The definition of art

I am attempting to get the below published. I would appreciate any comments.

I've had a look at your website and i like it. The 1000 word format sounds good. Ill submit something in the near future.

these threads have a life of their own

The forum and the contributors, have been a wonderful help, I've placed a link to the thread on my website.

As an artist my main interest is to push the boundaries of art,

Hopefully diverting it towards an exploration of consciousness.

Academic acceptance / reinforcement would be helpful, but exposure is more important,

Yes, it sure has its marvellous moments; here's to more of the same. I was wondering more about how anyone would acknowledge any quotes made by participants in any writing project.

What do you paint and how ?

What kind of consciousness ?

I think that so many helpful and experienced posters here would love to see their thoughts reproduced in a more permanent way, such as an Article. Even if they don't want to write one themselves. What would that be if not an Individual Collective Creative Consciousness ? :chin:

Perhaps you could create an amalgam of favourite quotes article ?

Perhaps a thread where each member selects a favourite post ( not their own )?

The definition of art:

What a quantity of such items my memory is stocked with, things discovered and kept ready for use, the kind of things we say we have learned already and continue to know. Yet if I forgo their retrieval, even for brief intervals, they sink out of sight again, sliding deep into some inner windings, and they must be pressed up out of that place and pressed again into knowable form. We must, that is reconnect them after their dispersion. This is what we mean by 'expression,' which comes from pressing, as 'exaction' comes from acting or 'extension' comes from tending.

In your view, does art include meaning, or is it separate from it? IE: are you only occupied with the meaning of art to the artist his or her self?

The idea that "Art work is information about the artist’s consciousness," is sort of difficult for me to accept without qualification. If this were true, how could there be such a thing as art work to begin with? Because there would be no necessity for the artist to share information about their consciousness beyond some type of perversion. In addition, without some contribution from outward there can be no 'cast' of art in which to apply it's form.

Information is power they say, and if this summarizes the concept of art then why would anyone just give power away to someone else for nothing? There must be more to it than that alone.

Art certainly is not about 'expression' let alone 'self expression' (what a silly notion).

That you feel the need to create something - what dose that express?

What is the mind activity that leads you to create art? Is it not your consciousness?

Yes, you could say consciousness

but 'create' is the motivation

I do not understand creativity that is not an expression of consciousness - please enlighten me.

It is a desire to create. It is a human need to feel that we create our own lives.

I'm trying to impress on you, but without much success, that consciousness is the root of creativity.
Consciousness unifies and integrates information.
Creativity unifies and integrates information

For me, if it's not hard to make, it isn't art.

For sure, every painting is that masterpiece - the one just beyond my reach, that takes everything out of me, that is the best I can do, at that particular time. And when it is finished, if it ever is, then I move onto the next similar such struggle.

Do you paint?

Apples in jars! That is true madness

?Pop Why should it matter to anyone what art is? Personally, my hunch is that art is not the object itself but the culture around it.

For sure, for me, every painting is that masterpiece - the one just beyond my reach, that takes everything out of me, that is the best I can do, at that particular time. And when it is finished, if it ever is, then I move onto the next similar such struggle.

Of course, as a professional concept artist I can relate to that, to me every new concept piece is a personal masterpiece, the best I can do at the moment.

I've shown you mine, lets see yours? :lol:

I mostly do hard surface/tech designs but began doing some creatures too.

t matters a huge deal. When art is undefined it fragments into many things, such as what has happened in post modernism. When it was defined to some extent, during modernism, there was a vague central agreement as to what constituted good art. So art integrated somewhat around this understanding, and the best examples of this understanding, was good art. The owners of this understanding were artists and intellectuals, so progress in art was driven by the people central to it, and there was a largely united world vision of what constitutes good art.

Without this world wide central agreement art has fragmented into fiefdoms of art, where what constitutes good art is the domain of the most powerful, rather then the most knowledgeable, imo.

I would hate for there to be agreement as to what constitutes good art. Art is simply what people put on display and call art. Whether it is good or not only matters in certain shared contexts

Art is simply what people put on display and call art.

Tomorrow I'm gonna break a few treebranches artistically and if people wanna buy it...

This fact, prevents art from being arbitrary.

by a likewise consciousness.

It's been done.

That fact is arbitrary. What sensibility you have and what you are drawn to is an arbitrary fate of subjective experience.

It's not consciousness - it's personal taste.

Pop I don't really see much here tbh

How does personal taste arise? What is subjectivity a function of?

This is a definition of art. It defines precisely what art provides - information about the artist's consciousness.

No idea. Does anyone really know?

That's your vision on art. What are the consciousnesses you are talking about? People? What about tribal art wrt to the gods?

Pop You're failing to address what expressions of consciousness are not 'Art'.

?1.    Art is an ungrounded variable mental construct: Objects are arbitrarily deemed to be art. Art’s only necessary distinction from ordinary objects is the extra deemed art information. Art can be anything the artist thinks of, but this is limited by their consciousness.

These are elements of your consciousness - of your self organization.

You could also say, and with no greater meaning, that my tastes are elements of my psychological essence - of my personal identity. What does this contribute?

An understanding of what art provides.

When it comes to deciding on a work of art ( painting ) it is consciousness that decides on the canvas. It is consciousness that decides on image.It is consciousness that decides composition. It is consciousness that decides on colour.It is consciousness that decides how to mix the colours and whether the hues are correct. It is consciousness that decides which brush you use and how you place the paint on the canvas. It is consciousness that decides how well you are going. . It is consciousness that decides when the painting is finished. And it is consciousness that decides if it is a success or not.

I think those are just words. Not sure they really connect to anything except as a figure of speech. You could also say, and with no greater meaning, that my tastes are elements of my psychological essence - of my personal identity. What does this contribute?

It's possible that what you're really saying is anything to do with the human mind is art; after all, everything we think/speak/do provides a glimpse of our consciousness. If so, what's unrelated to consciousness is not art. How do you explain the warm, fuzzy feelings one gets when watching a sunset, the sky ablaze yellow, red, orange? A sunset isn't a human artefact ergo, not linked to consciousness at all and yet we're moved by it as much as we would be looking at the Mona Lisa.

I have to say that once in a while you say sensible things! :ok:

I wasn't fishing for compliments.

Art is an expression of human consciousness

There is some kind of relationship between the brain, mind and consciousness.

I know. But still! Great words! Truly. Ohoh, another compliment... :smile:

I get to know you better each day. By words only!

:ok: If that's what floats your boat, by all means, be my guest.

Pop My mistake? I thought you stated you wanted to 'publish' something.

Either way have fun with it :)

This is interesting. Art provides something?

This seems to me to be an example of romantic, selective exaggeration

Exactly! An art showing our relation to Nature and the gods (no relation at all, I hope, but the simple fact of acknowledging their being and presence), how can information interpret this? Or dissipative systems? Or entropy evolving on a rotating Earth, between heat and cold, day and night? The daytime breaths out. The nighttime inhales. How do you, Pop, interpret Aboriginal art or the Hopi art? I like your paintings and understand them. But they reflect your view.It can't embrace all art. Well, it can, but then you destroy it.

Does creativity originate in the brain, mind or consciousness.

It's possible that what you're really saying is anything to do with the human mind is art; after all, everything we think/speak/do provides a glimpse of our consciousness. If so, what's unrelated to consciousness is not art. How do you explain the warm, fuzzy feelings one gets when watching a sunset, the sky ablaze yellow, red, orange? A sunset isn't a human artefact ergo, not linked to consciousness at all and yet we're moved by it as much as we would be looking at the Mona Lisa.

If everything is an expression of consciousness how can art not be?

I am highlighting that it is the consciousness of the artist that is special, not art per se

?Pop I can't and I bear you no ill will. Just don't see your point. I am very interested in what people say about art. Even critics. :fire: Seems to me art and religion spawn the most elaborate theories and reactions.

This is the central difficulty of all art discourse; essentially we are talking about different things. We vaguely agree on a central concept, but we experience it differently When we understand how the notion of art is related to personality and consciousness, we can predict that two very different personalities, or cultures, must as a result of this difference, construct different conceptions of art. So the resultant discourse about art is immediately disagreeable, and if any progress is to be made, an agreement about art must first be made. We have all experienced this, and it is illustrated in the difference in the art of native cultures, subcultures, the art of the mainstream, and the elite.

Art is information about the artist's evolving process of self organization.

Philosophy is information about the philosopher's evolving process of self organization.

These are the constant elements in art and philosophy, everything else is optional - endlessly variable and open ended.

Art is information about the artist's evolving process of self organization.

Philosophy can be defined in exactly the same way.

Philosophy is information about the philosopher's evolving process of self organization.

These are the constant elements in art and philosophy, everything else is optional - endlessly variable and open ended.

Artists and philosophers don't organize themselves the same way. Thus, art and philosophy, using your logic, are different.

?Pop All I'm saying is this: There are many aspects of nature, where consciousness is not involved, that instill the same emotions as when viewing a human art piece

How is this relevant to a definition of art? Can you produce an art work that is not captured by my definition?

As I said, your notion of what art is - information on the mind of artists - is old news in the art world.

It is a definition of art. When defining something you don't get a choice as to how it exists! :lol:

It is irreducibly defined. It may not be what you would like to hear. No doubt you would prefer to hear the typical irrelevant and subjective drivel, but such is the nature of the beast. The definition can not be reduced any further, and any expansion of it is not a constant characteristic of art. What is left, is what always exists.

Of course the question is - “what is consciousness” ?

There must be hundreds of definitions of art that I have read, but none are like this one, and when people speak of art, it is often a shambles because they understand it differently.

“Art is an expression of human consciousness. Art work is information about the artist’s consciousness.”

Art is simply what people put on display and call art.

If art is anything an artist presents as art then anything can be art, and by extension, anyone can be an artist. This is true, in my opinion, but all it really means is that presenting something as art is essentially offering an invitation to view something aesthetically. We may or may not have the ability or choice to do so. In any case, claiming that something presented as art is not art is a refusal to view it aesthetically and does not mean that it's not art.

And to address the points and objections I made would be nice.

It's like saying "all people eat food" ,what does my definition elude?

Your not the first in anyway to have this view,and worst your view is pedestrian,egotistical and preachy.

You are saying nothing new,and you original OP is overblown,flowery,dogmatic and verbose.

You also seem oblivious to the fact that art can also be dishonest propoganda,and that mainstream art is in the main bourgeois hegemony.

It is a definition of art, and it is absolutely nailed – definitive!

Yet, someone can present anything under the sun as art. What's the difference between letting anyone determine what art is and you defining art as anything you want?

Are you willing to accept that letter written by an ordibary person is art and it is as artistic as an epistle penned by a great writer cum calligraphist? After all both are information on the artist's consciousness.

Well, you have it as part of your definition of art. So, back to you, what is consciousness?

It, art as expression of consciousness, doesn't appear in the definition because experts deem it trivial and not because they didn't know.

But great art, whatever that may be, depends upon a great mind, whatever that may be.

No, most definitions of art are rather shallow and trivial, and similar. I have read many of them. This one is different. This one defines art scientifically within a work of art. Nothing like it has been seen before.

IE, the above definition relates more to that of the Post-Modernism that arose in the 1960's, where the artist has become more important than the artwork, rather than any definition of art that preceded it.

This definition doesn't relate to Modernism and Pre-Modernism

"Whatever that means". Indeed. What doescit mean?

audience relationship is a relationship of consciousness in relation to consciousness.

So you think. But the thoughts you see are not universal. You say they are. I say they're not.

We are the same, just different in formation.

I don't think Art (with a capital 'A') can be boiled down to a definition.

My thoughts are not universal, but the underlying process giving rise to them is - self organization.

But this doesn't address the different forms. It just says there are different forms

The forms are endlessly variable and open ended, and so can not be defined

But self organisation cannot stand on it's own. It needs to be immersed in the right habitat. So the habitat is even more universal

Self organization gives rise to order in the universe.

Who self organized first - God or us? :chin:

Who self organized first - God or us? :chin:

a definition of art that is falsifiable

Who's going to gather all the data??

Most structures in the universe are the result of an organization but not all are self-irganized. If I make a painting it doesn't self-organize. Nor do my photographs...

My point is that art must reflect mind activity - that is the constant in art - the only constant - everything else is variable and open ended, just like consciousness!

Yeah, im not following you. :confused:

?Pop Good luck! :sparkle:

I find this a really interesting subject and I've thought about it a lot. Once, while visiting a contemporary art museum with a visual artist friend, we got in a discussion with one of the museum guides about what art means. I took the position that art doesn't mean anything.

Incidentally, it interests me how often the question 'what is good art?' is often mistaken for the question, 'what is art?'. It’s as if a work can only be classified as art if it is 'good' - whatever that means. Which is why you might hear some person fulminate about Jackson Pollock - ‘That’s rubbish, my 8 year-old does better work!’ and all the usual inchoate cliches about the decadent and bereft qualities of modern, non-representational art.

Orson Welles, who I consider to be one of the great artists of the 20th century, stated in an interview (was it with Dick Cavett?) that he was one of those people of whom - 'I don't know anything about art but I know what I like.' - applies. If it's good enough for him...

Art is not the possession of the few who are recognized writers, painters, musicians; it is the authentic expression of any and all individuality. Those who have the gift of creative expression in unusually large measure disclose the meaning of the individuality of others to those others. In participating in the work of art, they become artists in their activity. They learn to know and honor individuality in whatever form it appears. The fountains of creative activity are discovered and released. The free individuality which is the source of art is also the final source of creative development in time.

Art is not the possession of the few who are recognized writers, painters, musicians; it is the authentic expression of any and all individuality

The free individuality which is the source of art is also the final source of creative development in time."

?Pop Cool, maybe we'll crash into each other using Dewey as a banana peel..

They were generally technical reports. They required as much of my creativity as the poetry I've written did.

Orson Welles, who I consider to be one of the great artists of the 20th century,

Yeah, we were bound to self organize

Art is an expression of human consciousness

Art is humanities expression of itself.

Art gives us insight into the artist,



Art is a concrete manifestation of human thought – a manifestation into concrete form, of something that is ( ungrounded / virtual / computed / experienced emotionally / believed / valued / perceived / subconscious ) - consciousness

The only difference between the porcelain urinal (before) [not art] and the porcelain urinal (after) [art] is Marcel Duchamp's consciousness.

"Art" is expressed in human consciousness

But - every observed object is an "artwork"

Though - artworks don't even need to be physical objects

However - all artworks have a quality as all objects have a temperature

However - an artwork's quality is subjective

In summary - the definition of art should include a reference to "quality"

But then, what of the part of art that is not concrete? What of conceptual art? Sure, something concrete there, but the artwork is not just this; it is a concept. Isn't thought all by itself inherently art? Why do we need the concrete?

The only difference between the porcelain urinal (before) [not art] and the porcelain urinal (after) [art] is Marcel Duchamp's consciousness.

Can you imagine what power artist's wield? What's next? Shit art? I'm serious of course.

This is best answered through information theory. It seems information is something concrete such that it changes our neurology, such that we become conscious of it. So, an artwork can not be immaterial, it needs to be in the form of something material, including sound, such that we can perceive it. The form of the artwork interacts with the form of our consciousness - this interaction creates an experience, where the quality of the experience is normally attributed to the artwork, however we ourselves play the major role in creating it.

A thought itself is not immaterial either, it has it's neural correlates. This definition is an artwork. It comes close to what you are describing.

1.    Art is an ungrounded variable mental construct: Objects are arbitrarily deemed to be art. Art’s only necessary distinction from ordinary objects is the extra deemed art information. Art can be anything the artist thinks of, but this is limited by their consciousness.

Consciousness is not just awareness but all mind activity, interwoven with the subconscious. What art can be cannot exceed consciousness.

Everything is reducible to information, as it is only from information that we can create mental constructs. This is widely accepted in science, and a grounding for the definition. 

4.   If everything is reducible to information, then so is art. It is true to say: art work is information.

5.   Art work information is imbued with the artist's consciousness:  it arises out of their consciousness, and reflects their consciousness, and is limited in scope by their consciousness, in the past, present, and the future.

. Like describing a fresh spring morning in terms of molecular bonding

You and I see the same cloud, but you see a camel, I see poodle.

The material presence is simply the medium, which is incidental.
Not sure why 'information' is helpful. Information is an affect-neutral term, and its connotative values are entirely counter to aesthetic possibilities.

So no, not arbitrary at all.

Thus, it is unfinished, indeterminate.

I can't imagine a worse word for talk about art. Plain, connotatively UNaesthetic. Like describing a fresh spring morning in terms of molecular bonding.

Why not all this, but leave the artist's consciousness out of it? After all, art is as it is perceived, and the artist is just ONE perciever.

I understand where you are coming from, but strictly speaking, anybody can deem anything to be art.

Art about art, creates a certain reality for art.

Yeah, the material art form is a private ( but can be public ) language invented by an artist ( in modern art ) very similar to the words we now exchange, and also interpret.

Information theory describes this same process of me imbuing a message with meaning, and you interpreting the message, but with slightly altered meaning. The information has to exist in some physical form in order for this to happen.

I understand where you are coming from, but strictly speaking, anybody can deem anything to be art.
It doesn't happen often, but this is a definition of art, so this needs to be taken into account.

That is the intention. Consciousness is endlessly variable and open ended - just like art. How about that? As consciousness changes, so does art historically. A different consciousness creates different art, etc. And on the audience side, it is the same ( as described above ) So art is a meeting of consciousness, where the success of a piece depends on this relationship, rather then on any particular form present in the art work.

I, on the other hand, get so tired of the subjective nonsense I hear about art. But you see, I need to be severely logical to define something. If done successfully, then a definition can be used to predict, and I think his one can do that. It is what makes it different, what makes it interesting, imo. The world is full of romantic drivel about art, what it lacks is a definition.

Art about art, creates a certain reality for art. Whereas a definition of art refocuses art to the question of "what is consciousness". And there starts a journey of self discovery, and perhaps discovery of what it is all about, such that it brings back some meaning to the question of what is art. As you have intimated, it is all consciousness, so there are no limits to this question absolutely. I have defined consciousness as a process of self organization, but I do not know what self organization is - the whole universe is self organizing. And this is also what all art is expressing. There are no limits to the form of self organization that we can take, but in understanding this we come to understand ourselves better, and perhaps also what it is all about??

Oh how fresh and anew this springy information structure tickling my sensory forms, making my emotion entropy rocketing skinfo high. My emotional neuronal patterns run bezerk when I breath in these moisty misty forms. Whirlings of bloodflows inside me respond intensely to the morning magic sunlight waves entering me through my glassy eyeball spheres. Projected widely and vast over the retina in full formation. I wished I could make all other structures in formation experience the same conscious patterns I experience in-and outside me, my body structure being their willing and voluntary in-between prisinor. O jah! All formations in the world, rejoyce! And be in!

Oh freddled gruntbuggly, Thy micturations are to me, As plurdled gabbleblotchits, On a lurgid bee, That mordiously hath blurted out, Its earted jurtles, grumbling Into a rancid festering confectious organ squealer. [drowned out by moaning and screaming] Now the jurpling slayjid agrocrustles, Are slurping hagrilly up the axlegrurts, And living glupules frart and stipulate, Like jowling meated liverslime, Groop, I implore thee, my foonting turlingdromes, And hooptiously drangle me, With crinkly bindlewurdles,mashurbitries. Or else I shall rend thee in the gobberwarts with my blurglecruncheon, See if I don't!
RIP Douglas Adams

Art is a manifestation of self organizing

Please! Don't start also! I mean, Pop is a nice guy (girl?) but one pop is more than enough... :grin:

Art is an umbrella term,a flexible word for expressions that are beautiful,funny or entertaining. Inspiring racous passionate!

It's obviously subjective ( as are all things!) But there is a lot of intersubjective agreement. ( for honest people! )

To say art is information without recourse to talking about feelings and aesthetics is the height of anti artistry!

The OP is boring,banal,non artistic,the definitional opposite of art! And far worse than duchamps urinal!

Art is an overwhelming expression of desire and ideology!

Anti art AKA shit art is science most politics and most philosophical discourse!!! Banal wannabe scribbling!

Finally,for the real artists in this thread (!!!) there are two types of art. "Cruel art" and FUN Art.
Cruel art is the bible,nietzsche,Greek tragedy.
Fun Art is Karl Krauss,all great comics,all great Satirists all Love Poets.

Scientists,philosophers,linguists,political administrators,academics,keep your dirty definitional hands off art! You know shit about art!!!
Your expressions and definitions are the excrement of your Soul!!! Passionless piss!

... the aesthetic is an integral part of experience itself ... everything already IS art.

Cool to hear someone describe it this way, as being creative is so commonly only associated with the arTIST.

Incidentally Pop, I can be pretty plain spoken and direct. Some can be offended. You handle this very well.

the medium is just the catalyst, the vehicle through which art is communicated.

See Dewey's Art as Experience

But the real event is interior, in the interpretative milieu of mind. Also, you would need to identify what this essence is. Is it form? And what is meaning as an aesthetic idea, not what language produces fit for a dictionary.

The reason I am saying this is that art is certainly NOT information in its essence.

And what does predicting something have to do with defining art? Does this mean with your theory, an object that comes up can be measured by a reliable standard to make the determination as to whether it is art or not? How?

But why do you think the analysis of the nature of art rests with organizing?

This could use some explaining, don't you think?

It issues from what is always already there.

I agree, but would add that art usually has a frame around it, or a museum to hold it, a display case over it, etc. Something to hand it forward for the consideration of the audience.

You can put your own invisible frame around the lines on the highway if you like, I suppose, but then it's your own private art.

The way I see it, the pothole in front of my house is a nuisance and an obstacle to my daily affairs … we forget it's art. It's a rug.

The "artwork" lies in taking something AS art. But then the final question remains a mystery: what is it to take something as art?

"Does the quality of an artwork reside in the art work itself, or in the mind of the observer, or artist?"

The "artwork" lies in taking something AS art. But then the final question remains a mystery: what is it to take something as art?

Summary
For both postmodernism and modernism, as the meaning of any artwork resides in the mind of the artist or observer and not the artwork, and as quality is a mental concept, then the quality of the artwork resides not in the artwork but in the mind of the artist, or observer

The "artwork" lies in taking something AS art. But then the final question remains a mystery: what is it to take something as art?

Does a work not provide the observer's mind with something to consider?

I agree, but would add that art usually has a frame around it, or a museum to hold it, a display case over it, etc. Something to hand it forward for the consideration of the audience.

You can put your own invisible frame around the lines on the highway if you like, I suppose, but then it's your own private art.

In systems theory what is always there - what is common to all systems, is self organization.
In information theory, it is information that self organizes. In Yogic logic this self organizing element present in everything is consciousness.

I have said art work is information about an artists consciousness, and I have defined consciousness as an evolving process of self organization. So art work is an expression of the artists evolving process of self organization. This IS the something that is always there. There are no other somethings always there. All the other somethings are variable, and open ended - and continually emerging.

I think we just misunderstand each other rather then disagree. Perhaps disagree on expressive style.

Vaguely

Surely you're aware of the poor garden, so you're perceiving it. But in another sense, you aren't seeing it.

don't know what you mean.

From a Deweyan viewpoint, aesthetic experience, then, has roughly the following structure. The experience is set off by some factors, such as opening a book, directing a first glance at a painting, beginning to listen to a piece of music, entering a natural environment or a building, or beginning a meal or a conversation. As aesthetic experience is temporal, the material of the experience does not remain unchanged, but the elements initiating the experience, like reading the first lines of a book or hearing the first chord of a symphony, merge into new ones as the experience proceeds and complex relationships are formed between its past and newer phases. When these different parts form a distinctive kind of orderly developing unity that stands out from the general experiential stream of our lives, the experience in question is aesthetic.

Are you saying that by failing to experience the world aesthetically we are, in a sense, not fully experiencing it?

You've never had an aesthetic experience?

Summary
For both postmodernism and modernism, as the meaning of any artwork resides in the mind of the artist or observer and not the artwork, and as quality is a mental concept, then the quality of the artwork resides not in the artwork but in the mind of the artist, or observer

But could an object have either meaning or quality if no-one ever had knowledge of its existence ?

Yes. Derain in 1905 created the object Estaque which provides the observer's mind with something to consider, thereby allowing the concepts meaning and quality to be applied.

If you want to describe what goes on in in experience as self organizing, you will have further trouble accounting for what this self is that is autonomously at work. Are you treating the self as something that is its own presupposition?

To see something aesthetically.

You’ve claimed that the aesthetic is an integral part of experience itself, however, which seems to mean that we always view things aesthetically. Clearly that is not the case, so once again I’m asking what you mean by that claim.

None of that explains how “the aesthetic is an integral part of experience itself.” In the etymology of the word aesthetic, it at first only meant perception. Maybe you mean it like that? Perception is an integral part experience.

But the idea is that to perceive at all is inherently aesthetic

Art is about mind meeting mind, so an expression of consciousness.

Art is about mind meeting mind, so an expression of consciousness.

I really don't think this is true. It's more like an artist's work is like a seed. Something grows from that seed in the viewer or listener.

Art is about mind meeting mind, so an expression of consciousness.

But doesn't this also describe any experience humans have,

I really don't think this is true. It's more like an artist's work is like a seed. Something grows from that seed in the viewer or listener.

Possibly there is an element of that going on, but this would not negate the view that it is a meeting of minds?

The problem for me is that this fact is not unique to art, it describes almost anything you care to experience. Seems to me there's no difference between looking at a tree in the twilight and looking at the Mona Lisa.

You give me an insight into your intelligence, your intent, your sympathies, your talent, your demographic, your politics, your spiritual beliefs, etc, etc. A whole bunch of information which I have to interpret with my consciousness, just like a conversation on TPF.

Cool to hear someone describe it this way, as being creative is so commonly only associated with the arTIST.

I often find myself making a distinction between craft and art. Is a pair of exquisite, hand made shoes an example of art or craft? I tend to go with the latter, because the experience isn't just aesthetic, but must also be practical and be located in a lineage of other such traditional artifacts. Is a great and talented chef an artist or a craftsperson? We often throw the word 'artist' around as a type of free-range compliment - the barista down the road from me is called an artist by people in our office, etc.

I'm partly in sympathy with this except that a genuine conversation has more clarity and is an exchange and we can ask for clarifications - art is often deliberately irrational and symbolic and hard to discern. Also, artists can notoriously disguise their true selves behind a wall of craft.

Likewise Rap symbolizes a certain cultural view, but it is not one I can warm to, so I do not listen to it.

Likewise Rap symbolizes a certain cultural view, but it is not one I can warm to, so I do not listen to it.

Like you define it, art becomes empty and meaningless. Just some vague idea about information, self-organising structures, and "consciencenesses" (why don't you say "people"?) is introduced. I'm sorry to say but your definition is inhuman.

Whether you like the definition or not, it is what is always present in art, so is the only way to define art.

Yep. So in the end we're back to that old fashioned notion of personal taste.

Besides that I don't like it, it is factually wrong.

Yep. So in the end we're back to that old fashioned notion of personal taste.
— Tom Storm

But now we know what that means?

Dewey held that as we live and breathe, we experience the world aesthetically, AS art, if you will.

Summary
Every observed object is an artwork and has an aesthetic, but the aesthetic value of some artworks is higher than others.

• Failure to have an aesthetic experience rests entirely on the individual.
• Individual aesthetic experience is constrained by culture.
• Some individuals are more constrained by their culture/society than others.

aesthetic value

How is a "self" different to one's consciousness? If art is an expression of consciousness, then art is also an expression of self. Art work is information about the artist's "self".

In systems theory, a self is an artefact of the self organizing process. All natural systems are self organizing, and the result of this organization is the production of a self. A self can be an individual, a group of people like a family, a collective of people - like the characters of this forum - when considered as a whole interactive community, or a really complex system like a an economy. All self organizing systems integrate information much like a black hole, where the information that defines a system becomes more and more dense, such as to distinguish a self.

In information theory ( my personal interpretation ) a "self" is information about the way information has organized itself.

In phenomenology, a self evolves with the experiential process, where cognition disturbs the state of a system, a corresponding emotion is felt, and the system reintegrates. A self aligns itself to meet the consequences of the experience - so is the result of this process, in an endlessly evolving fashion.

when I am in the presence of any object, even though all objects have a temperature, I am not always appreciating that object's temperature.

None of that explains how “the aesthetic is an integral part of experience itself.” In the etymology of the word aesthetic, it at first only meant perception. Maybe you mean it like that? Perception is an integral part experience.

This is a very poor simile because temperature is a physical fact and in that way objective

From a Deweyan viewpoint, aesthetic experience, then, has roughly the following structure. The experience is set off by some factors, such as opening a book, directing a first glance at a painting, beginning to listen to a piece of music, entering a natural environment or a building, or beginning a meal or a conversation. As aesthetic experience is temporal, the material of the experience does not remain unchanged, but the elements initiating the experience, like reading the first lines of a book or hearing the first chord of a symphony, merge into new ones as the experience proceeds and complex relationships are formed between its past and newer phases. When these different parts form a distinctive kind of orderly developing unity that stands out from the general experiential stream of our lives, the experience in question is aesthetic.

... art is not some special feature, or assembly of features, but something we bring into the object as an object, Something, already there, in the structure of experience itself.

All observable things and their features can be art.

... art is not some special feature, or assembly of features, but something we bring into the object as an object, Something, already there, in the structure of experience itself.
— Constance

You're making the same fundamental assumption as RussellA, that inherent value exists in all things, which I suppose is some form of idealism.

All observable things and their features can be art.
— Constance

All observable things and their features can be seen as good, or be seen as bad. It depends on what our motivation or purpose is, amongst other factors. Guns can protect us, so they're good. :up: Guns can harm us so they're bad. :down: There's no "already there" structure in the universe that makes guns only good or only bad.

There's no "already there" structure in the universe that makes guns only good or only bad.

The good and the bad is not about guns, but about the bad or good that is embedded in experience.

Right, you appear to be claiming that aesthetic experience or art is embedded in experience, which is like saying that 'good' is embedded in experience. It's like saying that everything from gummy bears to guns IS inherently good, and it's just that in some circumstances we don't realize that they're good.

It is simply a fact that he experienced this glee, say, and by itself, phenomenologically, that is, it is Good. What makes it bad is the context.

The real point is your lack of a clear idea of what art is when your whole intention is give a definition of art.

Dewey holds the aesthetic to be the essence of art.

"Art is not the possession of the few who are recognized writers, painters, musicians; it is the authentic expression of any and all individuality. Those who have the gift of creative expression in unusually large measure disclose the meaning of the individuality of others to those others. In participating in the work of art, they become artists in their activity. They learn to know and honor individuality in whatever form it appears. The fountains of creative activity are discovered and released. The free individuality which is the source of art is also the final source of creative development in time." Time and Individuality

Seems to me Dewey is saying "Free individuality" is the essence of art, which aligns with my view that it is consciousness, and more specifically self organization.

The constant is the mind activity expressed in the form of the art.

You still haven't explained (as far as I can tell) why consciousness matters here? If art is consciousness and self-organization, then what? Isn't everything? Taking a shit is consciousness and self-organization and so is Rembrandt's The Night Watch - reconcile the two for us? How does this possibly assist us in gaining any clarity about art?

The thing that everybody is missing is that a definition of art requires the identification of an attribute that is constantly present in art. There is only one thing constantly present in art, and everything else is variable, and optionally present. The constant is the mind activity expressed in the form of the art.
That is it! that is all that is constantly present. As we analyze this mind activity, we find it is to do with self organization - the artist makes art in the course of life, and the art reveals their attitude to life in it's form, broadly speaking.

You still haven't explained (as far as I can tell) why consciousness matters here? If art is consciousness and self-organization, then what? Isn't everything? Taking a shit is consciousness and self-organization and so is Rembrandt's The Night Watch - reconcile the two for us? How does this possibly assist us in gaining any clarity about art

Mind activity is expressed in everything we do, so you must mean a specific kind of activity. Let's call it 'neural art activity' or NAA for convenience. Now if I were to buy a paint-by-numbers kit and I followed it to the letter, would the resulting painting be an artwork? To others, it could certainly be regarded as artwork because it looks like artwork

You might say that the NAA came from the people who designed the paint-by-numbers kit, but they might have simply used a photograph and a computer algorithm to produce it, and their efforts were solely for the purpose of producing paint-by-number kits and making a profit.

You need a theory that can distinguish things like fine art, commercial art, design, decoration, etc.

Can consciousness and self-organization rightly be called a theory? It seems a bit slender to me.

An artist is free to choose the form of their art, including paint by numbers (which I think has been done) but the choice they make reveals their person - it reveals where their heads are at, so expresses their consciousness. It expresses how they think, what they have been influenced by, their attitudes to life - it expresses how information they have been shaped by has formed them - they in turn re-present this information in the form of their art.

Understanding the background - the context that the art is made in is important to understanding the art. In the instance you bring up, you understand the artist needs to make a buck, and so the work should be viewed in this light. The art is still information about the artists self organization?

You still haven't explained (as far as I can tell) why consciousness matters here? If art is consciousness and self-organization, then what? Isn't everything? Taking a shit is consciousness and self-organization and so is Rembrandt's The Night Watch - reconcile the two for us?

But then, and your example is especially telling because it sets itself apart from anything we want to cll art; I mean, shitting and Bach, together in the same category?

Art is no longer "the beautiful"

Maybe we should tell the the artworld to F*** off, and just because it was Picasso who rearranged a bicycle wheel and handle bars to look like a bull does not establish a new paradigm of what art can be, Duchamp notwithstanding.

Maybe Dewey is closer to being right than the artworld's aimless mission to make money through the critic's valorations of bullsh*t.

Also as RussellA has pointed out aesthetics do not reside in the art work itself, but in the interaction
of art work and observer - they are the result of this experience. You can not define this experience - ever. True it always exists, but it does nor exist in any constant way. Hence art that is beautiful to one person, can be ugly to the next. What is a urinal in one era, is great art in the next.

The thing that everybody is missing is that a definition of art requires the identification of an attribute that is constantly present in art. There is only one thing constantly present in art, and everything else is variable, and optionally present. The constant is the mind activity expressed in the form of the art.
That is it! that is all that is constantly present. As we analyze this mind activity, we find it is to do with self organization - the artist makes art in the course of life, and the art reveals their attitude to life in it's form, broadly speaking.

This is nonsensical. You cannot have an out-of-context experience.

The aesthetic is affect, though this is not to say if one screams in contempt she is making art. It is to say that when one takes up an object AS art, the screaming in contempt can be art.

I am going to take issue with this. What you cannot define is emotion, affect. This is a given, irreducible.

The thing that everybody is missing is that a definition of art requires the identification of an attribute that is constantly present in art. There is only one thing constantly present in art, and everything else is variable, and optionally present. The constant is the mind activity expressed in the form of the art.

We tend to conflate what is art with what is good art. I am fine with piles of bricks, unmade beds and urinals... it is art if it is put on display as such. But it may not be good art, which is a separate matter entirely.

A dozen people could do the same kit and all the resulting paintings would be rather indistinguishable.

Original artwork can express a lot about a person, including their skill at expressing themselves.

Not necessarily, no. In commercial art, the intention is to express the values of the client in a way that will resonate with a particular audience, for the purpose of making money.

The thing that everybody is missing is that a definition of art requires the identification of an attribute that is constantly present in art. There is only one thing constantly present in art, and everything else is variable, and optionally present. The constant is the mind activity expressed in the form of the art.

I mean, what is it about art that makes it art such that a pile of bricks can be art?

But mind activity is nonspecific

I think this point will make more sense to people who are into conceptual art. "Art" has different meanings depending on context of use, right?

This is nonsensical. You cannot have an out-of-context experience.
— praxis

No. The context is taking up a thing apart from others. Kant did this with reason. It is not that Kant thought reason could be conceived independently of context, but that putting selected contexts at bay in order to give analysis to one feature is what analysis is all about.

take a relatively simple phenomenon and turn it into complete bullshit

But what is it you are fine with? I mean, what is it about art that makes it art such that a pile of bricks can be art?

What the fuck? Self-organization! What does that even mean in this context.

Context of use would be the context of considering the object AS art.

IE, in discussions about art, as with philosophy in general, communication can break down when different contributors attach different meanings to the same words.

The aesthetic form of an object is independent of the object's context, as an object's aesthetic is the formal arrangement of the parts within the object, not any external context.

It is specifically self organization - mind activity is always self organization. Consciousness is an evolving process of self organization. But the next question will be - what is self organization? This I don't know exactly, but it is the thing that causes the self assembly of everything in the universe. Ultimately this is what art is expressing.

Analysis is about making sense, not nonsense.

Phenomenologically: take the glee Hitler experienced as he gassed Jews. His glee is as a value experience is unassailable. It is simply a fact that he experienced this glee, say, and by itself, phenomenologically, that is, it is Good. What makes it bad is the context.

I meant the context of the use of the word, "art".

For Nietzsche, we ourselves are the work of art, the challenge being to become conscious of this.

What was it for Heidegger? A fusion of purpose and matter?

I read once that philosophers usually write simplified synopses of their ideas when they talk about art. I wonder why?

For starters, I don't think it's a good way to start an analysis by assuming something that is unverifiable. How could anyone really know how Hiter felt during the holocaust, much less 80 years after it occurred. You even go so far as to say that your claim about his feelings is indisputable.

You say that by itself his genocidal glee is good. This is your evaluation and can only mean that you think genocidal glee is good. You value genocide to a degree that it inspires delight in you.

You go on to say that genocidal glee is bad in context. This seems to mean that you value the feeling of delight that the idea of genocide inspires in you but in practice (any actual context) would be bad. This can only mean that you know that genocide is immoral and that it would be bad to practice because it's immoral or because society (other minds) consider it unacceptable and do not delight in the idea or practice of it.

Yes, he talk like that, I read. I have always thought N had to spend his life struggling, literally. Nothing but miserable health, and he had to overcome these to even write at all. Thus, we get overcoming as a principle theme. He had to "make" himself where others could relax.

'm reading Karsten Harries Art Matters that focuses on Heidegger's Origin. WIsh I could send it to you to talk about it.

Modern" art loses its spiritual dimension. Talking here about Renaissance art, genre painting and the absence of religious themes. Heidegger is not religious but does see modern art (here, early 20th century. Very erratic, scattered) as having lost something, just as he thinks WE, human dasein, gets lost in its own trivialities.

He thinks this is pragmatics, what you might call self processing information, and I don't disagree. But then he makes the critical move toward the aesthetic IN experience. You are not willing to this, it seems.

Consciousness is also about awareness. The difference between good art and bad art is the awareness of the artist. Great art displays an unusual - far from usual awareness of it's subject matter. Great art exceeds the normal expectation of art through the artists awareness of an extra dimension to the subject matter, that normal art does not see. This way great art can result in a shift in paradigm, about it's subject matter. We can not predict what the subject matter will be, but we can predict great art will have a mastery of it, and will provide avenues to go beyond it.

Great art displays an unusual - far from usual awareness of it's subject matter.

It seems to me there are people actually defining art as: Everything, or anything

The way it seems to me is philosophy of art is in the business of, ultimately, constraining art by defining it; a definition although good to have - we can know with 100% certainty what is and is not art, paving the way for deeper philosophical study of the subject - is, if one gives it some thought, a straitjacket - restricts/constrains/limits/ the artist by having to conform to the definition whatever that is.

Without a definition anybody can just BS about art as they please.

This definition doesn't restrict the artist in any way, other than in the understanding that art is not simply art about art

I haven't paid this thread much attention, because definitions are not all that helpful, but further, any definition of art will immediately encourage any sensible artist to produce something that does not meet that definition.

:up: Yes they would if they could!!

Hence the image above. They apparently did.

Art about art.

The nemesis of your definition?

So everything is art.

Ce n'est pas de l'ar

This has been the understanding in art circles for the past 100 years or so, since Duchamp's urinal.

What has?

Without a definition anybody can just BS about art as they please.

This is exactly the attitude your definition attempts to address.

Then the definition in your OP is wrong?

Yes by pointing out that even BS about art is an expression of consciousness.

There you go. Are you now going to desist from trying to define art?

What is your argument?

Why would I do that?

Why restrict the artist or, more accurately, why would the artist give a damn about your definition?

It does not restrict anybody. There are no artist's lining up outside my door in order to give a damn about the definition. :lol: However, the definition IS scientific, irreducible, and falsifiable.

The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.

Consciousness requires the story arc which inevitably contains grief, rage, disappointment, etc. If the production and consumption of art is about experience, then it necessarily centers around evil.

Nietzsche didn't think we could overcome this. He thought we need to learn to embrace it, I think.

Embrace it, or sublimate it, make it yield to our needs. I never found Nietzsche interesting enough to study. He is the post modern hero because he denies the primacy of "truth" and embraces the irrational features of our existence. His claim that human existence is a constructed enterprise is an existential defining notion (essence precedes existence, e.g.) but I find Kierkegaard more challenging

There is such a thing as authentic metaphysics.

would prefer, simply, trouble, for "evil" is connotatively thick and I don't want to make matters unduly weird.

At the most basic level, the trouble an inquiring mind faces is religio-philosophical. The final trouble, problem to solve. It needs to be looked at as a problem to solve, not as empty metaphysics.

Without a definition anybody can just BS about art as they please.

Art is an expression of consciousness. At it's simplest, consciousness is mind activity. Although art is not exclusively an expression of mind activity, this is the singular thing we find in works of art - always. Every work of art ever made has to be an expression of mind activity, agreed?

Mind activity is experiential. Phenomenology elucidates mind activity very well. It elucidates how human consciousness self organizes. How cognition is a disturbance in a state, how an emotion is felt due to the implications of the disturbance, and how the state reintegrates. it outlines how a self realigns itself due to this process, and so is a product of this process, agreed?

So, art is an expression of mind activity, and mind activity is experiential, agreed?

The experiential mind activity that creates consciousness is endlessly variable and open ended - we can see this in the art it creates - how it is always evolving- with no end in sight. Agreed? So it is not possible to define anything in terms of this, as it is endlessly variable, and open ended! And will continue to evolve into things we cannot possibly imagine.

So we are left with only mind activity to define art with. Agreed?

Hence art work is information about the artist's consciousness - This is all we can say that is. This information is present in every work of art. We cannot reduce this any further, and we can not add to it. Anything we add to this expression is not a constant of art. Only this expression is constant in art. So it is the only way to define art. Art can be defined to this extent and no further,.

No one is fooled by an untrained violinist pretending to be a master, for instance.

So you’re saying that there’s genocidal glee, just the concept of glee, and your mind can separate glee from any actual instance of glee, such as Hitler’s alleged genocidal glee.

If I’m following what you’ve said correctly, you’ve separated the concept of glee from what you’re now referring to as an illustrative example (glee in context) of glee in order to perform an analysis of some kind.

That’s about all the sense I can make out of what you’ve written. It not clear if this somehow relates to your claim that “the aesthetic is an integral part of experience itself.”

Perhaps your analysis has revealed that you have the capacity to consider the concept of aesthetic out of context, or that having this capacity, you can apply this concept any which way that your imagination can manage.

you seem to have made up your own meaning of aesthetic. I’ll wager that you can’t explain what this is supposed to mean.

I think Nietzsche is like several truckloads of feces into which a few diamonds and sapphires have been scattered. My connection to Nietzsche deep, like in the direction of dreams. But weren't Nietzsche and K saying something similar? regarding accepting evil?

Could you say more about that?

What's the final trouble?

You may have noticed that people can and often do BS as they please about all sorts of things, well defined or not.

Although the colour red is not in the object,

It is not possible to make art without expressing your consciousness.
Something I keep repeating every few posts, but not many seem to get it.

We are not, of course IN the situation above, but to conceive it honestly shows that ethical nihilism is foundational inadequate to "totalize" what it is all about.
The final trouble is metaethics.

The color is not in the object but on the object.

IE, in discussions about art, as with philosophy in general, communication can break down when different contributors attach different meanings to the same words.

We get it, we just don't think it is a useful way of characterizing or defining art

means art can't be

IE, the aesthetic and Uniformity within Variety are both innate parts of the structure of the brain as Kantian a priori knowledge.

No one is fooled by an untrained violinist pretending to be a master, for instance.

The color is not in the object but on the object.
— Khalif

Supposing that humans didn't exist, would the colour red still be on the object ?

This is true regarding the violinist, but notions such as art about art are so dim witted! :grimace: Similar to philosophy saying - life is about life, no more needs to be said!

With the one caveat that a term like "mind" we have in itself an open question

One should look at the artwork as the outward manifestation of an actual consciousness, and its value reducible to palpable consciousness.

If you are going to call something information, then it has to information ABOUT something.

We can make art about art and philosophize about philosophizing, or make art about philosophizing and philosophize about art. Use your imagination.

It is rather that there is one, final context, and that is at the basic level, and this is phenomenology. On ethics and aesthetics: take lighted match and apply it to your finger. Now, there is a lot one can say about this anatomically, motivationally, psychologically, and any other context you can imagine; but put those aside and consider only the pain itself, pain simpliciter, qualia-pain if you like, or, the phenomenon of pain eidetically free, or context free. Forget about whether you think this is possible (Dennett doesn't, but that is another argument) for it being there AT ALL is a context, you can, and many do, including myself, argue. But IN this most foundational context of observing the pain just as pain and not of or in this or that, the pain can be seen most vividly for what it is, and not for what something tells us it is.

This presence is, I argue, pure, or close to pure. Entangled, yes, but here in this "reduction" it stands before one as a pure presence, what it IS as presence prior, that is, logically prior, for you can't even think of Hitler's genocidal cruelty without know what pain is to begin with that makes the whole affair so horrible.
This is what I have in mind.

We can make art about art and philosophize about philosophizing, or make art about philosophizing and philosophize about art. Use your imagination.
— praxis

So if I was to say the comment you just made is words about words - you would be satisfied?

It wasn't about words, so no, I wouldn't be satisfied with that erroneous assessment. I could post something about words and then you could accurately say that I posted words about words.

and I don't know what it is supposed to mean

But I have defined it. You have to invalidate the definition, or otherwise accept it.

It means art for arts sake.

All the rest is noise and opinion.

You want to develop a criterion that includes everybody in the room but then you don't have to develop a criterion; you could simply say all people in the room.

Of course it's opinion. Do you think your thoughts are somehow something somehow grander than your opinion?

Mine is not opinion. Is 1+1 opinion? It is logical fact, as opposed to your opinion.

What's the problem with it?

Mine is not opinion. Is 1+1 opinion? It is logical fact, as opposed to your opinion.
— Pop

Nuff said.

What I meant is - the definition is not opinion.

What's the problem with it?
— praxis

It trivializes art. Imagine philosophy for philosophy's sake.

There's a couple of issues, I'm afraid, that prevent your 'reductionist' theory from rising above the level of nonsense. I already pointed out the first issue in my previous post. Using our imagination we can take a concept or general mental representation of something like aesthetic or pain and do whatever we want with it. We can associate pain with hot burning coals, for example, and that's relatively easy to do. It's a bit harder to associate pain with distant billowy clouds, but we can still do it. Anyway, jumping to the point, the point is that what we can imagine doesn't always correspond to reality. I suspect that you already know that, but in any case, a practical example may help to elucidate the point further.

Offhand, pain/panic is the most unaesthetic kind of experience that comes to mind. If I understand your reductionist theory rightly, we can 'reduce the context' of any situation where pain and panic are experienced and the experience will then be that of aesthetic experience. As I've pointed out, we can easily dismiss context with our imagination, but how do we do this in real life? How do we reduce or turn off context? For our purposes, it doesn't matter because reducing is changing, and we already know that changing a situation (context) can change our perception.

The second issue has to do with the basics of meaning. If everything is aesthetic then nothing is aesthetic and the concept loses all meaning.

I don't think this follows. Art was thought to be indefinite, but it is definite as per the definition, and then beyond this it is indefinite, for now at least. :smile:

You are not objecting to the definition, but to its utility. I have given my reasons, now several times, about how a definition is potentially useful.

it's a wild animal now and taming it, which a definition is, is futile.

Morality is only half the concept, right? The other half is amorality.

You could say when we jump into the car, this is amoral Eros. There's no good nor evil yet because the story arc is at its beginning. There's no action to judge. Only once we're hanging upside down (which would be an odd place to end the story), do we lay out our condemnations. Morality is a post-event perspective. We weigh the actuality against the ideal.

Cognitive dissonance appears when we recognize that the very thing the artist needs: some sort of wreckage, is deadly to that innocent who climbed behind the wheel.

But then there's the world's pain. It's a burden for some. Nietzsche says that if you long to save the world, you're rejecting it at the same time. We can say yes to life. Accept the car wreck in all it's glory. Isn't that what the Knight of Faith does?

Hard to see, the future is" - Yoda. :grin:

Yes!! Now we are on the same page. That is all I am trying to say with the definition. Art is always some manifestation of this - an expression of human consciousness, for the consumption of another human consciousness. This is what it provides - constantly, and everything else is variable. This defines art.

Or: you are saying artworks are essentially an index to states of mind, that they "carry" information about this inner experience,

the interior experience is the locus of the REAL artwork.

According to American philosopher John Searle: “Consciousness is that thing that presents itself as we wake up in the morning and lasts all day until we go back to sleep again at night.” It isn’t simply awareness or knowledge – I believe Carl Jung would agree that to every bit of consciousness is attached 100 bits of the subconscious, interwoven into a mental lattice presenting as a united front. It is fundamental to us. Consciousness is personality in action, yet we are hardly aware of it. Modern science has not been able to pin consciousness down, however panpsychism and eastern philosophy agree that consciousness is a fundamental property of the universe - from this perspective consciousness takes on a much deeper meaning

Again (technical issue screwed with the first)

Don't know why you want to talk about hot coals or billowy clouds. It isn't to the point.

moves away from explanatory accounts that are merely factual

facts are, as such, ethically arbitrary

you owning the gun I borrowed and wanting it back under, say, dangerous and suspicious circumstances.

The gun ownership, the circumstances and so on, these are facts that have no ethical dimension to them as facts.

As Wittgenstein put it in his Lecture on Ethics: in all facts of the world, were they laid out in a great book, there would not be a mention of value at all.

Then what is it that makes the case ethical (or here, aesthetic; same applies here) at all? it is the value: the injury and pain that is at stake, also my breaking the implicit promise to return the gun that could undermine confidence that thereby undermines friendship and comfort, and so on.

So. you see the point being made here is to try to analyze an ethical case, any one at all, to find how its parts work, and what they are. This should be clear.

Not clear why you talk about panic.

I don't want to muddle things with what is not at issue.

If all things are in space, then nothing is in space? Are you kidding?

I'm trying to impress on you, but without much success, that consciousness is the root of creativity.
Consciousness unifies and integrates information.
Creativity unifies and integrates information
This bears thinking about.

I think I see what you are getting at. Let me see if I can clarify a bit. Phenomenalogically speaking, art is creation. Man creates himself and his world through art, and it is through the prism of art that man and the world appears as it does to man.

Remarkably, in that long post you didn't use the word 'context' even once.

Suppose that no human ever bothered to distinguish the color of red from other colors.

post modernism has made a mockery of art

You said it, not me. If all things are in space, then all things are in space. If all things are space, then things are space, right? If all things are space then there’s nothing to compare space with, right? There is only space, so space has no meaning.

Consciousness, as an evolving process of self organization, encompasses all things mental and experiential.

According to American philosopher John Searle: “Consciousness is that thing that presents itself as we wake up in the morning and lasts all day until we go back to sleep again at night.” It isn’t simply awareness or knowledge – I believe Carl Jung would agree that to every bit of consciousness is attached 100 bits of the subconscious, interwoven into a mental lattice presenting as a united front. It is fundamental to us. Consciousness is personality in action, yet we are hardly aware of it. Modern science has not been able to pin consciousness down, however panpsychism and eastern philosophy agree that consciousness is a fundamental property of the universe - from this perspective consciousness takes on a much deeper meaning

I agree - the postmodernist "Artworld" with its "institutional definition of art" is destroying any value in the definition of art by pushing the agenda that art is defined in whatever way they deem it to be defined.

Suppose that no human ever bothered to distinguish the color of red from other colors.
— praxis

When looking at the world, humans don't decide to distinguish between colours, but instinctively distinguish between colours, without thought or conscious effort.

Remarkably, in that long post you didn't use the word 'context' even once.
— praxis

In a previous post I wrote "The aesthetic form of an object is independent of the object's context, as an object's aesthetic is the formal arrangement of the parts within the object, not any external context. The violence of a war can have an aesthetic and be ugly. The serenity of a garden can have an aesthetic and be beautiful".

In this particular post I summarised with the phrase "aesthetic as a formal arrangement of the parts within an object". Although not specifically referring to the context of the object, the phrase infers that the object's context is not part of the object's aesthetic.

Unless you have perfect pitch you couldn’t hear a musical note and identify it. You could learn how to do this with practice however.
What does it even mean to say that an object can be removed from its external context?

The aesthetic form of the object can be removed from its external context
My subjective experience of the colour red is independent of any function the letter box may have. Similarly, my subjective experience of the aesthetic form of the letter box is independent of any function that the letter box has.

I would deny that amorality is a fit description of the world at the basic level.

But the ontology of pain and bliss looks to neither the beginning nor the end. It simply takes what is there as it is, a phenomenon of certain properties. I am not concerned about how other matters work out, only one: I ask, what IS this pain.

The Knight of Faith is one who singularly lives in God's grace. See the first chapter of Fear and Trembling. S/he has posited spirit and unqualifiedly affirms God, the soul and their primacy over all things, securing eternal happiness. Abraham was this.

So, the exteriority of the object is not detachable from the interior conscious event.

So it is a communication of consciousness to consciousness and what is exchanged is information, but just like the information communicated in this forum, so little of it gels. :lol:

Alas, arrogance unmatched by intellectual content. Your ideas have been deservedly rejected by most members of the forum. Most people would take that as a sign to rethink their position. Anyone unwilling to face the fact that their positions might not be correct or not the only way of seeing things cannot truly considered a philosopher, or even an intelligent thinker.

So it is a communication of consciousness to consciousness and what is exchanged is information, but just like the information communicated in this forum, so little of it gels.

Neither do you represent the opinion of the forum, nor have you provided an argument

You gloat that people don't understand or agree with your ideas

then crow that the forum supports you.

Still no argument. Still no substance.

I would too. Amorality appears to you against a background of morality, and vice versa.

Could be a result of hot sauce about to be drowned in some awesome beer as you celebrate with close friends. Could be the same pain in the back you've struggled to deal with for months and despair is setting in.

What the pain is and how you deal with it is definitely a matter of how you cast it. Why would you analyze pain without a context? That doesn't happen very often.

Particularly as he was about to kill his beloved son. What does that tell you?

Exactly - that is why the art work is information about what is occurring in the artist's mind, or in other words consciousness. Likewise this art object representing the artist's consciousness, then interacts with the consciousness of the viewer, to become something in their mind. So it is a communication of consciousness to consciousness and what is exchanged is information, but just like the information communicated in this forum, so little of it gels

Again you reveal your consciousness.

Your opinions are just noise without substance…

The real question is this: Is there a foundation for art and ethics that is absolute?

To actually reveal his consciousness we would somehow have to be able to be in Clarks mind and experience his consciousness.

If so, then my problem with you is that you seem to mistake your opinions for something of worth. Your opinions are just noise without substance, you provide no argument whatsoever.

Neoplatonic divinity, maybe.

Again, we can easily imagine a red letterbox out of context. In experience we cannot separate one from its context,

If you mean a god you can pray to, no, there isn't. That's a fairy tale. If you mean some sort of Neoplatonic divinity, maybe.

Both of these are beyond what the question asks. Is there a way to show that in ethics and aesthetics there is an absolute embedded in the essence of what they are? Give analysis to an instance of these and is their something that is "its own presupposition" that defies analysis?

I think morality and amorality are aspects of one's perspective.

You can look at the Holocaust as a mountain of evil, or you can look at it the way a zoologist looks at the behavior of Asian hornets destroying bee hives.

You can flip back and forth between the two if you like. Where does an absolute show up in this situation?

But I would have no trouble with my subjective experience of the colour red (or aesthetic form) regardless of the object's context - whether at the end of a street or the middle of a lake.

Agree, and personally I find the idea of a mailbox standing in the middle of a lake rather aesthetically appealing.

I find the idea of a mailbox standing in the middle of a lake rather aesthetically appealing.

art theory

Any underlying definition of art is pointless in postmodernism, as anything can be art, but in modernism, definitions are an important aspect in understanding the great social, cultural and intellectual importance of modernist artworks.

Ethics isanalyzable at a level beneath perspective. Not that such perspectives don't exist, and that at a certain level of analysis, this "perspectivalism" doesn't work; it does. But here, one is asked to go deeper, e.g., it is not my perspective that makes medieval torture horrible.

But there was an objection in this! The term 'information' fouls up the works, for the painting, say, is not about a state of mind sans the painting. The painting itself cannot be reduced to information about something else, like ones and zeros of a program, because the consciousness that is the seat of art's meaning necessarily includes the painting itself.

So is Clark revealing his consciousness or his opinions? He’s expressing his opinions, right? To actually reveal his consciousness we would somehow have to be able to be in Clarks mind and experience his consciousness. I can’t imagine how that’s possible, and neither can you, apparently.

If so, then my problem with you is that you seem to mistake your opinions for something of worth. Your opinions are just noise without substance, you provide no argument whatsoever.
— Pop

As I pointed out, my problem isn't with your opinions, although they are clearly wrong. My problem is with the pompous, smug, condescending attitude with which you present and repeat, and repeat, and repeat them without addressing the arguments of those who disagree with you.

Mine is not opinion. Is 1+1 opinion? It is logical fact, as opposed to your opinion.

I can see your artwork Mailbox in Lake taking pride of place at the 2022 Venice Biennale. (y)

So is Clark revealing his consciousness or his opinions? He’s expressing his opinions, right? To actually reveal his consciousness we would somehow have to be able to be in Clarks mind and experience his consciousness. I can’t imagine how that’s possible, and neither can you, apparently.
— praxis

He reveals his consciousness through his vacant opinions, and troll like behavior.

It is not necessary to inhabit a persons consciousness to get a glimpse of it.

As we write these comments, to some extent, what we write is equal to our consciousness. Hence when we write, we express our consciousness. Much the same as with art, only the medium is different.

Can he communicate his consciousness with words? What does it even mean to communicate one's consciousness? Consciousness is a state of being awake and aware.

According to American philosopher John Searle: “Consciousness is that thing that presents itself as we wake up in the morning and lasts all day until we go back to sleep again at night.” It isn’t simply awareness or knowledge – I believe Carl Jung would agree that to every bit of consciousness is attached 100 bits of the subconscious, interwoven into a mental lattice presenting as a united front. It is fundamental to us. Consciousness is personality in action, yet we are hardly aware of it. Modern science has not been able to pin consciousness down, however panpsychism and eastern philosophy agree that consciousness is a fundamental property of the universe - from this perspective consciousness takes on a much deeper meaning

The singular thing that life is concerned with is to maintain and continue itself, and consciousness facilitates this. It is the one thing we are always expressing. We express it when making art, and it seems art's function is to express our consciousness when we personally cannot - to express it at its best, express it to many, and into the future.

So when you say morality is beneath the level of perspective you mean you don't decide what's right and wrong. You want to identify the causal agent here, and its obviously beyond your whims?

I suppose a candidate would be Augustinean Christianity. "Love and do what you will". It's an amoral command, but it serves as a moral guide at the same time. And maybe love is unanalyzable. I'm not sure.

Anyway, you could think of it as where amorality meets it's opposite?

We can not express anything other than our consciousness.

resort to name calling and an attack on character.

art

You, on the other hand, have talked about my "small minded dim witted consciousness."

As per the definition, and the OP. Everything can be reduced to information, as otherwise how would you know about it? When you stand in front of a painting, it informs you - literally changes your neural state such that you become aware of it's presence.

Hopefully this establishes that art is information?

the essence of art

He's got a point though (just kidding).

ll have you know that my dim witted consciousness is very large minded.

Then how is it that I can’t even prove to you that I’m conscious? I could be a series of algorithms or an AI that lacks consciousness. There’s no way you could know and there’s no way that I can prove it to you. You can only know you’re conscious, or as I speculated earlier, somehow actually experience another’s consciousness.

An art work, once exhaustively analysed as information about what is substantively an inner, consciousness affair, possesses something of that affair itself.

Respond? I mean, it's a genuinely interesting piece of philosophy you raised, but only as good as the such things as the above are given their due. (I'm not a fan of philosophy banter).

(In this is another issue: is conceptual art, really art?)

Second: What your definition lacks is an actual account of what the art IS, in the consciousness that receives it, creates it. I mean, if say X is the definition of art, and the true seat of art lies within and the object is simply that which carries it, deposits it, if you will, then a major part of your thinking should go to what it is that is there, in consciousness that the art work carries and delivers. This, I would think, is central to any definition of art.

Hopefully this answers your question - yes an art work is information, and it is information about the consciousness of the artist. It exists in some form, and this form by virtue of being something physical is aesthetic, so is always experiential. But there is nothing definite about the form, or any resultant aesthetic, or experience. We can not predict what the form of art will be in a hundred years, or the experience that will result from it, so can not define art in these terms. These terms are variable, they do not always exist in art, and it is unpredictable how they might exist in future. For a definition, we need to focus on the things that always exist in art, and the only thing that always exist in art is that art work is information about the artists consciousness - everything else is variable! That is why this is a definition - such as it is. :grin:

Exactly - that is why the art work is information about what is occurring in the artist's mind, or in other words consciousness. Likewise this art object representing the artist's consciousness, then interacts with the consciousness of the viewer, to become something in their mind. So it is a communication of consciousness to consciousness and what is exchanged is information.

Then how is it that I can’t even prove to you that I’m conscious? I could be a series of algorithms or an AI that lacks consciousness. There’s no way you could know and there’s no way that I can prove it to you. You can only know you’re conscious, or as I speculated earlier, somehow actually experience another’s consciousness.
— praxis

You are arguing that you are AI, and thus unconscious? :chin:

Maybe it's not so different than Pop consciousness, or Frank consciousness. Maybe it's very different. Does anyone really know?

No argument is required. I'm merely pointing out that you can only assume that I'm conscious, you can't know that I'm conscious, so I could not be expressing something that you cannot know even exists.The words and ideas that I express, on the other hand, are evident.

… you appear to place a great deal of confidence in your communication with the world through sense and reason. So for all practical purposes you're a realist.

Even if you were an Ai, you would still be expressing a consciousness, but this time the consciousness of your programmer

In panpsychism, consciousness is fundamental, and is the only thing anything ever expresses through it's form. Long story. So I know that if anything should ever be expressed, that it will be consciousness.

There is a theoretical basis for my assertions

I can only express my consciousness - there is nothing I can do other than express my own consciousness.

It is not necessary for me to know your consciousness in it's entirety, since through expression you provide me with glimpses of it.

Language is not part of the essence of a modernist artwork.
I don't want to give the impression that I think that linguistic descriptions are part of the fundamental essence of a modernist artwork. Descriptions and definitions (succinct descriptions) may be helpful in the viewer's understand of the artwork but any such description is external to the artwork.

Though language is important in understanding the artwork
For example, when looking at a Classical Greek sculpture such as Laocoon and his Sons, admired by Hegel for its form and content, a deeper understanding of both the artwork and artist may be gained by knowing that for Hegel formal qualities meant "a unity and harmony of different elements in which these elements are not just arranged in a regular, symmetrical pattern but are unified organically" and content meant "an expression of freedom and richness of spirit".

Language is part of the essence of a postmodernist artwork
Language in postmodernism has a different function to that of language in modernism.
In postmodernism, there has been a blurring of the lines between art and language, where language itself has become a part of the artwork and where through the text the viewer is invited to directly engage with political and social issues within contemporary life. In postmodernism, the artwork is not an end in itself, but is an instrument by which the viewer is directed to political and social concerns held by the artist.

Modernism is more profound than postmodernism
Modernism (whose essence is aesthetic form of pictographic representation) enables a profundity not present in postmodernism because the viewer's interpretation is not restricted by having to comply with any language imposed on the artwork by the artist, as would be the case within a postmodernist artwork (where the aesthetic has been deliberately excluded and whose essence is symbolic representation).

IE, modernism is democratic in allowing the viewer a free interpretation, whereas postmodernism is authoritarian in directing the viewer's interpretation by means of the language imposed by the artist.

In case you haven’t noticed, mailboxes don’t usually stand in the middle of lakes, and yet you attempt to categorize me as a realist.

is there anything that is both the essence of art, what makes art, art, and absolute?......But I claim art has this foundation......Art has this, I say. It is called the aesthetic......Propositions are inherently defeatable........ words all carry their own begation...

is also strangely symbolic, but symbolic of what I cannot say. :chin:

your erect mailbox is ready to destroy somebody else’s “car” in the neighborhood.

The TPF education-in-a-paragraph.

When art is undefined it fragments

The problem is, how can the idea that "the essence of art is as an aesthetic" be expressed but not in propositional form, if as you say that "propositions are inherently defeatable" and "words all carry their own negation" ?

With postmodernism, where anything can be art, then there cannot be good art or bad art. Then the well-known artwork A mail box in a lake is equal to the most prominent postmodernist works in the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art (badly named, however)

But in modernism, where art has been defined (albeit in more than one way), there can be good and bad art. Then a child's crayon sketch of a dog can never be the equal of a Rembrandt or Matisse.

I couldn't care less about what... the knowledgeable consider... because I can think for myself and I'm not a mindless herd animal.
— praxis
:vomit:

Yessir! That knowledge sir! Tried it once; didn't like it!

But as with tools, do you buy the better tool for the job or the one you like?

And does not education and knowledge inform that decision?

And don't confuse the offer of an experience with the experiencing of it.

Sweet Jesus, no! If you think "liking" is the sine qua non of aesthetic experience, then you're living one (or two)-dimensionally in a multi-dimensional world.

sometimes a letterbox is just a letterbox.

:100: Worth several reads. The TPF education-in-a-paragraph.

As, for a simple example, with sonnets. There are - can be - good sonnets and bad, but before there can be good and bad, there has to be the thing itself as form, and it seems to be within the constraint of form that art arises.

Either you already know what I mean or you do not.

Assuming you're being candid and honest, you do not know what I mean.

Which is to say that for you, art is what you like and not what you do not like, thus the two identical.

And that's as far as we can go.

But your view makes art completely subjective, which leads to someone else calling art what you don't, yet that on the basis of your own criterium you cannot call not-art (after all, they like it). Which in turn leads to absurdities such as art-for-me and art-for-you, but no art.

Nor is there any accounting for your changing your mind. It was art yesterday, but not today.

Further, the experience in question is either an experience of liking or an aesthetic experience. For you these must be the same thing.

Perhaps this, the difference between food that's good for you and food that is not.

I value knowledgeable people in general but when it comes to art I can tell if I like something, and no authority on earth can know what may offer an aesthetic experience, though they may know general principles. I'm the best authority on my own sensibilities.

I feel the gulf in our understanding is too wide to bridge.

An object can only have value if first defined. An object defined as a ship that sinks on first entering the water can rightly be said to be no good as a ship. The same object defined as a submarine that sinks on first entering the water may rightly be said to be good as a submarine.

With postmodernism, where anything can be art, then there cannot be good art or bad art. Then the well-known artwork A mail box in a lake is equal to the most prominent postmodernist works in the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art (badly named, however)

But in modernism, where art has been defined (albeit in more than one way), there can be good and bad art. Then a child's crayon sketch of a dog can never be the equal of a Rembrandt or Matisse.

I guess we're back to that familiar aphorism - "I don't know much about art, but I know what I like." I personally am comfortable with this even though I recognize there is a universe of contested critical assessment and theory (much of it tedious and doctrinaire) available to us to ponder over. The shorthand 'I know what I like' doesn't mean you need to limit yourself to decorative works that you find pretty. It means that you know when you are having an aesthetic experience that you appreciate - it might be confronting, exciting, shocking, captivating.

Supposedly your "long story" can bridge this gap. Just as I predicted this epic tale has not materialized.

In panpsychism, consciousness is fundamental, and is the only thing anything ever expresses through it's form. Long story. So I know that if anything should ever be expressed, that it will be consciousness.

None of this is an argument against anything you've written. I think I'm trying to fit my own experience into your framework.

There's the notion of pearls before swine. Do you distinguish yourself from swine?

At your level - as I understand you - you like it, it's art; it's good. At mine, there's a Wow! involved. That art, as I understand it, has the power to summon in me that which is other to and better than me, to me.

Supposedly your "long story" can bridge this gap. Just as I predicted this epic tale has not materialized.
— praxis

I gave you a link to panpsychism.

Panpsychism seems to center on 'mind' and you focus on consciousness. There's obviously a difference between being conscious and not being conscious, and you seem to accept this difference.A mind doesn't need to be conscious, does it? Naturally, art is an expression of minds.

What is consciousness?

According to American philosopher John Searle: “Consciousness is that thing that presents itself as we wake up in the morning and lasts all day until we go back to sleep again at night.” It isn’t simply awareness or knowledge – I believe Carl Jung would agree that to every bit of consciousness is attached 100 bits of the subconscious, interwoven into a mental lattice presenting as a united front. It is fundamental to us. Consciousness is personality in action, yet we are hardly aware of it. Modern science has not been able to pin consciousness down, however panpsychism and eastern philosophy agree that consciousness is a fundamental property of the universe - from this perspective consciousness takes on a much deeper meaning

The singular thing that life is concerned with is to maintain and continue itself, and consciousness facilitates this. It is the one thing we are always expressing. We express it when making art, and it seems art's function is to express our consciousness when we personally cannot - to express it at its best, express it to many, and into the future.
— Pop

Since this definition, and due to a wonder about what consciousness is, I came to define consciousness as an evolving process of self organization. But I don't know what the source of self organization is.

**In science, self organization caused life, In systems theory self organization caused order in the universe. That art also expresses consciousness / self organization is quite a big deal - I think anyway.

How is mind different to consciousness?

Being conscious is being awake and aware. A mind is more than simply being conscious. A mind requires an internal model of its environment and a model of itself itself to navigate its environment. It needs to have motivations or drives, such as the drive to feed or reproduce.

“Art is an expression of human consciousness. Art work is information about the artist’s consciousness.”

Naturally, art is an expression of minds.

Consciousness is a little more accurate, imo. As it relates to a state of mind.

It is a state of mind that is expressed in art, or anywhere.

The state of one’s mind at any particular time is one’s consciousness.

the aesthetic - the decorative aspect

Yes, it possesses information about that affair, as you put it. It is entirely information about that affair.

Anything deemed to be art is art, end of enquiry. This is because we have a long history of this being the case, and the fact that art was thought to be indefinite.

As I have explained a number of times now - we cannot predict what art will be in its form, or what the experiential reaction to this form will be. These things are endlessly variable and open ended, so can not form part of any definition of art.

Hopefully this answers your question - yes an art work is information, and it is information about the consciousness of the artist. It exists in some form, and this form by virtue of being something physical is aesthetic, so is always experiential. But there is nothing definite about the form, or any resultant aesthetic, or experience. We can not predict what the form of art will be in a hundred years, or the experience that will result from it, so can not define art in these terms. These terms are variable, they do not always exist in art, and it is unpredictable how they might exist in future. For a definition, we need to focus on the things that always exist in art, and the only thing that always exist in art is that art work is information about the artists consciousness - everything else is variable! That is why this is a definition - such as it is. :grin:
— Pop

There is a limit to art however, and that limit is the artists thinking - an artist cannot make art about something that they cannot think about. So art is an expression of consciousness, and no more. It is not an expression of something beyond the consciousness of the artist - cannot possibly be. So is information about the consciousness of the artist, including the subconscious.

for Rorty, this world is "made, not discovered"

The state of one’s mind at any particular time is one’s consciousness.
— Pop

A meaningless statement since it’s only accounting for consciousness or whether a mind is conscious or unconscious.

A mind can be in a dream state, for example, in which case the state of one’s mind is unconscious or lacks consciousness. It doesn’t account for motivation, feelings, mental representations, or anything that a mind is comprised of, merely whether or not its conscious.

Yes you have feelings, opinions, etc, and what you express is your current state of mind about these - which is your consciousness.

In a fit of rage, you are not going to express something peaceful and serene, are you?

I fail to see how this is relevant, since you are not going to be making art in your sleep?

The subconscious likewise is always an aspect of consciousness, so is not something separate.

Yes you have feelings, opinions, etc, and what you express is your current state of mind about these - which is your consciousness.

Consciousness is not merely whether you are conscious or unconscious - it is the current state of one's mind.

You mean it "informs" which is does. But you are bypassing the point: That thing out there is not nor ever was independent of what is "in here"