That is: in most digital artistic media, the goal of the reproduction process is to faithfully carry across the art (and engineering) that "went in" on the other side
I can't agree with this. I don't think it's right at all. Art is targeted at a broad band of senses, from aesthetic through sensory to emotional. You're hung up on the narrow band of sensory reproduction, but that isn't what's most important to actual humans.
Take an example: some electro house track that person A might have heard on a night out, where they had a really good time. They would have heard it in the middle of a crowd (dampening a significant chunk of the sound), probably overly loud, probably with the bass pumped up.
If person A later listens to that track on studio headphones focused on faithfully carrying across engineering and "art", they'll be hearing the mechanics of the music and how it was constructed, but it will be subjectively a poorer reproduction of the remembered moment and experience. They'd actually be better off listening on much lower quality headphones that had boosted bass and muddy reproduction that let different frequencies intermingle, to make sure it doesn't sound spare and separated out like high quality headphones tend to.
Another example: person B might have been to a symphony or opera. They'll have a much happier time with high quality headphones separating out each instrument, appreciating the individuals even as they form the symphony.
Context.
An analogy: the "default", pre-choice-of-audience way to reproduce a painting shouldn't involve a frame and gallery wall, but rather should involve the painting standing alone as a canvas on an easel in a room in the same lighting conditions it was painted in
I think you're nuts! There's multiple frames to view a piece of visual art; from the artist's perspective, they may have designed the piece for a specific location, so you're better off if it's shown that way. It may have been designed to be contextualized (e.g. in a triptych, or as ironic contrast with its original commission). But the passage of time also contextualizes art; art can become meaningful not for its intrinsic artistry or aesthetic, but because of the narrative around the piece, or the artist, or the city / country at the time. A piece of art might be interesting only because e.g. it was once stolen by a very interesting person and got into the news that way; it might not have anything to do with the artifact as a thing-in-itself.
And I hasten to add that that doesn't mean it's bad art. Art is about provoking broad band reaction in the viewer. In order to do that, it needs to trigger the viewer's pattern matching neurobiology relating to different aspects of their lived experience. That's inherently contextual, both on the subject side and on the object side. There's no escaping context.
I can't agree with this. I don't think it's right at all. Art is targeted at a broad band of senses, from aesthetic through sensory to emotional. You're hung up on the narrow band of sensory reproduction, but that isn't what's most important to actual humans.
Take an example: some electro house track that person A might have heard on a night out, where they had a really good time. They would have heard it in the middle of a crowd (dampening a significant chunk of the sound), probably overly loud, probably with the bass pumped up.
If person A later listens to that track on studio headphones focused on faithfully carrying across engineering and "art", they'll be hearing the mechanics of the music and how it was constructed, but it will be subjectively a poorer reproduction of the remembered moment and experience. They'd actually be better off listening on much lower quality headphones that had boosted bass and muddy reproduction that let different frequencies intermingle, to make sure it doesn't sound spare and separated out like high quality headphones tend to.
Another example: person B might have been to a symphony or opera. They'll have a much happier time with high quality headphones separating out each instrument, appreciating the individuals even as they form the symphony.
Context.
An analogy: the "default", pre-choice-of-audience way to reproduce a painting shouldn't involve a frame and gallery wall, but rather should involve the painting standing alone as a canvas on an easel in a room in the same lighting conditions it was painted in
I think you're nuts! There's multiple frames to view a piece of visual art; from the artist's perspective, they may have designed the piece for a specific location, so you're better off if it's shown that way. It may have been designed to be contextualized (e.g. in a triptych, or as ironic contrast with its original commission). But the passage of time also contextualizes art; art can become meaningful not for its intrinsic artistry or aesthetic, but because of the narrative around the piece, or the artist, or the city / country at the time. A piece of art might be interesting only because e.g. it was once stolen by a very interesting person and got into the news that way; it might not have anything to do with the artifact as a thing-in-itself.
And I hasten to add that that doesn't mean it's bad art. Art is about provoking broad band reaction in the viewer. In order to do that, it needs to trigger the viewer's pattern matching neurobiology relating to different aspects of their lived experience. That's inherently contextual, both on the subject side and on the object side. There's no escaping context.