrated on form ... or is that just me? Which is more important? Don't tell me they are equal as what can we say about content anyway except that it is?

Intellectually I am driven to apprehend form yet when I want to relax, it's content that is all important. What is going on here? This issue is tearing me apart, but I can't tell where the parts are. You must help me. You must. I will be calm. I promise.

 

[Coolydudey]

Simply put, the form is the guiding line under which the content is created and exists. Any stable, unchanging rules and patterns are form. Otherwise put, the form is constant (for example in a painting, the style, or the use of oil paints), and the content is what changes, expressed through the form (for example, the painting itself is content). This does raise a distinction: content is expressed or perceived and not inherently there (for example, the use of a different type of oil paint isn't really content, since this isn't expressed through something). I don't know if this is what you were looking for...

 

[BigApplePi]

Simply put, the form is the guiding line under which the content is created and exists. Any stable, unchanging rules and patterns are form. Otherwise put, the form is constant (for example in a painting, the style, or the use of oil paints), and the content is what changes, expressed through the form (for example, the painting itself is content). This does raise a distinction: content is expressed or perceived and not inherently there (for example, the use of a different type of oil paint isn't really content, since this isn't expressed through something). I don't know if this is what you were looking for...

Take a look at these paintings of madonna and child:
https://www.google.com/search?q=mad...--4AP96IDwBw&ved=0CAoQ_AUoAQ&biw=1476&bih=839
All appear to have the form of madonna and child yet all are different (at least to the discerning eye). What makes the content of each different? Are they all the same quality? If one content is different than the other how are we to tell? If two paintings have exactly the same content, do they not have exactly the same form down to the finest detail? If one were a forgery, would they have the same content as the original? Do we start describing the art piece and if we do so, are we not addressing form?

 

[Duxwing]

After a few minutes of thought, I've come up with some definitions:

Content: The set of all things-in-themselves that comprise something.
Form: The set of all patterns in the content of something.

-Duxwing

 

[BigApplePi]

After a few minutes of thought, I've come up with some definitions:

Content: The set of all things-in-themselves that comprise something.
Form: The set of all patterns in the content of something.

-Duxwing

Dux. That's a good one. Might be usable. Trouble might arise with definitions. What is, "thing-in-itself"? What does "pattern" mean? Perhaps we can take a form and call "content" what's inside. Then we break the content down looking for patterns and name each pattern a "form." Each form has a content in itself.

Another thought is the emergent whole as a sum of forms where this "sum" is something beyond the separated form-parts. That takes the opposite view that content lies outside of form.

This is not something I've studied ... like you I"m tossing this on the table. Here are two examples:

1. We look at religion and analyze it discovering it has no certain content. But we take the religion as a whole and find people use it with meaning. This leaves those who have analyzed it in dismay.

2. Here is a classic example for which I'm not certain I've heard an example: Why is the sky blue ... or what is blue?

People have looked at #2 and said blue exhibits a unique wave length of light and that defines blue. Yet blue is something we don't know you and I see the same of. Blue is something beyond wavelength. One can't describe blue to a color blind person ... only a shade of gray.

So what gives? Answer: blue is in me. It is what I see. It is my personal relationship to a light wavelength. Blue is outside wavelength. It is the "whole" or unity of me and a wavelength. Blue is a content. The form is you or me and the light.

 

[Duxwing]

Dux. That's a good one. Might be usable.

Aww. Thanks!

Trouble might arise with definitions. What is, "thing-in-itself"?

See the works of Emmanuel Kant.

What does "pattern" mean?

We can infinite regress our way to oblivion, here, but I'll add another layer:

A pattern is a shared quality or repeating arrangement of things-in-themselves.

Perhaps we can take a form and call "content" what's inside.

Let's not. The form is in something already, and I don't like the prospect of Matryohshka Dolls.

Then we break the content down looking for patterns and name each pattern a "form." Each form has a content in itself.

One can consider the list of forms in something to be a thing in itself, yes.

Another thought is the emergent whole as a sum of forms where this "sum" is something beyond the separated form-parts. That takes the opposite view that content lies outside of form.

Gestalt mereology?

This is not something I've studied ... like you I"m tossing this on the table. Here are two examples:

1. We look at religion and analyze it discovering it has no certain content. But we take the religion as a whole and find people use it with meaning. This leaves those who have analyzed it in dismay.

Oi. Religion? Really? Pretty please, can we use an example that doesn't evoke the sense that Freudian strangeness is going on, here? We can use it if you insist; I'd just rather not.

Religion does have content. It has texts, rituals, and prophecies. It's content may not be provable, but it exists, thus preventing your conundrum.

2. Here is a classic example for which I'm not certain I've heard an example: Why is the sky blue ... or what is blue?

Analytical philosophy to the rescue! Our problem lies not in understanding "blue" but defining it properly: blue is an ambigious term that could refer to a particular wavelength of light, a particular brain state, a particular activation of the retina, etc. In essence, we ought to stop asking why the sky is blue, and start asking about what we really mean.

People have looked at #2 and said blue exhibits a unique wave length of light and that defines blue.

Rather, blue is defined as a certain wavelength of light. I know that I sound like I'm nitpicking, but I want to keep the books straight so that later logic is sound.

Yet blue is something we don't know you and I see the same of.

We can eliminate this problem by assuming a material universe: identical brain-states indicate identical qualia.

Blue is something beyond wavelength.

I hope that you're not talking about gestalt mereology.

One can't describe blue to a color blind person ... only a shade of gray.

You've encountered a limitation of human cognition, not a philosophical problem: we can't think about what we can't remember, and we can't think about what we haven't experienced. Hence, the blind can't think of colors just like the healthy can't think of infrared.

So what gives? Answer: blue is in me. It is what I see.

As per your definition of same, yes; but others could define it differently, rendering discussion of the term "blue" ambiguous.

It is my personal relationship to a light wavelength.

Are you sure that you're not making a homonculus argument?

Blue is outside wavelength.

As per your definition of same....

It is the "whole" or unity of me and a wavelength. Blue is a content. The form is you or me and the light.

Nope. By your definition, "blue" is the union of two sets, and therefore a set itself. Sets are just arbitrary means of grouping content, not content in themselves, which, in this case, would be the contents of the set "light" and the contents of the set "you".

-Duxwing

 

[BigApplePi]

See the works of Emmanuel Kant.

If Kant can't put in a personal appearance here to speak his piece, I'm gonna punch him inna nose. Of course that will be difficult if he's not here.

We can infinite regress our way to oblivion, here, but I'll add another layer:

A pattern is a shared quality or repeating arrangement of things-in-themselves.

More Kant? Sounds a lot like cant to me:

Spoiler

Cant (language) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Let's not. The form is in something already, and I don't like the prospect of Matryohshka Dolls.

Shucks. I was hoping for the dolls.

Spoiler

Form: The set of all patterns in the content of something.

One can consider the list of forms in something to be a thing in itself, yes.

We may be talking dolls again.

Gestalt mereology?

Yes

Oi. Religion? Really? Pretty please, can we use an example that doesn't evoke the sense that Freudian strangeness is going on, here? We can use it if you insist; I'd just rather not.

Religion does have content. It has texts, rituals, and prophecies. It's content may not be provable, but it exists, thus preventing your conundrum.

I really had the atheists in mind. I buy the texts, rituals and predictions. The atheists are not fond of the foundational logic: this and that exists; this and that really happened.

Analytical philosophy to the rescue! Our problem lies not in understanding "blue" but defining it properly: blue is an ambigious term that could refer to a particular wavelength of light, a particular brain state, a particular activation of the retina, etc. In essence, we ought to stop asking why the sky is blue, and start asking about what we really mean.

Rather, blue is defined as a certain wavelength of light. I know that I sound like I'm nitpicking, but I want to keep the books straight so that later logic is sound.

Okay.

We can eliminate this problem by assuming a material universe: identical brain-states indicate identical qualia.

Are swear words allowed? Did you use the word "qualia"? I think Kant should be banned but I'm not a mod. On 2nd thought I don't like banning people. If Kant can stop his nose bleed, let him show himself and see if he "qualia-fies."

I hope that you're not talking about gestalt mereology.

Damn. Your hopes are dashed. I am talking that ... except I'll have to look up "mereology."

You've encountered a limitation of human cognition, not a philosophical problem: we can't think about what we can't remember, and we can't think about what we haven't experienced. Hence, the blind can't think of colors just like the healthy can't think of infrared.

Interesting. I want to say "blue" is content. It's okay if some don't see the content, but content it is for those who see it.

As per your definition of same, yes; but others could define it differently, rendering discussion of the term "blue" ambiguous.

I've lost ya here. For those who can see blue, as cooperative people, can't we agree what we see is blue?

Are you sure that you're not making a homonculus argument?

As per your definition of same....

I'm back with "content." You and I can see blue and we are privileged with this content. Color-blind animals don't have this privilege anymore than an ape can practice religion or philosophy. Religion and philosophy don't exist for apes. Tough. They exist for humans ... some humans.

Nope. By your definition, "blue" is the union of two sets, and therefore a set itself. Sets are just arbitrary means of grouping content, not content in themselves, which, in this case, would be the contents of the set "light" and the contents of the set "you".

-Duxwing

I think you've put your finger on the ingredients for a resolution though it has yet to be resolved.

Blue wavelength is the content and form of that particular wavelength.
The image in our minds is a stamp stored in our brains, both form and content.
Blue is the content of the union of two sets and does not exist without both.

 

[Polaris]

Random thought:

Does form define content?
-Not necessarily

Does content define form?
-Not necessarily

We are human....

If the form is too defined, there may be rebellion, or even migration. These reactions may usually be based on subjective interpretations; it is value-based reasoning. (This is why I left a certain NT-based forum to become a member here....)

If the form isn't defined enough, there will perhaps be anarchy, which eventually will naturally separate mass into factions. Some may disappear, some may stay. Whatever is left will have status quo for a limited amount of time until newcomers arrive and stir up any stagnation that may have occurred.

I think this forum has a chaotic sort of form, which could be said to be a mixture of the two points above. I think the micro-niche that is this forum somewhat resembles the way humans naturally organise themselves into some sort of society (macro-structure) in the outside world. It is dynamic, although some would probably protest that. One has to look at it in a chronological perspective, and one will see the pattern(s).

And one can never please everyone in this system....but somehow, it works....I think.

Personally, I think anarchy will always inevitably evolve to become some sort of organised structure. It is an inherent, pre-determined trait in social beings. The only difference between humans and ants is that we have over-sized brains. It complicates the organisation, and promotes ingenuity.

Not sure if I'm on the right track....I'm Ne-ing because these possible concepts excite me.

Perhaps you were looking for more abstract reasoning.

 

[BigApplePi]

Random thought:

Does form define content?
-Not necessarily

Does content define form?
-Not necessarily

We are human....

Perhaps you were looking for more abstract reasoning.

I'm looking for anything, thought, intuition, feeling, or sensing that would separate form from content. Is it absolute or confined to humans? Humans is a good point. Must the observer be alive?

 

[Brontosaurie]

whatever they are they shouldn't be

 

[Architect]

Personally, I think anarchy will always inevitably evolve to become some sort of organised (sp) structure. It is an inherent, pre-determined trait in social beings. The only difference between humans and ants is that we have over-sized brains. It complicates the organisation (sp), and promotes ingenuity.

Yes because evolution drives towards greater differentiation, specialization and complexity, and evolution permeates our being.

 

[Duxwing]

I don't mean to ad-hom, but you seem upset.

If Kant can't put in a personal appearance here to speak his piece, I'm gonna punch him inna nose. Of course that will be difficult if he's not here.

A thing in itself is an entity as it exists outside our perception.

More Kant? Sounds a lot like cant to me:

Spoiler

Cant (language) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your sass-level is over 9,000!

Shucks. I was hoping for the dolls.

They make infinite recursions.

We may be talking dolls again.

Nope. It only goes one layer down.

Yes.

OK. This will be much more complicated. Do you mean to say that additional content exists whereinvever two things share a set?

I really had the atheists in mind. I buy the texts, rituals and predictions. The atheists are not fond of the foundational logic: this and that exists; this and that really happened.

Yes. They're skeptics, as they should be.

Okay.

Good.

Are swear words allowed?

What? Eh?

Did you use the word "qualia"?

Yes. Qualia are defined as subjective experiences.

I think Kant should be banned but I'm not a mod. On 2nd thought I don't like banning people. If Kant can stop his nose bleed, let him show himself and see if he "qualia-fies."

Damn. Your hopes are dashed. I am talking that ... except I'll have to look up "mereology."

OK.

Interesting. I want to say "blue" is content. It's okay if some don't see the content, but content it is for those who see it.

This is actually a stronger definition. We're making progress.

I've lost ya here. For those who can see blue, as cooperative people, can't we agree what we see is blue?

I meant to say that the word "blue" can have different meanings in different contexts and to different people, thus making discussions about "blue" prone to fallacies of ambiguity, e.g.:

Nothing is better than eternal happiness
A hamburger is better than nothing
Therefore, a hamburger is better than eternal happiness

So let's not use the word "blue" and define what we mean by it instead.

I'm back with "content." You and I can see blue and we are privileged with this content. Color-blind animals don't have this privilege anymore than an ape can practice religion or philosophy. Religion and philosophy don't exist for apes. Tough. They exist for humans ... some humans.

OK. Sure.

I think you've put your finger on the ingredients for a resolution though it has yet to be resolved.

Glad to be of help.

Blue wavelength is the content and form of that particular wavelength.
The image in our minds is a stamp stored in our brains, both form and content.
Blue is the content of the union of two sets and does not exist without both.

Agreed. Now what?

-Duxwing

 

[BigApplePi]

Yes because evolution drives towards greater differentiation, specialization and complexity, and evolution permeates our being.

Followed by entropy.

 

[BigApplePi]

whatever they are they shouldn't be

Izat a moral dictum?

 

[Brontosaurie]

Izat a moral dictum?

yes.

 

[BigApplePi]

I don't mean to ad-hom, but you seem upset.

Oh yes. I am violently upset and will remain so until I can at least get some clue as to what this "form" and "content" are about. I accept others are not bothered. Tough for me. No one said life is easy.

A thing in itself is an entity as it exists outside our perception.

Oh. Is that you or Kant? Doesn't matter. I will keep that in mind and hope it will relate to the main Q.

Your sass-level is over 9,000!

Upset type people can be unruly. Everyone but me knows what form and content are. How would you like to be so ignorant in a crowd? I hope this upset hasn't rubbed off on you too much.

They make infinite recursions.

I will accept the word, "indefinite" as opposed to infinite.

Nope. It only goes one layer down.

I will put a hold on a reply until further examination.

OK. This will be much more complicated. Do you mean to say that additional content exists whereinvever two things share a set?

Not sure I can unravel the meaning of that. Let's see. My I.Q. goes into the dumpster when I have to check two posts back. Let me put any reply to this on hold.

Yes. They're skeptics, as they should be.

This could be a side issue to form and content, but while it's okay to be a skeptic, I think atheists miss an important piece of content. I won't take that up here, but will on this thread: What is Religion for?

Yes. Qualia are defined as subjective experiences.

"Qualia" is not defined and sounds suspiciously like content, not that content itself is defined.

BAP: " It's okay if some don't see the content, but content it is for those who see it. "
Dux: This is actually a stronger definition. We're making progress

.
By "stronger" we mean narrower or more restrictive. Is that okay? Yes progress.

I meant to say that the word "blue" can have different meanings in different contexts and to different people, thus making discussions about "blue" prone to fallacies of ambiguity, e.g.:

My first reaction is to label that word as fuzzy because like any word, people can by experience come to agree if we are careful and don't do the below:

Nothing is better than eternal happiness
A hamburger is better than nothing
Therefore, a hamburger is better than eternal happiness

This is an error due to using "nothing" with two different meanings. I don't want to fault the usage of experiencially defined words like "blue" on this.

So let's not use the word "blue" and define what we mean by it instead.

I think I defined it in an earlier post as the union of two things which you called sets ... or something close to that.

Glad to be of help.

Appreciated. It is a pleasure to talk to someone who can be communicated with even if resolution is yet to come.

BAP: Blue wavelength is the content and form of that particular wavelength.
The image in our minds is a stamp stored in our brains, both form and content.
Blue is the content of the union of two sets and does not exist without both.

Dux: Agreed. Now what?

That's quite a step to agree with. What I need to do now is to recuperate from this trauma by examining my upset. My intuition now says there is hope. I hope that is true.

 

[BigApplePi]

yes.

I hear and I obey.

 

[Brontosaurie]

I hear and I obey.

that's nice of you

 

[Polaris]

This may be a little bit crazy....

Could we say form is objective and content is subjective?

Form is matter, in a concrete sense. Thus, all matter is just form; whatever shape matter takes on.

Content is that which we apply to form somehow, which is a quality, not a thing...thus it is subjective.

Content is thus an imagined concept. Form is always real.

For example, a vase is a form. We put flowers in the vase and call it contents. However, the flowers are still merely form, we subjectively perceive flowers as contents within the context of what is form (the vase). But if we separate the two, they are both still just forms.

So everything is just form. Content does not exist, apart from when we interpret form as contents within the form.

Humans are forms. We say that humans have souls; this would be content as the concept of soul is just an idea, it has no existence other than in our minds.

For a rationalist, all humans are merely forms (without souls); what many perceive as spirit or soul is to a rationalist merely high-speed neurological connections; thus, there is no 'content'.

A book is form. It is said to have content, but again, that is subjective as the content is merely form in the shape of words. The words have no inherent meaning, thus it is not content until we read the words and give them meaning (form becomes content).

We have thus separated form from content as form is concrete (objective) and content abstract (subjective)

So yes, the human factor allows for content, subjectively. However, content is just something within something else. Content is thus relative.

Now one could go all solipsistic and argue that form is also subjective interpretation...but probably best not to go there for simplicity's sake...

Again, I'm second-guessing myself here and thinking that I'm just reiterating what has already sort of been expressed or stating the blatantly obvious...but I wanted to clarify this for my own sake, mostly.....

Edit:

This does raise a distinction: content is expressed or perceived and not inherently there (for example, the use of a different type of oil paint isn't really content, since this isn't expressed through something).

I knew it....someone expressed it more succinctly...

Edit 2: content does not exist.

Perhaps this is why INTP's are more concerned with form because form is not subjective? Form creates a framework for the content, and we like solid structures.....it could be complicated or simple as long as there is a system in place. Perhaps this is why we are concerned with precise expression, the degree of precision is form which allows for the content to make more sense....we can arrive at more 'solid' truths if all components are clearly defined and structured.

 

[walfin]

Poor form does not do good content justice.

 

[BigApplePi]

@Polaris

This may be a little bit crazy....

Not crazy at all because I see it is right on topic. I read it hours ago but felt conflicted on how to reply. I think I will hold some of your points until later and focus on this one:

So everything is just form. Content does not exist, apart from when we interpret form as contents within the form.

Edit 2: content does not exist.

If we say form exists but not content, are we being fair to content? We can talk about subjectivity and objectivity, but what about these?

1. The Earth orbits the Sun. Is the Earth all form or do we want to say it has content, especially compared to the other planets?

2. When we go to a good movie and it's good enough so that we suspend disbelief, do we congratulate ourselves on the form? Is it the form we are experiencing or the content? Isn't the movie ALL content?

3.

For example, a vase is a form. We put flowers in the vase and call it contents. However, the flowers are still merely form, we subjectively perceive flowers as contents within the context of what is form (the vase). But if we separate the two, they are both still just forms.

How can we call the flowers in the vase form? If we take the flowers out of the vase, they can take on who knows what forms. But as long as they are in the vase, are they not the contents of the vase? Are they not contents?

 

[Polaris]

@PolarisNot crazy at all because I see it is right on topic. I read it hours ago but felt conflicted on how to reply. I think I will hold some of your points until later and focus on this one:

If we say form exists but not content, are we being fair to content? We can talk about subjectivity and objectivity, but what about these?

Hmm, I will try to answer some of these, I'm at work at the moment so a bit rushed, sorry.

I am merely exploring the possibility that content does not exist. I was hoping for some arguments against it, as I am not sure yet myself.

But then...fair? If we omit this value judgement of 'fair', content is still only an interpretation of form relative to form (spatial perspective).

As for the more abstract applications of form and content, that is a whole different can of worms.

What about speech, for example? Could we say speech is both form and content, as in; the two are inseparable?

However, if we speak a language the receiver does not understand, it is merely reduced to form. As in: content only becomes "real" when it takes on meaning...? And meaning is subjective.

Not sure if that makes sense, and it is tangential. I could go on and on, the possibilities are endless. But going down all these bunny holes may not be that productive.

1. The Earth orbits the Sun. Is the Earth all form or do we want to say it has content, especially compared to the other planets?

Yes, it has content as per the human definition of what content is...which is still subjective, but that does not make it untrue, necessarily. We have to put things in relation to each other in order to make sense of it...otherwise we'd see mostly chaos.

2. When we go to a good movie and it's good enough so that we suspend disbelief, do we congratulate ourselves on the form? Is it the form we are experiencing or the content? Isn't the movie ALL content?

Hmm, yes it is one of these ambiguous ones...I have to come back to this. I think it resembles my language example.

Spoiler

Personally, I tend not get to the point where I suspend all disbelief, my mind is always analysing the form; it is how I see the world. So to me, films are all about form, which is why I don't engage very well...

3.How can we call the flowers in the vase form? If we take the flowers out of the vase, they can take on who knows what forms. But as long as they are in the vase, are they not the contents of the vase? Are they not content?

Again, this is a relativistic perspective. I think I am repeating myself. I could give better replies. I will wait for your reply first, as I am not quite sure how/if we differ in perspectives yet. I understand what you are saying...I just need more questions...I like questions

 

[redbaron]

2. When we go to a good movie and it's good enough so that we suspend disbelief, do we congratulate ourselves on the form? Is it the form we are experiencing or the content? Isn't the movie ALL content?

I like this question, the others are a bit over my head. I can't really answer them with clarity because I can't quite develop the appropriate modes of form and content in those contexts, so I really have no idea if the vase and the flowers are both form when combined, or if it's just the vase that is the form, or if they're both separate forms which only appear combined when their contents are combined...and so on until my head explodes...

However in this context I seem to be able to detach my thoughts enough to make sense of it. The context of suspending our disbelief for a movie that is.

I personally think that it's content that reigns supreme in movies. In the sense that if the content is good, it tends not to matter so much what the form is - movies can be good because they're exceptionally dark, funny, romantic, extreme, confronting etc. In that sense, the content - the things that actually happen in the story and what the characters do (I am interpreting content in this context as relating to these things, if you had another idea in mind well...I don't know) are what create that sense of belief - that this story is literally plausible and that these characters could very well be real people(or at least sentient beings with which we can relate).

To me the form isn't so important here, because it simply sets the scene for these amazing stories and characters that are what capture our imagination and cause us to suspend our disbelief. The form being things like the methods used to capture the movie, cameras, lighting, effects, the tape etc. - the physical and measurable qualities of the film, whereas the content is the subjective, the things we interpret and give our own meaning to. I guess what I mean is the physical 'world' the content takes place in. For example we can identify with even the most bizarre content if the form makes it relevant - we can believe in strange aliens and magic and monsters if the form tells us it is so - but the content still needs to have meaning to us.

The content is important in that if characters do the sorts of things that we can imagine real beings doing, in situations that the form has set the scene for, then we can really believe in the entire concept of the movie.

Maybe. I'm not sure, I've lost my train of thought...I don't know if this makes sense or not

 

[BigApplePi]

I don't know if this makes sense or not

Absolutely. It makes all the sense because it elaborates on the theme that content matters.

 

[Absurdity]

2. When we go to a good movie and it's good enough so that we suspend disbelief, do we congratulate ourselves on the form? Is it the form we are experiencing or the content? Isn't the movie ALL content?

I personally think that it's content that reigns supreme in movies. In the sense that if the content is good, it tends not to matter so much what the form is - movies can be good because they're exceptionally dark, funny, romantic, extreme, confronting etc. In that sense, the content - the things that actually happen in the story and what the characters do (I am interpreting content in this context as relating to these things, if you had another idea in mind well...I don't know) are what create that sense of belief - that this story is literally plausible and that these characters could very well be real people(or at least sentient beings with which we can relate).

I think there are different levels, or perhaps orders, of form. A movie has a technical form related to the numerous and varied processes that go into creating the images that move on the screen.

However there is also a form/content dichotomy within the narrative a film attempts to convey as well. If you look at "popular" movies, they tend to have a well-defined form or narrative arch (including the use of tropes), some even appearing formulaic. On the other hand, art-house flicks tend to have a stronger emphasis on content, often employing as little formal structure as possible (hence many peoples' "WTF?" reactions to watching them).

This is unsurprising since film is an art form, and as previously discussed, art seems to exist on a continuum between form and content. Some max out on form (and hence are predictable or "unoriginal") and others max out on content are nearly unintelligible. I think there is another axis with respect to quality, but if you go too far toward either extreme in form/content you begin to lose quality.

Personally, I'm a fan of a strong sense of form in art, as I find it's the only real way to express and effectively communicate deep content.

 

[redbaron]

To be honest while I was writing it I kind of ended up mentally backtracking and making an argument for the fact that form does play a role as well as content, because it's required to define boundaries. Initially I hadn't really considered the need for such boundaries, but after thinking of examples of movies that I had 'suspended disbelief' for - they all have a certain amount of form (more or less dependent on the film) that allows me to believe the content.

So even though it seems like content reigns supreme, I realise that personally some form is at least required toframe the content appropriately if I'm to buy into it.

Which also invariably leads to the deduction that whether form or content is responsible for that suspension is going to be entirely different between individuals because it's subjective.

Bleh.

 

[BigApplePi]

Personally, I'm a fan of a strong sense of form in art, as I find it's the only real way to express and effectively communicate deep content.

That's quite a statement. I wonder what it means?

 

[Absurdity]

That's quite a statement. I wonder what it means?

It's just a personal preference and not a hard and fast rule. Abstract or "conceptual" art is easy and strikes me as a con game. I remember once in my junior high art class we had to make a piece that would be entered into an art contest. Further, each piece had to depict your own personal hero. As a typical young INTP, I scoffed at requirements like these, so I painted an abstract blue figure in watercolor and made up some nonsense to explain its meaning.

A few weeks later it was announced over the school's PA system that I had won and my piece would be sent to the statewide competition.

Point is, I'm really only impressed with a work of art when it operates within constraints, or rules, or... form. Occasionally I come to appreciate something really abstract or low on form constraints, but usually that is an ironic appreciation and not an honest, awestruck appreciation that *good* art invokes. Big difference between hip graffiti art and the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.

I think that's the biggest difference between "art" today and the art of a few centuries ago, when giants walked the earth: people are too afraid to adopt a certain set of rules or constraints governing their behavior because everyone's too busy being postmodern and fashionably cynical of universal truths. I guess that's decadence for you though.

/end rant

 

[BigApplePi]

It's just a personal preference and not a hard and fast rule. Abstract or "conceptual" art is easy and strikes me as a con game. I remember once in my junior high art class we had to make a piece that would be entered into an art contest. Further, each piece had to depict your own personal hero. As a typical young INTP, I scoffed at requirements like these, so I painted an abstract blue figure in watercolor and made up some nonsense to explain its meaning.

A few weeks later it was announced over the school's PA system that I had won and my piece would be sent to the statewide competition.

Point is, I'm really only impressed with a work of art when it operates within constraints, or rules, or... form. Occasionally I come to appreciate something really abstract or low on form constraints, but usually that is an ironic appreciation and not an honest, awestruck appreciation that *good* art invokes. Big difference between hip graffiti art and the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.

I think that's the biggest difference between "art" today and the art of a few centuries ago, when giants walked the earth: people are too afraid to adopt a certain set of rules or constraints governing their behavior because everyone's too busy being postmodern and fashionably cynical of universal truths. I guess that's decadence for you though.

/end rant

The statements you have made here present a multiplicity of issues, so may I'm not sure I can capture them all. They address a combo of personals and generals. I'll show you what I mean.

One can look at much of modern art and see it as a con game. My position is I'm not interested in poor art, but good art should draw my attention. Modern art appears to me to be highly individualistic. Not so with classical art which has acknowledged social themes. Modern art often struggles to make form itself creative while the viewer supplies the content. Classical art supplies the content as the main theme while the form shows it off in a special way.

The abstract figure you drew for school ... how do we know your watercolor didn't have something worthwhile seeing in spite of yourself? Some creative form? Someone thought so. Do we have any art critics here? Everyone is an art critic. Perhaps they are not to be trusted and yet "experts" exist in any field.

Michelangelo deserves some credit for his Sistine Chapel. Quite a job to tell such a broad story and do it so well. (I saw it last summer.) We could say he had two forms: The display arrangement and the story. The content is implied?

 

[BigApplePi]

In this case, an answer:

The problem with extremes is they are not representative. The problem with typical representations is they don't lay bare the constituent ingredients. Let's take a look at an extreme and see what we get:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5d/Seurat-La_Parade_detail.jpg

This is the portrait of a man which we can call the form. We, as outsiders, see the form of a man. But the content? The content of which the portrait is constructed is nothing but colored dots. We can look at each individual dot and it says nothing about the form we see. Stand far enough back and we don't even see the dots.

 

[r4ch3l]

Have you heard of G. Spencer Brown's Laws of Form? To me the binary difference itself is form and when it layers on top of itself it morphs into content. Content is self-similar and self-referencing to form. Pure possibility/imagination is potential for future content that is possible to visualize through the basic premises of form.