So, I think it's relevant to note that although the spiritual is individually, socially, culturally and historically mediated (and mediating) it is not exhaustively determined by (or determinative of), nor constructed by (or constructive of) individuals, society, culture and history. — John


This is honestly a very confusing sentence; I see that it's grammatically correct, but what exactly are you saying? It sounds to me like you're saying "the spiritual is mediated in many ways, but is not exhaustively determined by those many ways". Is that what you mean? Could you elaborate in a different way? — Noble Dust

A bit tortuous, perhaps? You got it right though: "the spiritual is mediated in many ways, but is not exhaustively determined by those many ways". The other side of it is that the spiritual mediates (individuals, societies, cultures and history) but does not exhaustively determine them. The point I really wanted to make is that society, culture and history are not all there is to human life, and by extension, they are not all there is to the arts.

Conceptual art (believing it is following Duchamp) wants to say just the opposite. On this 'conceptual' view, in principle at least, everything about individuals, society, culture and history can be analyzed, explicated and commented upon; there is no room for any genuinely intractable mystery. I think this is a huge mistake, with catastrophic potential for the arts, and by extension, for humanity.

The spirit of the work, in my estimation, is how the artist's idea for the work gets sorted out by the materials the artist uses in execution of his idea. — Cavacava

It sounds like you mean something else than what I (and presumably ) meant with the word spiritual. For my part, I mean that there's a real spiritual drive that causes us to make art. To me, making art is a more direct path towards the sorts of things philosophy, and even religion in a way, are after.

Conceptual art (believing it is following Duchamp) wants to say just the opposite. On this 'conceptual' view, in principle at least, everything about individuals, society, culture and history can be analyzed, explicated and commented upon; there is no room for any genuinely intractable mystery. I think this is a huge mistake, with catastrophic potential for the arts, and by extension, for humanity. — John

Interesting. I'm not sure I agree, but I'm also not sure I can argue with that. Again, I think the same spiritual drive exists beneath conceptual art. The impetus hasn't changed. I know you'll disagree because of how you view the development of human thought, but I think there's a necessary quality to each stage of artistic development (and development of thought in general). I think there's a specific spiritual (/esoteric/inner...etc) theme at the core of the development of human thought. It's hard to explain. Every phase seems to follow after the other within the bounds of their own unique logic; Conceptualism had to follow the symbolists and early modernists. It's tied into the human condition. We can look back at eras that we particularly liked, or felt were closer to our own ideal of what art should be, and we can criticize how art evolved, but we need to be realists and look at how art evolves in relation to the state of the human condition. Indeed, the human condition is that inner spiritual drive that directs how thought and art evolve.

Conceptual art is more about what is understood to be art than a change in the "mystery" of how anything is art. One of the striking aspects of response to conceptual art is just how "mysterious" it appears to many. Many times an artist will have taken some simple form, a found object, a clear white canvas, given some detailed personal account of their work, only to have half the audience respond with, in all this knowledge, "How can this be art?..." The "mystery" remains no matter how much is known about an artwork.

The "mystical" quality of art taking the soul to a world more profound then the everyday cannot be destroyed by any amount of explanation or knowledge. It operates on a different axis.

Conceptual art is more about what is understood to be art than a change in the "mystery" of how anything is art. — TheWillowOfDarkness

This doesn't make any sense. What quotes form John or I can you site where we were talking about "how" verses "what"?

Many times an artist will have taken some simple form, a found object, a clear white canvas, given some detailed personal account of their work, only to have half the audience respond with, in all this knowledge, "How can this be art?[/i]..." The "mystery" remains no matter how much is known about an artwork. — TheWillowOfDarkness

This also makes no sense.

The "mystical" quality of art taking the soul to a world more profound then the everyday remains. — TheWillowOfDarkness

This also makes no sense and is grammatically confusing.

One of the striking aspects of response to conceptual art is just how "mysterious" it appears to many. — TheWillowOfDarkness

The average person doesn't find conceptual art "mysterious"; they find it nonsensical.

Interesting. I'm not sure I agree, but I'm also not sure I can argue with that. Again, I think the same spiritual drive exists beneath conceptual art. The impetus hasn't changed. I know you'll disagree because of how you view the development of human thought, but I think there's a necessary quality to each stage of artistic development (and development of thought in general). I think there's a specific spiritual (/esoteric/inner...etc) theme at the core of the development of human thought. It's hard to explain. Every phase seems to follow after the other within the bounds of their own unique logic; Conceptualism had to follow the symbolists and early modernists. It's tied into the human condition. We can look back at eras that we particularly liked, or felt were closer to our own ideal of what art should be, and we can criticize how art evolved, but we need to be realists and look at how art evolves in relation to the state of the human condition. Indeed, the human condition is that inner spiritual drive that directs how thought and art evolve. — Noble Dust

You seem to be thinking of the unfolding or evolution of the spirit in a kind of Hegelian sense. I certainly think there''s some truth in that idea, but I don't believe that dialectic (either in the logical sense or in Marx's material sense) is exhaustively determinative of the development of the human spirit, and hence of individuals, societies, cultures and history. There is always a true freedom and spontaneity at work, and the way things will turn out in the future is by no means pre-determined by the past. The element of truth, though, is that things are perhaps determined in their broadest outlines.

Also, there is nothing that precludes the possibility that epochs may be more or less spiritually healthy, insofar as they are more or less consciously in touch with the divine. There is nothing to preclude the possibility that the human spirit will find itself in a cul de sac and need to backtrack to regain its compass.

So, for me it's not a matter of moral condemnation of creative expressions that have "lost the spirit", but of open-eyed recognition. Of course, everyone will have to trust in, and also be prepared to schooled, their own intuitions in these kinds of matters. There are no 'knock-down' arguments either way. That's pretty much my view, for what it's worth.

Conceptual art is more about what is understood to be art than a change in the "mystery" of how anything is art. — TheWillowOfDarkness

The difference is that the message, the "value" in conceptual art is conceptualizable; it may be put into some form of proposition: "it's a comment on this or that", and so on. This is not the case with non-conceptual art; where there certainly may be conceptual subject matter, but the value of the works lies in the aesthetic, not in the conceptual.

I think that misses the point: in conceptual art, the conceptual is melded into the aesthetic. It never just about commenting on a subject matter. There is a representation with an aesthetic, in the exploration of the concept.

The value in conceptual art isn't really in that it's conceptualisable-- if it were, there would be no dissection between conceptual art and just talking about a concept-- it's in an outside exploration of a concept within a representation and aesthetic.

I get what you are saying; and I think there is essentially no difference between conceptual art and "just talking about a concept" except in the mode of presentation.

The thing that makes art more than merely conceptual is precisely the aesthetic; and if a work is beautiful or "profound" then it is not merely conceptual art. I certainly think that can be said of some conceptual art (some of Duchamp's work, for instance) ; that it is not merely conceptual art, but just has a more pronounced conceptual dimension than 'usual'. Interestingly, I don't think it is possible for music (without vocals) to be a conceptual art; whereas as all of poetry treads some line between propositional discourse (the conceptual) and metaphor. Of course metaphor also deals in concepts, but its modus is allusive rather than determinate.

I don't think it is possible for music (without vocals) to be a conceptual art; — John

Cage's 4:33 is all concept and no music. So it's possible, in a sense at least. Cage was kind of the Duchamp of music, and I think there's some music that is pretty conceptual. But (and I'm biased) some of the more conceptual classical music is, to me, more profound, because, as you say, it retains an aesthetic. I wasn't a fan of Charles Ives music until I read this quote form him. He would write music that was supposed to sound like two different groups playing together at the same time:

"In the early morning of a Memorial Day, a boy is awaked by martial music--a village band is marching down the street--and as the strains of Reeves majestic Seventh Regiment March come nearer and nearer--he seems of a sudden translated--a moment of vivid power comes, a consciousness of material nobility--an exultant something gleaming with the possibilities of this life--an assurance that nothing is impossible, and that the whole world lies at his feet. But, as the band turns the corner, at the soldier's monument, and the march steps of the Grand Army become fainter and fainter, the boy's vision slowly vanishes-his 'world' becomes less and less probable-but the experience ever lies within him in its reality.
Later in life, the same boy hears the Sabbath morning bell ringing out from the white steeple at the 'Center,' and as it draws him to it, through the autumn fields of sumach and asters, a Gospel hymn of simple devotion comes out to him--'There's a wideness in God's mercy'--an instant suggestion of that Memorial Day morning comes--but the moment is of deeper import--there is no personal exultation--no intimate world vision--no magnified personal hope--and in their place a profound sense of spiritual truth--a sin within reach of forgiveness. And as the hymn voice dies away, there lies at his feet--not the world, but the figure of the Saviour--he sees an unfathomable courage--an immortality for the lowest--the vastness in humility, the kindness of the human heart, man's noblest strength--and he knows that God is nothing--nothing--but love!" - Charles Ives, Essays

There is always a true freedom and spontaneity at work, and the way things will turn out in the future is by no means pre-determined by the past. The element of truth, though, is that things are perhaps determined in their broadest outlines. — John

So are you saying that freedom exists on an individual level, but not on a broad level?

Also, there is nothing that precludes the possibility that epochs may be more or less spiritually healthy, insofar as they are more or less consciously in touch with the divine. There is nothing to preclude the possibility that the human spirit will find itself in a cul de sac and need to backtrack to regain its compass. — John

Here's my issue with this. Think about it from an individual level: someone struggling with an addiction or unhealthy activity, on an individual level, cannot literally backtrack to regain their compass. The reason for this is the inexorable forward motion of our experience of time; an individual trying to beat an addiction can't take themselves back to the mental state in which they existed before the presence of the addiction. Beating an addiction means fighting through the addiction until you've reached the other side: sobriety. Applying this to human thought on a grand scale... and I see the same things at play. This is also the answer to the age-old question of "why does God allow bad things?" There's no backtracking with the divine; there's only the single way forward. I don't equate this singularity of motion with determinism, either. I equate it with capital T Truth. This is a creative apprehension of reality, and not an empirical one. The inexorable nature of the movement of human thought is a function of Truth and not a function of determinism on the one hand, or freedom on the other. Freedom is primordial; it's the basis of human nature.

I can't see how someone fighting addiction can do it without hearkening back to the time before they were addicted. how else could they know the state of being free from addiction? I'm not sure waht you think I meant by backtracking.; I certainly didn't have any idea of regression mind. On the broader scale, going forward would be impossible without drawing on tradition.

If the "nature of human thought" was "inexorable" then I can't see how it could be free. Perhaps you mean to say that merely the fact of movement is inexorable, or do you mean to say that the form it takes is inexorable?

I would not classify either Cage's or Ive's music as "conceptual" in the sense I was talking about. Cage, for example I take to have been exploring radical formal possibilities, in a way more analogous to minimalist art than conceptual art.

I can't see how someone fighting addiction can do it without hearkening back to the time before they were addicted. — John

Because overcoming addiction means acknowledging the events that lead up to addiction, and the mental and emotional states that perpetuated and encouraged addiction. These mental states have built themselves up, and now, the way forward is...forward. The state before addiction can manifest itself to the addict as an ideal time, but this is a lie because that state was a state of ignorance. Addiction now has the positive quality of lending perspective. A post-addiction life, is, by definition, a life of richer meaning and content. So, take that analogy and apply it to the development of human thought (with all of it's "addictions": it's neuroses and obsessions).

how else could they know the state of being free from addiction? — John

Just to emphasize my point: they can't know it until they are free from addiction. The state of pre-addiction is not the same as the state of post-addiction. Apply that idea to human thought broadly to get a sense of what I mean.

On the broader scale, going forward would be impossible without drawing on tradition. — John

I'm not saying otherwise; but if we take my analogy here, then "tradition" might be synonymous with "pre-addiction". I realize the analogies are getting a bit hairy.

If the "nature of human thought" was "inexorable" then I can't see how it could be free. — John

If the nature of human thought was not inexorable, then what would freedom exactly mean in this context? I don't mean to move the goalposts, but the problem is that if we take this idea of "freedom" to it's logical extreme, it turns into a nihilistic nothingness. Freedom becomes meaninglessness. Freedom has to exist within Meaning. How does freedom "obtain", as they say around these parts? I see a demarcation between a primordial concept of freedom that isn't bound by time and experience (Berdyaev/Tillich/The Tao/probably others), versus a concept of freedom that exists only within experience and time. Freedom only within time and experience is by definition limited, and then we can make the argument that it isn't freedom at all. So, where does freedom obtain?

So, for instance, when I say human thought is inexorable, I'm constraining it within it's proper bounds: time and experience. Human thought doesn't reach beyond these. But does this mean human thought is "not free"? No. If freedom is a state that exists outside of these bounds, then freedom is a primordial metaphysical state upon which concepts like the development of human thought are predicated. So freedom is the genesis of human thought, within this conception.

I would not classify either Cage's or Ive's music as "conceptual" in the sense I was talking about. Cage, for example I take to have been exploring radical formal possibilities, in a way more analogous to minimalist art than conceptual art. — John

Ok, but at least for 4:33...it's a purely conceptual piece, right? It does explore form as you say, but ultimately the idea is "Listen to what you hear. Is what you hear music?" That's conceptual.

Ok, but at least for 4:33...it's a purely conceptual piece, right? It does explore form as you say, but ultimately the idea is "Listen to what you hear. Is what you hear music?" That's conceptual.

The question is "is it art" or perhaps "how is it art"? Cage was chasing the pure experience of silence, if you remove the aesthetic from a work of art all that remains is the form of the work, the score, the three piece movement here the comprehension of the work is only available through thought. Cage's choice of work was based on his desire to recreate what he heard in the sensory deprivation tank he had tried.

Isn't minimalism a natural consequence of conceptual art,? If the aesthetic functions as ornament for the conceptual artist, then the less ornament the clearer the concept. I don't agree with taking this route, but it is certainly there.

I think art tries to be original (even when it cannot be good) its movement seems to be best described as dialectical and perhaps Conceptual Art arose from Art's :P need to be original, and not be associated with the past. Abstract Expressionism was the major art movement around the time of Cage's 4'33. I see Abstract Expressionism as magnificent aesthetic overload in which the aesthetic uses emotive force to overpower the conceptual.

Conceptual Art's reaction is very unemotional, indifferent to emotion. I think that Conceptual Arts ability to disrupt (as when Warhol's Brillo Boxes hit Danto over the head) makes itself art by its ability to disrupt the way it does. Perhaps the dignity in all art lies in its ability to disrupt and change or challenge the way we experience life.

Because overcoming addiction means acknowledging the events that lead up to addiction, and the mental and emotional states that perpetuated and encouraged addiction. — Noble Dust

Sure, but isn't that precisely hearkening back to the time before addiction in order to see how one came to take the wrong path? Isn't a return to health a return to a pre-addiction state?

The state before addiction can manifest itself to the addict as an ideal time, but this is a lie because that state was a state of ignorance. — Noble Dust

I don't see it this way at all. I think the idea that when one comes through an addiction one is better for having been addicted than one would have been had one never been addicted is based on false reasoning. Equally one cannot say that one is better for never having been addicted.

The point as i see it is that addiction is, like many, or probably most, other adult human states, a loss of innocence; it is a wrong-turning away from, a denial of, innocence. Of course, innocence has to be gone beyond, but ideally not by denying it and losing it.

I think this is the meaning of Christ's: “Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven".

We must turn and regain something that has been lost. This is where I agree with Wayfarer: something has been lost in modernity; where I disagree with him is as to the reason for this loss. Something has been lost in modernity, but it is more lost in some manifestations than in others. Conceptual art, as I see it, eschews innocence in the form of beauty, and walks the same perilous tightrope across the vacuity of mere fashion and novelty as Postmodernity does..

I don't mean to move the goalposts, but the problem is that if we take this idea of "freedom" to it's logical extreme, it turns into a nihilistic nothingness. Freedom becomes meaninglessness. Freedom has to exist within Meaning. — Noble Dust

I'm not sure what you mean here; by "logical extreme" are you thinking of a state where there were no constraints at all; no physical constraints like gravity, or solidity or physical weakness, and so on, or something else? Perhaps you are thinking of spiritual constraints, ethical constraints? There is no freedom without constraint, I would say, so any kind of a "logical extreme" along these kinds of lines could not be freedom at all. Perhaps it is these constraints that you are thinking of as "Meaning". If so, then I agree. Physical constraints constitute the meaning of the physical world, emotional constraints of the emotional, ethical of the ethical and spiritual of the spiritual, and so on.

So, for instance, when I say human thought is inexorable, I'm constraining it within it's proper bounds: time and experience. — Noble Dust

OK, it was the word "inexorable" which apparently threw me off the track. Of course, I agree that human thought, the human spirit, is constrained by time and experience (and all that goes with that: the social, cultural and historical), but, as I said before I don't think it is exhaustively determined by time and experience, which is what I thought you wanted to say by calling it "inexorable".

Perhaps you're right if Cage is indeed wanting to make a kind of meta-comment about music as conceptual art wants to about art, and postmodernity wants to about modernity. Of course I am not saying that all these kinds of "critical" moments are not necessary moments, but they quickly become vacuous cul de sacs when they "throw the baby out with the bathwater".

The audience has a somewhat easier job. — Thinker

Listening to the Portsmouth Sinfonia is not so easy ;-)

Isn't a return to health a return to a pre-addiction state? — John

Not mentally or emotionally, or spiritually. That's the analogy I'm trying to make; human thought (in how it's inherited through culture; how people in general perceive the world) is constantly changing because of the human condition (which is addiction in the analogy, weirdly. Not the most accurate analogy).

I don't see it this way at all. I think the idea that when one comes through an addiction one is better for having been addicted than one would have been had one never been addicted is based on false reasoning. Equally one cannot say that one is better for never having been addicted. — John

But what about suffering in general? The gospel itself actually communicates what I'm trying to communicate: Christ had to suffer and die in order to bring about salvation. Regardless of anyone's belief or lack thereof in the actual gospel, to me that concept is still very robust. Not least of which because it assigns meaning to suffering; it alleviates the meaninglessness we often feel within suffering. I think there's an esoteric truth in there; esoteric because it remains ungrasped by so many people. The argument of "if God exists and is benevelent, then why does he allow suffering?" still remains very common. But you can look at the gospel as a mythical narrative that communicates that esoteric truth about our experience of suffering.

I think this is the meaning of Christ's: “Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven". — John

I take that concept to be the fulfillment of the concept of necessary suffering that I'm outlining. To become like a child again means a childlike joy, wonder, and trust (towards the divine) without the tantrums, ignorance about the world, naiveté and selfishness of a child. It's the difference between childlike and childish.

Perhaps you are thinking of spiritual constraints, ethical constraints? There is no freedom without constraint, I would say, so any kind of a "logical extreme" along these kinds of lines could not be freedom at all. — John

That's what I mean.

as I said before I don't think it is exhaustively determined by time and experience, which is what I thought you wanted to say by calling it "inexorable". — John

No, I don't mean exhaustively determined by time and experience. I mean inexorable in a much more positive way. It's hard to frame the idea well because the formal concept of determinism gets in the way; what I mean almost plays by different rules. I think the genesis of human thought has a oneness to it; the idea of "everything in it's right place". This is what it is: human thought needs to grow to maturity. The structure of human thought thus far throughout history has never been such that any teleological goal of the human spirit could actually be realized. So I'm not talking about determinism in how thought unfolds over history, but I am saying there's an inexorable path which moves by it's own logic. It's not possible for thought to have gone a different way that avoided post-modernism, or conceptual art, or whatever. Or if a different path was possible (because of different individual decisions being made differently; Hitler becoming a successful artist instead of a failed one and having an art career, for instance), then the same principles would eventually be laid out, just in a different way or a different historical context; sooner or later, or whenever. That's because the human condition remains a constant. The human condition is what bears out how thought changes, and the particulars, the concepts and the beliefs, will all inexorably be born out in history. That's how I view it.

Edit: so the different eras of human thought are all gradations of a maturing process within thought. Once a certain tipping point is reached, it's possible that the actual nature of the human condition could change.

The question is "is it art" or perhaps "how is it art"? Cage was chasing the pure experience of silence, if you remove the aesthetic from a work of art all that remains is the form of the work, the score, the three piece movement here the comprehension of the work is only available through thought. Cage's choice of work was based on his desire to recreate what he heard in the sensory deprivation tank he had tried. — Cavacava

More or less, but my interpretation is that the experience of the piece should alert you to what you're not generally conscious of. Our brains automatically filter out sounds that they deem unimportant; otherwise we'd be flooded with unnecessary auditory information. So the piece is meditative; instead of focusing on musical notes, you focus on ambient sounds around you; the audience rustling, a leaky drainpipe, your own heartbeat...of course, the problem is that the piece was/is so "meta", that it's hard to get past the novelty in order to experience Cage's goal for the piece in a direct way. So this is why 4:33 is conceptual: the value of the piece exists solely in the concept because the concept is so self-conscious that it prevents a direct, immediate experience (an aesthetic experience). It has an aesthetic goal, but the aesthetic is only achieved through apprehension of the concept, not through direct experience. The aesthetic is the idea, as I think you alluded to at some point.

Isn't minimalism a natural consequence of conceptual art,? — Cavacava

I'm pretty sure early minimalism in the art world was concurrent with conceptual art, so I don't know. In classical music, minimalism was a consequence of what I would consider early conceptual music: 12 tone music, basically. That's just from memory though, I might be hazy on that.

I think art tries to be original (even when it cannot be good) its movement seems to be best described as dialectical and perhaps Conceptual Art arose from Art's :P need to be original, and not be associated with the past. — Cavacava

I think agree, and I would say this is similar to the argument I've made about the "spiritual drive" behind art remaining a constant, which I think is how and I got into the discussion we're having.

Conceptual Art's reaction is very unemotional, indifferent to emotion. I think that Conceptual Arts ability to disrupt (as when Warhol's Brillo Boxes hit Danto over the head) makes itself art by its ability to disrupt the way it does. Perhaps the dignity in all art lies in its ability to disrupt and change or challenge the way we experience life. — Cavacava

Agreed. This is ultimately why I have mixed feelings about Conceptual Art. I used to hate it, until I researched it and experienced some of it. Now I have a feel for it's place in history and whatnot, and there's some pieces that I appreciate, but I'll always love symbolist harmonies more than anything else. I need emotional content in art! But I think it will come back, and it already is in some places. It's surely remained a constant in the world of popular art.

Not mentally or emotionally, or spiritually. — Noble Dust

I'm not saying it would be a return to a specific past state, but a return to a state of health if you like. Think of having the flu. After you get over it you return to the state (health) you were in before you caught it, but you don't return to a previous version of yourself. That's why I said earlier that i don't have any idea of regression in mind here.

But what about suffering in general? The gospel itself actually communicates what I'm trying to communicate: Christ had to suffer and die in order to bring about salvation. — Noble Dust

But would that not be an example of useful or even necessary suffering? There may be certain kinds of suffering in our spiritual lives that are necessary if we are to achieve humility, for example. But, I don't think that addiction, per se, is necessary to go through. It might be inevitable for some people, though, and it may lead to humility, and so not end up being an experience without value. Was it inevitable that humanity went through the phase of conceptual art? Perhaps, but I tend to think that in the unthinkable complexity of history there are many contingencies that operate like the proverbial butterfly's wings that caused the hurricane. So, I don't tend to think that the precise unfolding of the future is inevitable at all, not all pre-laid out.

I take that concept to be the fulfillment of the concept of necessary suffering that I'm outlining. To become like a child again means a childlike joy, wonder, and trust (towards the divine) without the tantrums, ignorance about the world, naiveté and selfishness of a child. It's the difference between childlike and childish. — Noble Dust

I was really trying to emphasize the feeling for the eternal that I think the innocence of the child consists in. So, as you say : "a childlike joy, wonder, and trust (towards the divine)". I find this in the great art, music and literature of the past, but increasingly less in (much of but by no means all) modern work, and the apotheosis of this absence is reached in conceptual art, as I see it, anyway.

So I'm not talking about determinism in how thought unfolds over history, but I am saying there's an inexorable path which moves by it's own logic. It's not possible for thought to have gone a different way that avoided post-modernism, or conceptual art, or whatever. Or if a different path was possible (because of different individual decisions being made differently; Hitler becoming a successful artist instead of a failed one and having an art career, for instance), then the same principles would eventually be laid out, just in a different way or a different historical context; sooner or later, or whenever. — Noble Dust

I agree with what you say here. It's seems inevitable that mistakes, even certain kinds of mistakes, will be made, because all significant possibilities tend to be played out on the broader stage. My point all along, though has been that it doesn't change the fact that those mistakes are mistakes, and they may be devoid of spirit; they may represent the spirit turning against itself, denying itself; and I don't believe that any specific movement of the spirit is inevitable. I also think there is always something of value to be gained form any movement, even if that value consists only in the wisdom gained by denying the movement and moving beyond it. I also think the moving beyond is always in a significant sense a return; perhaps something akin to Plato's idea of anamnesis; without memory we could have no compass.

We seem to agree about the important details anyway. :)

Cage's goal for th33e piece in a direct way. So this is why 4:33 is conceptual: the value of the piece exists solely in the concept because the concept is so self-conscious that it prevents a direct, immediate experience (an aesthetic experience). It has an aesthetic goal, but the aesthetic is only achieved through apprehension of the concept, not through direct experience. The aesthetic is the idea, as I think you alluded to at some point.

Thanks for your thoughtful response.

I have always wondered where Art resides... in the subject, the object, in both or perhaps in their relationship. Maybe this is the wrong question and 'art' is not something stored on a CD or hung on the wall, but rather, similar to reading a book, it's an active experience that we enter into with our imagination. We suspend reality and we become 'absorbed in' a reality created by an author.

Performances act out what the artist has conceived to enable an audience's imagination to understand the work and to hopefully to become 'absorbed in' it. It is a system similar to a language system where meanings are developed within the system. In conceptual art like 4' 33 the artist has set the stage, has established the context which is social, and has put in place a formal methodology from which its performance can become meaningful. The sounds are as you said

... meditative; instead of focusing on musical notes, you focus on ambient sounds around you; the audience rustling, a leaky drainpipe, your own heartbeat

These sounds are 'natural', they are ego-less, simple ambient sounds, which are not ordered nor exactly chaotic since their aspect is limited by the stage, by its social context, by our own physicality. Cage wants the audience to meditate using these natural ambient sounds to be enable it to become present to its own awareness, a kind of purposeless purpose or unfocused focus. I think meaning in Cage's system is achieved by the experience of a clarity, similar to the affect of meditation, but here the clarity relates the experience of sounds in silence.

His record label must hold the copyright. Frank Zappa did a cover of it and paid royalties, and Classical Graffiti, did a cover, called it 'A One Minute Silence' but they did not pay to use it and they were sued by the record label. The Classical Graffiti said that you can't copyright silence but parties settled out of court, and the settlement was rumored at $100,000.

I'm not saying it would be a return to a specific past state, but a return to a state of health if you like. Think of having the flu. After you get over it you return to the state (health) you were in before you caught it, but you don't return to a previous version of yourself. That's why I said earlier that i don't have any idea of regression in mind here. — John

With this all being within the analogy of addiction, I think it's probably run it's course.

Was it inevitable that humanity went through the phase of conceptual art? — John

Based on the ideas I outlined, I think so. But I don't think that the specific outline of actual history is important; it could have happened 400 years ago, or 400 years from now. But the same princples would/will have been born out. The art would have been different; even the (vague semblance of any) aesthetic may have been different. But the underlying principle (generated by the human condition) would have been the same.

I was really trying to emphasize the feeling for the eternal that I think the innocence of the child consists in. — John

Can you elaborate? I see you did a little bit, but I'd like to hear the in-between points of your argument about that; you seem to jump from childlike innocence to great art here.

I find this in the great art, music and literature of the past, but increasingly less in (much of but by no means all) modern work, and the apotheosis of this absence is reached in conceptual art, as I see it, anyway. — John

Modern conceptual art is certainly not childlike; it's certainly the most egregiously adult art that history has seen. But as i mentioned earlier, I see it more as "pubescent" art. No mature adult is as self-conscious as conceptual art is self-conscious. What would true, purely "adult" art be? What would that mean? (I mean art that supersedes the "pubescent" conceptual art that I'm describing).

My point all along, though has been that it doesn't change the fact that those mistakes are mistakes, and they may be devoid of spirit; they may represent the spirit turning against itself, denying itself; and I don't believe that any specific movement of the spirit is inevitable. I also think there is always something of value to be gained form any movement, even if that value consists only in the wisdom gained by denying the movement and moving beyond it. I also think the moving beyond is always in a significant sense a return; perhaps something akin to Plato's idea of anamnesis; without memory we could have no compass. — John

Well, I do think we're in disagreement here. We just seem to need to talk about it differently. Mistakes are indeed mistakes, which has not been a focus of my argument. But, I think that if those mistakes are devoid of spirit, then that's an apophatic contribution to the development of spirit. This is what I think is lacking in so much popular discourse, and even philosophical discourse at large, and on this forum. Negative moments in history can indeed be apophatic; they can point to what needs to come into being; they can point to the elements of the divine that we so sorely lack. And, most importantly, without those apophatic experiences, we wouldn't understand the human condition in the way we do, and continue to discover. That's "inexorable" to me; or if you prefer a less weird word, it's inevitable, in the best possible way. It's necessary, in the way that the loving but firm discipline of a child by a parent is necessary.

So, when you say "I don't believe any specific movement of the spirit is inevitable", I would counter that with your further statement that "there is always something of value to be gained from any movement". Inevitability, again, is not determinism. Indeed, both words fall short; the latter more so than the former. To crudely wrench this discussion from it's philosophical depths, it really just comes down to Murphy's Law. Anything that can happen within the confines of the human condition will happen. That's really the crux of my argument. It's the crux because I think it's significant. I think the human condition hinges on this "bearing out" of it's own self; it's own inner spiritual content. Salvation, from a Christian perspective, or union with Brahman (I just finished an excerpt of the Upanishads), or what have you, is something that needs come about only once all aspects of the human condition have been actualized.

I like paradoxes, but I fail to see how "the moving beyond is always in a significant sense a return". Probably because I'm very focused on our experience of the forward-moving motion of time. I have little of my own time to give to hypothetical states of history, or even worse, the thought-experiments of the analytics; the p-zombies and all their ilk. I have no time to even try to come with arguments as to why these hypotheticals are so useless. Time moves on as these philosophers stroke their....

We seem to agree about the important details anyway. :) — John

Despite some of what I said above, yes, I agree!

in the subject, the object, in both or perhaps in their relationship. — Cavacava

As I mentioned earlier, I think art exists within 3 stages: the artist, the middle-man and the audience. All of those elements have to come together for art to exist in the way that we know it on a common basis.

However, at the risk of sounding pretentious, I think the main "seed" of art exists within the artist's experience of what they create, and nowhere else. The husk of art, then, is the rest: the middle-man and the audience. But the artist knows the art best. However, what prevents the artist from being allowed to be an asshole about this, is that the artist is only the vessel through which art comes into the world. I personally think this process is a divine process. The irony, though, is that because it's a divine process is exactly why there's no room for the artist's ego. The art is divine: that means the artist can't take full credit. The artist has to defer to the divine in the exact same way that the art dealer has to defer to the artist (not that they actually do), or, more realistically, in the way that the producer or the band members have to defer to the solo musical artist. Or how actors always defer to directors when they find themselves heaped with praise. At the last analysis, the artist herself, the one who finds all the praise being heaped on them, has to defer to the divine inspiration. Otherwise they set themselves up as a self-made god. Which we've seen born out countless times, Kanye being the cream of this arid crop.

Maybe this is the wrong question and 'art' is not something stored on a CD or hung on the wall, but rather, similar to reading a book, it's an active experience that we enter into with our imagination. We suspend reality and we become 'absorbed in' a reality created by an author. — Cavacava

After my rambling paragraph there, I agree.

a kind of purposeless purpose or unfocused focus. — Cavacava

Right, I believe Cage had Eastern influences.

Based on the ideas I outlined, I think so. But I don't think that the specific outline of actual history is important; it could have happened 400 years ago, or 400 years from now. — Noble Dust

I agree with this because i do think all possibilities are explored and played out in human life; or at least in our 'dialectical' 'linear history'-focused western culture.

Can you elaborate? I see you did a little bit, but I'd like to hear the in-between points of your argument about that; you seem to jump from childlike innocence to great art here — Noble Dust

All I am saying is that I think an ability to re-enter the state of childlike innocence is necessary, but I am not saying sufficient, for artistic (and spiritual) greatness.

Modern conceptual art is certainly not childlike; it's certainly the most egregiously adult art that history has seen. But as i mentioned earlier, I see it more as "pubescent" art. No mature adult is as self-conscious as conceptual art is self-conscious. What would true, purely "adult" art be? What would that mean? (I mean art that supersedes the "pubescent" conceptual art that I'm describing). — Noble Dust

I don't see history as 'humanity's growth' being analogous to the growth of an individual through childhood, adolescence to adulthood.I don't believe in 'progress' for humanity as a whole as 'becoming ever better', but rather as a progression as in 'chord progression'.

Well, I do think we're in disagreement here. We just seem to need to talk about it differently. Mistakes are indeed mistakes, which has not been a focus of my argument. But, I think that if those mistakes are devoid of spirit, then that's an apophatic contribution to the development of spirit. — Noble Dust

I think you may have meant to write "I do not think we're in disagreement here", but I'm not sure. I agree that it is possible that the culture as a whole may learn form mistakes, but it's just as possible that what has been learned will be forgotten and the same kind of mistakes repeated again at another time. I am just not convinced there is any telos to history; or that there is any inevitability in its unfolding, or that we are somehow in a 'higher place' spiritually and creatively speaking than the ancients or the medievals or even the so-called 'primitives'. I think this is the beguiling myth of science. History is more like extemporised music; it can go anywhere, end with a whimper instead of a bang, and then come roaring back; it is more like play, than programme.

I kind of get your usage of "apophatic" in this context, but I'm not sure it is really appropriate. For sure learning form a mistake is learning that this is not the way, that "not this"; but the "neti, neti" of Advaita is an all-encomapssing 'not this'. It is 'not anything' in a way similar to the God of apophatic theology.

I like paradoxes, but I fail to see how "the moving beyond is always in a significant sense a return". — Noble Dust

A return to the spirit which is always there even if obscured.

Time moves on as these philosophers stroke their....

Members...? Membranes...? Forebrains...? Foreskins...? >:O

All I am saying is that I think an ability to re-enter the state of childlike innocence is necessary, but I am not saying sufficient, for artistic (and spiritual) greatness. — John

Agreed.

I don't see history as 'humanity's growth' being analogous to the growth of an individual through childhood, adolescence to adulthood.I don't believe in 'progress' for humanity as a whole as 'becoming ever better', but rather as a progression as in 'chord progression'. — John

Interesting thought. My addendum would be that not all adults grow up to be mature people (which is to say that they don't really "grow up", all though that's a metaphor, and it also has positive connotations). The idea of humanity's growth mirroring the growth of a person is just an intuition I've had for a few years that seems to work well for situating ideas about how thought develops in history. I can't really defend the metaphor other than that. By using it I'm not suggesting any coming Utopia or something (indeed, people are mortal; they die). The way I see the metaphor working is actually fairly neutral if you take into consideration our discussion about becoming like a child. Using the metaphor doesn't actually make any statements about which states of development (moments in history) might be better or worse. For instance, each stage of a person's growth (infancy, childhood, adolescence, adulthood, etc) are all necessary for the growth of the person; one isn't more important than the other. On top of that, I think we live with the fallacious assumption that adulthood is somehow the "goal".

Within a more mystical view of history, it's interesting to take the metaphor of an individual, and indeed take it to it's conclusion; death of humanity could mean it's collective rebirth, assuming the possibility of an afterlife for the individual. In other words, the metaphor of the individual applied to history could apply all the way up until death, through to the possible afterlife. I like playing with those metaphors and imagining the possibilities, without necessarily laying down any definite philosophy about it. I like to think that way because it helps me move my brain around to different angles of view that I don't usually take.

I think you may have meant to write "I do not think we're in disagreement here", but I'm not sure. — John

I did; I thought I edited but it looks like I edited it to say the same incorrect thing lol.

I agree that it is possible that the culture as a whole may learn form mistakes, but it's just as possible that what has been learned will be forgotten and the same kind of mistakes repeated again at another time. — John

Yes, I agree; I neglected this point thus far.

I am just not convinced there is any telos to history; — John

I think this is our point of departure :P I don't have a strong argument for a telos (or I haven't taken the required time and thought/writing to articulate it); I just have an intuition about it. Maybe that intuition is wrong; who knows. I recently read through an excerpt of the Upanishads, and I'm working through the Gita right now. Aside from some great positives, I still get left cold by the cyclical cosmos of that philosophy; obviously Moksha is the telos, but I think I'm still too wrapped up in a Christian viewpoint to be able to shake the idea of a Messianic telos of some kind. I'm still working through it. I acknowledge that it could just be my upbringing.

or that we are somehow in a 'higher place' spiritually and creatively speaking than the ancients or the medievals or even the so-called 'primitives'. — John

Well, I don't think that either, per se. It's hard to explain, mainly because I need to do more reading and writing about these ideas; I'm just not educated enough. My problem is I can hold both ideas in my mind at the same time; I do think we've lost something to history; a more immediate experience of the divine; the holy (set apart [the meat offering set apart for the god]), the immanent experience. But I think that for what's lost, something else is gained. self-consciousness is a curse, but also a tool we can use. As is technology. Science. etc. As human thought develops, we lose clarity, but we develop nuance and accuracy. But then we lose accuracy to confusion, and then we need to gain more clarity...

it can go anywhere, end with a whimper instead of a bang, and then come roaring back; it is more like play, than programme. — John

I think I can agree with that.

I kind of get your usage of "apophatic" in this context, but I'm not sure it is really appropriate. For sure learning form a mistake is learning that this is not the way, that "not this"; but the "neti, neti" of Advaita is an all-encomapssing 'not this'. It is 'not anything' in a way similar to the God of apophatic theology. — John

I tend to use ideas as metaphors; I was more trying to refer to the fact that there's a similarity between the ideas. I just like using words in new contexts, which is more the songwriter in me, which tends to get a lot of disdain from the philosopher crowd around these parts... ;)

A return to the spirit which is always there even if obscured. — John

I guess I'm on board with that, but I don't think it's in disagreement with my concept of forward motion that I've mentioned in this discussion. A return to the spirit is the return, but there's a part of the process that always moves forward.

I think this is our point of departure :P I don't have a strong argument for a telos (or I haven't taken the required time and thought/writing to articulate it); I just have an intuition about it. Maybe that intuition is wrong; who knows. I recently read through an excerpt of the Upanishads, and I'm working through the Gita right now. Aside from some great positives, I still get left cold by the cyclical cosmos of that philosophy; obviously Moksha is the telos, but I think I'm still too wrapped up in a Christian viewpoint to be able to shake the idea of a Messianic telos of some kind. I'm still working through it. I acknowledge that it could just be my upbringing. — Noble Dust

Actually I don't think we are that far apart on this. When I say I don't think there is a telos; what I mean is that I don't think even God knows precisely how everything will 'work out' or 'end up', and I'm not too sure about the idea of any absolute culmination or end of history. (Although, it does seem inevitable, however you look at it, even from a purely materialistic perspective that human life as a whole will eventually come to an end.

I don't reject the idea of the 'hand of God' at work in human life, and it could certainly be said that. from our point of view, that is a certain kind of telos. I like to think of it as something beyond our powers of comprehension, because that precludes any kind of simple-minded fundamentalism. I agree with you in rejecting the notion of an infinite amount of time, an infinite series of moments stretching back into the past; I can't make any sense at all out of the Buddhist idea that the world has existed for an infinite duration since beginingless time. I like Plato's: " time is the moving image of eternity". The world is the temporal expression of the timeless; we are not supposed to be able to fully comprehend that using rational thought. If we have always existed it is not in the temporal sense, but in the eternal sense.

As I mentioned earlier, I think art exists within 3 stages: the artist, the middle-man and the audience. All of those elements have to come together for art to exist in the way that we know it on a common basis.

Thinking about it this way, The context in which the work is made. The cultural narratives that are available to the artist become merged in the content of the work of art, even if they are rejected in the work itself. The cultural imperatives drive the artist to work, merge in its content, I think they are part of the basis for artistic inspiration. (the other part being the 'soul' of the work itself, which I mentioned but was not discussed and which I think to some extent exists in medium/the matter of the work and which determines the work). Perhaps what you call "artist" already includes this aspect.

I think the main "seed" of art exists within the artist's experience of what they create, and nowhere else. The husk of art, then, is the rest: the middle-man and the audience. But the artist knows the art best. However, what prevents the artist from being allowed to be an asshole about this, is that the artist is only the vessel through which art comes into the world. I personally think this process is a divine process. The irony, though, is that because it's a divine process is exactly why there's no room for the artist's ego. The art is divine: that means the artist can't take full credit. The artist has to defer to the divine in the exact same way that the art dealer has to defer to the artist (not that they actually do), or, more realistically, in the way that the producer or the band members have to defer to the solo musical artist.

Art that changes us, changes our narratives, that thrust itself at us, opening new ideas and ways of viewing life, that's the art I am concerned about. But I don't think the artist "knows the art best". It takes takes all elements to comprise a work of art: the artist, the middle men/art world, the audience and the context or social values in existence when the work is made.

The inspiration of the artist mitigates against her full understanding of her work, you think inspiration it is a "divine process", where the artist is an instrument of her inspiration. I agree that the artist is an instrument of her inspiration but I believe this is a human process, where her source & drive of inspiration is derived from herself, the art world, the matter (the medium itself), and the audience.