My bad. When I say consciousness I meant also the subconscious - I believe subconsciousness is a function of biology,and psychopathology, which skews consciousness - not all people do.

The conscious and the subconscious operate differently. The subconscious we’re not really aware of though it can operate on our actions. So an artist painting, dancing, acting, can allow their subconscious mind to influence what’s happening. To me it’s only the subconscious that can contribute originality though spontaneity. It’s due to the skill of the artist that they’re able to make use of that moment in their actions. It’s my belief that not everyone’s open to those spontaneous moments or able to grasp them and transform them.

I'm not sure what you are trying to convey?

I believe the subconscious operates on the conscious - it has an effect on the conscious mind. The result is an imperfect conscious state. Not separate but acting together as the one product.

The resultant product of the mind is unified, but influenced by many things

The subconscious mind is primitive. That’s why I tend to think about art in terms of anthropology, in the study of early cultures and the things they produced, like totems, carvings, rock paintings, dances, etc. There’s no reason to think our subconscious mind has altered that much even if our conscious mind has. Though that idea may be open to criticism.

I'm not sure what you are trying to convey? — Pop

Okay. Well either I’m not being very clear or making sense, or you don’t understand. We’ll have to wait for someone else’s input.

I agree with all that you say, but focus on detail is not the way to understand art.

I've spent many years pondering art from the perspective of aesthetics, beauty, etc but got nowhere.
I couldn't see the Forrest by examining the trees.

It is only since developing a construct of consciousness that I have understood art to my satisfaction.
Art is a simple concept to me now. I can define it in a sentence.

The trick is : you can understand art only through a concept as broad as all that art can be - and that is only consciousness.

I dont mean you personally Brett, I mean generally.

perception by some about the erotic nature of Gauguin’s work. So now it’s about language again. — Brett

Not sure what you mean, it being about language. But it's a pretty obvious perception.

So in some way I feel that we have to look at art as anthropology — Brett

I think anthropology gains much from looking at art, and that artists are helped in their making of art by being good anthropologists. But I don't think art is anthropology.

Not sure what you mean, it being about language. — Artemis

Obviously perception. But it’s language that’s repositioning the work. And it’s a particular language being used in this case.

Maybe I should have said through anthropology.

Language / information -- art is telling us things.

I label it as information because recent developments in theoretical physics reduce everything down to information, but this is not universally agreed upon

Obviously perception. But it’s language that’s repositioning the work. And it’s a particular language being used in this case. — Brett

I think language captures and conveys elements of perception. Sometimes it may influence perception, but it is not the source thereof.

art is telling us things. — Pop

Yes, about who we are, but it’s an action that comes and goes quickly, like watching a dancer on stage. A painting, for instance, is only an artefact, like a film of the dancer, the film is not the dance.

I think language captures and conveys elements of perception. Sometimes it may influence perception, but it is not the source thereof. — Artemis

I’d agree with that.

Art is telling us lots of things - it is free to tell us whatever it wants- whatever can reside in the mind.

But human art will never tell us anything ever about what is out of reach of the mind.

Art has no limits except the limits of our mind.

Our mind can be called consciousness.

I believe
We cant say with certainty what art will be, because it is free to be whatever it wants to be, and in future it will be things we haven't conceived of yet.

But we can say with certainty that art will be information about the artists state of mind - for all of time across all cultures.

Where else can it originate except somebody's mind?

Whatever it tells us will be through the prism of somebodies mind.



So another Definition has occurred to me:

Art is information, through the prism of somebody's mind.

What do you mean by genre? Do you mean it in terms of subject, or technique, or style? — Brett

I mean all of the above. They all have very little to do with artistic creativity. You can have a great technique and still be a lousy artist. Anyone can choose an interesting subject, and a great artist can keep the general style of his predecessors while surpassing them.

There’s nothing good in itself about new art movements. One genre can never be exhausted anyway and if all artists had continued to explore the classical styles and subjects beyond the 19th century, mankind would now have possessed an even greater treasure of classical art. Of course we would have missed many great works from more recently developed genres, but there’s no way to determine what would have been objectively better.

It is my opinion that many modern genres suffer from not having been around long enough to develop a sure foundation of style and content. Many of them never get off an experimental level because artists are afraid of exploring genres they have not invented themselves and hurry on to find new ways of doing art.

Great art is always a breaking of rules, but some rules must be kept so that others can be broken. Within each genre (even within the subject of “Madonna and Child”) there are ample possibilities to break the rules and produce great art.

Just in relation to originality.

Originality does not at all require that a new genre of art is invented every time an artist goes to work. It’s perfectly possible to be creative within a genre that has been explored thousands of times. — Congau

Though you do say that art is “creativity ... to make something out of nothing ... an independent and original idea”.

But if you’re working in a specific genre then by creating something original you’re breaking away from the tenets that define that genre. If you maintain the tenets of that genre then you’re not creating anything original.

great artist can keep the general style of his predecessors while surpassing them.

There’s nothing good in itself about new art movements. One genre can never be exhausted anyway and if all artists had continued to explore the classical styles and subjects beyond the 19th century, mankind would now have possessed an even greater treasure of classical art. — Congau

It’s possible that new art movements contribute to how we look back on art and review our perceptions of it. It’s possible we may have had a greater treasure of classical art if artists had continued to explore classical styles (though a style is a style and you can’t really explore the style without it becoming something else) but would we know any more than we already did. If those artists explored different subjects that may have been worthwhile, but classical art has its classical subjects which it can’t move away from, otherwise it’s not classical art.

It helps to put art in context; it gives a better picture of its real nature. As you so rightly said, the milieu in which art develops or transforms helps us understand the impetus, the intent, the subjects, and the methods of expression of the various art-forms. As you already know, and if memory serves, prehistoric art were about hunting and animals; these were slowly replaced with religious art, and as science and math made their impact, art too became more abstract and geometric. In a way, it seems that art has been keeping pace with major developments in the anthropological landscape, trying as it were, to record them in very compact and aesthetic ways, ways that are the trademark of artists. I'm not aware if all this was done deliberately or unknowingly but I bet no artist in his time was ever fully aware that they were being influenced by the anthropoligical factors then active; they were probably just reacting to such influences and were not in full command of their artistic drive.

I'm not aware if all this was done deliberately or unknowingly but I bet no artist in his time was ever fully aware that they were being influenced by the anthropoligical factors then active; they were probably just reacting to such influences and were not in full command of their artistic drive. — TheMadFool

I tend to go along with you there. I can’t imagine an artist setting out consciously to create a movement. I’m not even sure they can chose the way they paint, or dance, or act. The vast number of artists out there generally work a pre-existing vein, getting very good at it and maybe finding a subject that makes all the difference.

I feel that a lot of art done today is created by what I’d call art directors more than artists, Damien Hearst being an example. Art Directors in the sense that they’re very good at pulling together contemporary symbols, ideas and attitudes, just like Art Directors in advertising pull together contemporary elements and trendy ideas to produce commercials.

Something I’m interested in knowing is whether Australian Aborigines mimicking animals in their dances, and if you’ve seen that you recognise the animal pretty clearly, the physical actions themselves resemble the animal, like they’ve become the animal, whether they believe they’ve become that animal or they’re conscious of only mimicking the animal.

Cezanne is not an Impressionist he’s a Post Impressionist, as is Gauguin.

As is Van Gogh.

So they have been put in boxes, good for the archivists I suppose.

So humanity is constrained by consciousness. How odd then that that is what art has always looked at - for all of cultures, and for all of time?

All this analysing of art is a recent development which has sprung out of academia and the interplay of artists striving to find something intangible and critics striving for some kind of explanation of the intangible. It's true it can help someone educate themselves in "the arts" and become cultured and it can be used as a guide on a journey of understanding and appreciation.

But it is not art, art is the result of a physical process, except perhaps conceptual art. This physical process is undergone by a physical body, true the mind and the consciousness is present and plays a role in the controlling the hand, or foot. Some artists are engaged in an endeavour to remove the mind from the process, or even the consciousness, in its various states. And for the artist often these things and issues are more important than what kind of art it is judged to be, if it is art, if it is good art, what box it goes into, or commentary on the mind of the artist by others.

Punshhh my understanding of consciousness is very basic. There are people in this forum who's insights are far far deeper. It may be that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and that is why I posted here to test this definition. But I suspect it will be just a matter of time before everybody sees things as I do. But maybe not maybe your right.

On that note I must bow out.
This is the first time I have participated in an online discussion,and I now realize my etiquette is poor.I type with two fingers so left out the I believe and in my opinion in order to keep pace with posts. If I have offended anyone I sincerely apologize. It was not my intention.

Everybody is entitled to their own opinion. And mine is just one of many.

443 replies - wow

I enjoyed your posts very much and your humility. In my own humility I am also on a journey through art, which is the joy of it. Please don't think that I disagree with anything you have said, or want to change your position, you should cherish it as I do and all artists, with a few exceptions, would.

Just remember that with all the intellectualising which critics and historians do, they are only trying to explain something intangible and difficult to intellectualise. The art itself stands alone and can be seen and known by everyone who has an interest.

I feel that a lot of art done today is created by what I’d call art directors more than artists, Damien Hearst being an example. Art Directors in the sense that they’re very good at pulling together contemporary symbols, ideas and attitudes, just like Art Directors in advertising pull together contemporary elements and trendy ideas to produce commercials. — Brett

I think what distinguishes commercial art is that it’s done for purposes other than self expression, like advertising and branding, or producing art for the primary purpose of making money.

I think what distinguishes commercial art is that it’s done for purposes other than self expression, like advertising and branding, or producing art for the primary purpose of making money.

In recent times art has become appropriated by and merged with other forms of media and capitalised on by communications and media giants* seeking to control what the masses are exposed to for commercial gain. More recently with the polarisation of communities and countries by populism, media and politics are co opted and exploited in an identity culture. I fully expect the arts to follow suit. Perhaps this is already happening in the rapid developments in animated entertainment and interactive gaming. Digital images.

Perhaps we should be asking what will art be, where will it go, will it even be called art?

*For example the way in which Saatchi and Saatchi both backed and promoted Brit Art in the 90's. By inflating the status of those artists to the global stage, they re-established Britain as an important player in the art world. They were advertising and communication giants using a small group of art students to give the Saatchi organisation and brand a gold plated message of prestige. I was there at the time and saw the art as soulless. Myself as a viewer in the Sensations galleries as being manipulated. We have art superstars like Anish kapoor producing soulless works on a gigantic scale to impress.

Meanwhile while all this is going on in the mainstream, thousands of artists like me work in more traditional ways, in the shadows, ignored by the mainstream and widely considered by the establishment as not producing Art, but some sort of antequated craft producing twee pictures for twee people to hang on their walls.

What is art becoming?

I think what distinguishes commercial art is that it’s done for purposes other than self expression, like advertising and branding, or producing art for the primary purpose of making money. — praxis

The objective of making money might be the only thing that distinguishes commercial art from “art”. The act of creating commercials and print ads comes from the same process of the mind that self expression comes from. Some commercials are very creative in the little vignettes of life they create. It’s true that they steal techniques and mimic other art forms left right and centre but it seems to me they’re still working from within the same conditions as artists do. Except that there’s a very specific objective writers and art directors are working towards, which in some ways presents a greater challenge. And in fact the commercial must work according to the brief they received and it will be judged successful on the measurable return the client received.

Personally I don’t like advertising. But should it be regarded as the lesser of the two because of its objectives. If it’s money’s that separates it from “art” then should a big price on a painting remove it from the field?

We have art superstars like Anish kapoor producing soulless works on a gigantic scale to impress. — Punshhh

Meanwhile while all this is going on in the mainstream, thousands of artists like me work in more traditional ways, in the shadows, ignored by the mainstream and widely considered by the establishment as not producing Art, — Punshhh

What exactly are we expecting from art? Anish Kapoor produces his big pieces, or should I say directs the construction of his big pieces, that are really about spectacle and interaction on a larger than life scale. What should we expect from him?

You seem to feel that he has nothing to do with art, that art is what you and others do, and that groups like communication and media giants should stay away. Because of what? Is their influence any different than the Pope over Michelangelo?

What is it exactly that we expect from art?

I have started another thread on this topic.

What exactly are we expecting from art? Anish Kapoor produces his big pieces, or should I say directs the construction of his big pieces, that are really about spectacle and interaction on a larger than life scale. What should we expect from him?

I don't know the answers to these questions and perhaps it's not for me to answer, as I feel I am fading into art as it was in the past.

You seem to feel that he has nothing to do with art, that art is what you and others do, and that groups like communication and media giants should stay away. Because of what? Is their influence any different than the Pope over Michelangelo?

Not that, its rather a sense of sadness that it has come to this. Not that artists like me are fading into souvenir producers, or something like that. You know, like those Red Indian shows that tourists are taken to to give them a taste of what America was like before the white man. But rather what has happened to the art establishment.

What is it exactly that we expect from art?

Perhaps we should rescue it from the clutches of exploitation, an exploitation which devalues art aesthetically.

I will continue this in the new thread.