Points on Popper - problems over definitions

A recent conversation with my friend Michael illustrates the point:

We had been talking about art and creativity and the like, and at some point he blurted out at me to "go and make some art." I challenged him on the definition of art by claiming that I do creative things all the time. Thus ensued a back and forth about definitions, what counts as artisinal versus functional, what theories of art are important.

When Michael suggested we learn about Bauhaus to see if it can shed light on our discussion, I suddenly grasped the relevance of Karl Popper.

Popper hated quibbling about definitions, claiming an inverse relationship between the amount of jargon in a field and the information content within it. Practitioners wind up endlessly debating semantics and take their eye off knowledge creation.

For Popper, knowledge creation comes from finding and addressing problems. What is wrong about the world? What doesn't make sense? What two ideas or explanations contradict each other? Can this problem be clearly identified? Can the points of disagreement between competing explanations be stated with precision and clarity? If so, then we stand a good chance of learning something, of improving our explanations and understandings.

In this context, definitions are tools that are used to communicate about problems. They are not the knowledge themselves.

As for Michael and I, the truly interesting question is that does my good friend see awry in my life? What gap would be filled by creating art? By talking about the specifics of what he is seeing, I stand to better understand myself and possibly make choices that support a more fulfilling life. Alternatively, Michael may decide that there is no gap after all, which would have consequences for how he leads his life.

Either of these outcomes are likely to be far more impactful than simply learning about Bauhaus or sharpening our definitions of art.