↪Brett
If your position is that it can’t be understood, then that’s fine, but it means you have nothing to offer.

I have by definition offered something relevant, or meaningful to the discussion, — Punshhh

Sorry, I didn’t mean you personally. I was a bit casual about wording my post.

Edit: what I meant was that if someone’s perception of art is from a mystical point of view then there’s nowhere to go after that, because it can’t be proved or disproved.

Surely a tree is conscious of its environment in some way, because it reacts is subtle and sophisticated ways to its environment as a responsive living organism, indeed in ways which are very artistic. I have a slice across the trunk of a tree highly polished hanging on my wall, in my opinion, it is equally as artistic as the Picasso on the wall next to it. — Punshhh

However, this is just too much to go along with. If everything is art then there is no art.

Edit: and the discussion has to be about more than opinion, don’t you think?

Regarding “The Venus of Willendorf”.

↪Brett What is it considered to be?

Some kind of a fertility symbol, yes? Not a work of art.

Perhaps it is a work of art - perhaps there's a degree of ambiguity over what to classify it as - — Bartricks

Does this mean that there is no “art” to be retrieved from that era and that the appearance of “art” only appeared at a particular time in human history and hasn’t always been there.

From memory I read that the idea of an “artist” is a relatively new idea. And how do we separate art from pieces like “The Venus”?

“In fact, talking of artists in pre-Renaissance times is an anachronism,” says Rieber. The figure of the artist as we understand it today—that of the creative genius—emerged during the Renaissance, which gave rise to so many masterpieces of painting and sculpture. Yet this was limited to a handful of famous names. In 1571, a few artists from Florence became independent of the guilds and started working in academies, which had hitherto been reserved for the liberal arts.
The Renaissance thus heralded the emergence of classical artists, who were “liberal professionals, carrying out their work within an academic context. It was not until the nineteenth century that the figure of the romantic artist, driven by vocation and deep inspiration, began to appear,” explains Nathalie Heinich, a sociologist specialised in artistic professions and cultural practices at the CRAL.5 (https://news.cnrs.fr/articles/who-was-the-first-artist).

This question came up in Quora, and there were as many different answers as there were respondents. 'what is art' should be defined in all discussions of art, but never really is.

I understand art as an expression of human consciousness, and art work as information about the artists consciousness. Art as an expression of human consciousness is broad enough to capture all art ever made - cave paintings to present.

I wonder what others think of this definition? Can you find fault with it?
Any input would be appreciated. Thanks — Pop

Who knows what art is? Some, I think most, say the most despicable thing a person can do is murder and yet, if current trends are any indication of our "artistic" tastes, the Joker 2019 was a box office hit which goes to show that art is something that seems to transcend morality, and if that then loving art must be the act of appreciating beauty and beauty alone, isolated and unhindered by anything at all.

Reminds me of the autonomist view on art which holds that art must be freed of moral restraints which I find is a scary proposal but yet, people, contrary to my expectations, do seem to disregard everything when face to face with beauty - they seem to literally beg for union with that which is beautiful and all matters from pragmatic considerations to goodness divine become hindrances to be disregarded with utmost urgency and determination.

Bottomline, art is about beauty. What is beauty? I haven't the faintest idea. People see the invention of writing as a giant leap for mankind and then there's calligraphy. There's another great landmark in human history, the spoken word and then there are songs. There's the defining feature of man, logic, and then there's rhetoric. It seems for every x we can say of humans there's an (x + beauty) that's art. As you can see, from the examples, beauty seems almost superfluous and even an obstacle to efficiency as art takes a fully functional human artifact (language, logic, etc.) and beautifies it - the additional aesthetic elements reducing overall efficiency. Why do we engage in what seems to be a self-defeating enterprise? Perhaps there's something in beauty that makes it a worthwhile goal.

It might help to notice that beauty evokes a pleasurable sensation and though our biology is attuned to seeking and appreciating pleasure, nature herself seems rather reluctant to give us pleasurable experiences. Yes, we do see beauty in nature but nature also has a dark side which she's quick to reveal to the unfortunate and the foolish which in my reckoning includes the majority. In other words, unforgiving nature forces us to create our own pleasurable experiences and that's why we have this proclivity for art; it's us trying to please ourselves by imbuing our creations with beauty, in a way, outdoing mother nature herself.

Sorry, I didn’t mean you personally. I was a bit casual about wording my post.

No worries, my response came out more as a rebuttal than was intended.

Edit: what I meant was that if someone’s perception of art is from a mystical point of view then there’s nowhere to go after that, because it can’t be proved or disproved.

You will only find me raising mystical viewpoints when I am specifically discussing metaphysics. It does'nt apply here.

However, this is just too much to go along with. If everything is art then there is no art.

You are free to find this to much to go along with, I am further along the spectrum than this, the end where far more can be considered for artistic merit. My opinion on this is that organisms by their nature can perform actions equating to the actions of intelligent artists, like the Bower bird, or a spider spinning a web.

Edit: and the discussion has to be about more than opinion, don’t you think?

I don't think it can be answered in a definitive way other than by reference to the idea that it is a phenomena of humans activity emergent from human culture. But this is a vague definition and doesn't answer many questions about art.

When I was a student I went to great lengths to find out and understand the meaning of art. I came away with little more than that it came down to personal opinion and preference. I then followed the path of exploring my own journey in art, which included becoming one myself.

I would point out, as I did in my first post on this thread that the art movements of modernism, post modernism and post post modernism, exploded the theory of art and what art is

Bottomline, art is about beauty. What is beauty? I haven't the faintest idea. — TheMadFool

I think the term "aesthetically engaging" is more useful for defining art. There is art that is meant to engage many, even contradictory aesthetic impulses. Like that one with a Jesus statue on a cross in a jar of urine. Or Nabokov's novel Lolita.

You are free to find this to much to go along with, I am further along the spectrum than this, the end where far more can be considered for artistic merit. — Punshhh

I'm open to other intelligent beings creating art and kinds of proto-art. But we should be clear that being "artistic" as in, having art-like qualities, is different from, though overlapping category with "art."

I'm open to other intelligent beings creating art and kinds of proto-art. But we should be clear that being "artistic" as in, having art-like qualities, is different from, though overlapping category with "art."

Yes, perhaps these are two categories which can be considered when defining art. I have often thought of the artistry in a spider's web. Or the lack of artistry in many pieces produced in the Brit Art movement.

Movements like Brit Art were pushing the boundaries of art, but in an art world in which in theory, anything was art provided an artist said it was Art. I put artist in italics because in that world 'artist' meant a person who had gone to certain colleges and been adopted by certain patrons.

So anything could be art, but only certain people could be artists.

I think the term "aesthetically engaging" is more useful for defining art. There is art that is meant to engage many, even contradictory aesthetic impulses. Like that one with a Jesus statue on a cross in a jar of urine. Or Nabokov's novel Lolita. — Artemis

Well, that's what I was unknowingly getting at - beauty as transcendent to everything else. Yet I can't help wondering, moral goodness is utlimately about the highest pleasure and hence moral goodness is perfect beauty itself. To then say moral goodness is like shackles, holding artists back from revealing beauty in its most magnificent form, is to make a grave mistake - like a person who seeks warmth but turns away from the sun, into the shadows.

You’re still taking about beauty rather than aesthetics. I believe Artemis tried to point out that aesthetics can transcend beauty, or rather, our conventional sense of it.

Is that a statement or question? — Brett

So, if I had thought,"I'm going to do art" the first time and did exactly the same procedure, that first image would have been art? This is a tad more complicated than putting a brush to canvas. In my case the "brush" has a "mind" of its own. — jgill


Right. It's like the difference between accidentally pressing the button on your camera (complicated machine!) and choosing to do so. The camera may be doing much of the "work" (i.e., showing a "mind" of its own), but you're the primary mover.

We have to make that distinction or else you have no way to distinguish art from bird's nests and sunflowers and sunsets. — Artemis

This was part of the conversation about intention being necessary when creating art.

So, from this perspective, how are we to know if the famous bust of Nefertiti is really a work of art? We can't simply gaze at it in admiration, thinking, "What a lovely work of art." What were the intentions of the unknown sculpturer?

I don't agree with this idea.

of art, but in an art world in which in theory, anything was art provided an artist said it was Art. — Punshhh

Well, my only slight alteration would be that the artist can't just point and call something art. S/he has to engage in some act of creation.

To then say moral goodness is like shackles, holding artists back from revealing beauty in its most magnificent form, is to make a grave mistake - like a person who seeks warmth but turns away from the sun, into the shadows. — TheMadFool

Yes, I agree with that. Lolita is a great example of how beauty and morality don't go hand in hand all the time. Some people have unfairly criticized the novel for valorizing immorality, but because they don't understand the difference for art. Nabokov even said that the whole point was to capture aesthetic engagement and moral revulsion at the same time.

So, from this perspective, how are we to know if the famous bust of Nefertiti is really a work of art? — jgill

I think something like the Nefertiti statue is more obvious than others. Sure, we can only infer intentions, but it seems like a case we can be fairly confident about intentionality. Although one could come up with other theories about its creation, none I can think of are as probable.

It's entirely possible that we may at times misapply the term art, or that we may not always know if something is art. I don't think that's a good counterargument to the definition itself. Like there is nothing apparently wrong with the definition of a cat just because some people might think foxes are kinds of cats.

It helps when we do away with the need to "know with 100% certainty" and accept the fallibalistic realist position that "fairly confident" is the maximum anyone can be about most things in this world.

This is a tangent, but I see the demands for certainty over and over on this forum and elsewhere... I think it probably comes from a really naive understanding and application of science, where we think the answer has to be known with certainty to be true. But most of the time, even,in science (!) we're working with a theory which is just "to the best of our knowledge/understanding," and which is better or more plausible than any other theory.

All this is just to say, I think once you try to demand absolute certainty, you're asking the wrong questions.

Artemis tried to point out that aesthetics can transcend beauty, or rather, our conventional sense of it. — praxis

Yes. Aesthetics includes other things, even repulsion or disgust.

Another example: Jazz artists use tension and release in the form of dissonance (not pretty) and harmony (pretty) in their music all the time to create amazing aesthetic dynamics.

Does this mean that there is no “art” to be retrieved from that era and that the appearance of “art” only appeared at a particular time in human history and hasn’t always been there. — Brett

I don't see how that follows from what I said. It just implies that that particular artefact is probably not a work of art (and something produced today that resembles it, is therefore probably not a work of art either as were it to be dug up in a few thousand years it too would be classified as some kind of totem rather than a work of art).

of art, but in an art world in which in theory, anything was art provided an artist said it was Art.
— Punshhh

Well, my only slight alteration would be that the artist can't just point and call something art. S/he has to engage in some act of creation. — Artemis

Just pointing can make an otherwise ordinary object art. That sounds pretty creative to me. Anything can be viewed aesthetically.

Just pointing can make an otherwise ordinary object art. That sounds pretty creative to me. Anything can be viewed aesthetically. — praxis

Anything can be viewed aesthetically, true. But not all that is aesthetic is art. The object or performance or whatever in question must in some way be changed by the artist in order to move it from the category of "aesthetic object" to "art object." It's not "creative" in the basic sense of the world to merely notice.

I think, again, the bar doesn't need to be raised very high. Photography is not much more than pointing and capturing the vision of a scene. The creative choices come in with how the artist chooses to frame the scene, what lighting, angle, perspective, etc. Of course, then the scene is still not the art object--the picture of the scene is.

Art doesn't need an artist - it needs balance.

An artist is an expert.

I didn't attribute minds to trees and bacteria. I said they may be conscious and that they produce art. — Punshhh

Conscious states are 'states' of a thing. That thing is, by definition, 'a mind' ('a mind' being just 'that which bears conscious states'). So if you think a tree has conscious states, then you think that the tree either is, or possesses, a mind. To deny this is akin to denying that never-married Tim is a bachelor (I didn't say he was a bachelor, I just said he was a never married man!).

The reason I asked you these questions about animals and plants was to determine what you mean by the word mind. — Punshhh

I hope it is now clear. I am using the term in its conventional sense to denote an object that bears conscious states - that is, something that can be in a state of consciousness.

If you think there can exist conscious states that are not the states of any object, then I would like to sell you the shape of my house (not my house - just its shape).

if you accept that conscious states are the states of a thing, then you now know how to use the word 'mind' correctly. It refers to that object.

The object or performance or whatever in question must in some way be changed by the artist in order to move it from the category of "aesthetic object" to "art object." — Artemis

An artist, or anyone, can frame anything as art and essentially invite others to view it aesthetically, and thereby change it from an ordinary object to an "aesthetic object," if they are successful. I believe there is great value in viewing the world aesthetically.

Ok, if that's the definition you're using it makes more sense.

So the definition of a mind, is that which hosts a conscious state. This confirms what I was suggesting, that you appear to be calling mind consciousness and consciousness mind. Are you saying a mind has consciousness by definition. And consciousness only occurs in minds by definition?

Just a few more questions to clarify, is a bacteria conscious? Does a mind require neurons? What do you call the self aware consciousness found in a human?

Yes I view the whole word aesthetically. It is rather like a realisation I had years ago, I have a very broad sense of humour, in fact I reached a point where everything became funny, at that moment I started laughing, it wasn't quite uncontrollable, but I did have to control it, or I would have got cramp in my cheek muscles. An equivalent thing happened with seeing everything as art.

Well, my only slight alteration would be that the artist can't just point and call something art. S/he has to engage in some act of creation.

Surely the act of saying something is art is the alteration.

I am not disagreeing with you, I am largely in agreement, there is only a nuance of difference, I think.

So the definition of a mind, is that which hosts a conscious state. — Punshhh

That's a misleading way to put it. It doesn't 'host' conscious states (for that implies they could exist elsewhere - they just happen to be attending a mind). No, it 'bears' conscious states.

An analogy: water can be gas, liquid, or solid. Those are 'states' of water. We would not say that water 'hosts' its solidity. No, 'solid' is a state that water can be in - sometimes water is solid.

Consciousness is a state - a state of mind. So, 'a mind' is the object - the thing - that is sometimes in the state of consciousness.

Am I saying that minds are always conscious? No. That may be the case (Descartes thought it was). But it does not follow from anything I said.

If something is conscious - which means the same as 'in a state of consciousness' - then it is a mind. But something can be a mind and not be conscious.
Consciousness is therefore sufficient to make something a mind, but not necessary (though again, some - Descartes - disagree and think that minds are essentially conscious and thus can no more be lacking in consciousness than a material object can be lacking in extension).

ust a few more questions to clarify, is a bacteria conscious? — Punshhh

You have already asked me that - no, I don't see any good evidence that bacteria are conscious.

Minds - the objects that bear consciousness - are associated with brains. Bacteria do not have brains. So it would not be reasonable to believe they have minds. They 'could' have minds, but we have no reason to suppose they do and so believing that they do would be akin to me believing you've murdered 10 people (you 'could' have done so - there's nothing metaphysically impossible about it - but brute possibilities are not good evidence).

Does a mind require neurons? — Punshhh

No.

What do you call the self aware consciousness found in a human? — Punshhh

Self-consciousness.

Note, it is not a 'thing'. It is a 'state of a thing'.

Consciousness is a state, not an object.

If your heart attacked your consciousness might be pulled from your mind.

Your mind only receives consciousness, but it's trasmission is the heartbeat.

Our consciousness experience is largely down to biology.

Temporal nervous arteries, on each side of the head, provide calm necessary for some thoughts; perhaps thought consistency would be less if our temperament were restricted.

You are free to find this to much to go along with, I am further along the spectrum than this, the end where far more can be considered for artistic merit. My opinion on this is that organisms by their nature can perform actions equating to the actions of intelligent artists, like the Bower bird, or a spider spinning a web. — Punshhh

I think you are confusing ”the elements of art” (line, rhythm, repetition, etc.) with art itself. and organisms performing “actions equating to the actions of intelligent artists” is your subjective view. It still doesn’t rest on any definition of art except what you say art is. And it was my impression that we were trying to move beyond that. So how does this idea of organism producing art contribute to a definition? If you’re going to suggest that the universe produces art, all organisms, all life, then you might as well say the universe produces art, which is no answer that’s any good to us, except to say we’re moved by a greater force than ourselves. So we are not artists then, because it’s not the act of a free will.

This was part of the conversation about intention being necessary when creating art.

So, from this perspective, how are we to know if the famous bust of Nefertiti is really a work of art? We can't simply gaze at it in admiration, thinking, "What a lovely work of art." What were the intentions of the unknown sculpturer?

I don't agree with this idea. — jgill

I don’t think the Nefertiti bust is a work of art in the sense we see it. But I do think there’s a lineage that connects it. I think we went from these anima, created by craftsmen, to work created by what we call “artists’ today. I don’t believe artwork contains anima like it did, just that the craftsmen/artist position changed with culture and has a connection.

This is why I don’t completely agree with Bartrick saying art transcends time and culture. I think it has to be looked at in terms of its time and culture otherwise we can never make sense of it.

I think art should always be defined with respect to the artist. So you won't be surprised to see many definitions of art circulating around. I think one of the feature l have found amongst all art is the bare naked presence of the artist. Great art often comes from people with great emotional sensitivity and depth.When they want to reveal whatever they hide inside of themselves to the world, they need to use art. But great artists are also intelligent people and they can judge the quality of their work quite well and they know how to keep a good balance between the universality and intimate quality of their work.That's why great art can also be seen as separating the artist and the feeling/ideas inside an artist. This causes great distress on the soul and the constant urge for creativity requires constant struggle. I wonder if that's the cause for a lot of great artists suffering from some form of mental illness as it usually depicted in a romantic sense.

I don’t think the Nefertiti bust is a work of art in the sense we see it — Brett

I don't think the creator's intention was to create art. The bust was probably created primarily to please the monarchy with a flattering image. This is assuming it is not a fake.

I perceive it as art. :cool:

I don't see how that follows from what I said. It just implies that that particular artefact is probably not a work of art (and something produced today that resembles it, is therefore probably not a work of art either as were it to be dug up in a few thousand years it too would be classified as some kind of totem rather than a work of art). — Bartricks

I trying to determine why the artefact is not a work if art.

From what you say you believe that these artefacts from the past, these totems, have no relationship to art, and, possibly, that there was no art then. But you do believe that if someone dug up the Mona Lisa they would recognise it as art. If someone dug up the Mona Lisa 20, 000 years from now would they say it was art or just dismiss it as a totem?