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

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

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

I've always said you have a big head.

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

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

Nah, an AI would recognize that my definition is logically watertight, so would accept and learn from it.
A human consciousness however, is bound by all sorts of complicated psychology, so will not easily accept the definition, rather it will express this psychology in it's attempt to negate the definition, despite lacking a logical basis.

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

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

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

You have answered your own question, but don't seem to realize it. I have answered you repeatedly and exhaustively.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

** Art can be many wonderful things, and it constantly evolves into new things. This emergent process can not be predicted, any more than the future can be predicted, so can not be defined. Art can only be defined by the process that gives rise to it. Hence art is an expression of human consciousness, art work is information about the artist's consciousness, but human consciousness grows and grows - art reflects this. It reflects this historically and will reflect this into the future.

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

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

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

Is that your argument for why Pop is wrong? That he can't know you're conscious? Just curious.

I would rephrase that to say that Pop can know my opinions and such, but Pop can never know my consciousness because to know it Pop would have to experience it somehow. Pop would have to know what it feels like for me to be conscious. Maybe it's not so different than Pop consciousness, or Frank consciousness. Maybe it's very different. Does anyone really know?

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

One possible response to that would be that the same is true of your aquaintance with the world in general. Is it what you think it is? Couldn't it be very different? And of course it could be.

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

Pop is a consciousness realist in much the same way. The reason we might readily accept realism wrt the world, but be shy about accepting consciousness on the same basis is related to the intellectual fashion of our time, but just in terms of logic, Pop's ideas are about as well founded as any other kind of realism.

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

Even if you were an Ai, you would still be expressing a consciousness, but this time the consciousness of your programmer, until such a time as AI becomes conscious itself.

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

There is a theoretical basis for my assertions, so if you were not conscious panpsychism would fall down - so you had better be conscious. :lol:

I can only know my own consciousness, and I know that I can only express my consciousness - there is nothing I can do other than express my own consciousness. So I can know this is also the case for you, although I can not know your consciousness - other then through its expression. It is not necessary for me to know your consciousness in it's entirety, since through expression you provide me with glimpses of it.

If you are arguing epistemic solipsism, then I would disagree. My understanding is founded in systems theory, and solipsism is BS from this perspective.

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

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

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

Perhaps the programmer also lacks consciousness.

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

This is entirely meaningless as it stands. If you have to tell a long tale for it to convey anything meaningful then tell your long tale.

:snicker: But we both know that you have no story to offer.

There is a theoretical basis for my assertions — Pop

We’re on page 14, if there were a theoretical basis for you assertions I suspect that we would have heard a peep of it by now.

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

Nonsense, although you are definitely having trouble expressing this alleged theory you mention.

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

You said yourself that “I can not know your consciousness.”

If it turned out that I am an AI without consciousness, which is certainly a possibility, according to your beliefs it wouldn’t matter because ‘anything expressed is consciousness’. A plant bending towards the sun is expressing its consciousness, right? But no, you agree that an AI can lack consciousness.

I don’t provide you with glimpses of consciousness. I show signs of consciousness and if you want to call that expressing consciousness it is only expressing indications that I may be conscious. I express thoughts, beliefs, feelings, opinions, etc.

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

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

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

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

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

I don't buy any of this. The question of art lies with one question: is there anything that is both the essence of art, what makes art, art, and absolute? The reason art theory becomes so diffuse is because this question is considered a lost cause, and foundational talk "nonsense" (Wittgenstein encouraged the damage here).
But I claim art has this foundation: there is an intuitive absolute foundation to art, and that divergence in theory has entirely to do with the intellect's will to diversity. Hegel said that the object stands before the modern mind as an historical fixity with its own negation built into it, and this power of negation has no limit. In other words, anything and everything can be negated, thus, in the effort to affirm, there is instant denial. This, incidentally is also Derrida, or close. Putting aside the whole of Hegel's thought (pls!), he is right about this. Propositions are inherently defeatable. The only recourse in art (I say, though Hegel is over my shoulder) it to look for what is NOT propositional. Art has this, I say. It is called the aesthetic. And the historical movement away from this is simply word play. After all, words all carry their own begation.
Fascinating argument in this, but only if you're interested.

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

It reminded me of the Rocky Mountains, which I associate with wildness like in The Revenant.

The mailbox is a resident of quiet neighborhoods. My neighbor's son ran over my mailbox. None of them ever told me, but I noticed the son's car parked down the street with a dent that fit my mailbox.

This was last year when we got so much rain my front yard was completely mud. So I just pushed the mailbox back upright and now the clay earth has hardened around it and it's ready to destroy somebody else's car.

Mailbox upright in a lake.

The heroic images of you struggling to push up your rundown letterbox in the mud and rain is mildly amusing, so thanks for that. It is also strangely symbolic, but symbolic of what I cannot say. :chin:

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

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

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

You probably just need to get more sleep. Or get laid. Both contribute to well-being.

Interesting, perhaps your mentioning sex is your subconsciousness trying to express the meaning of the symbolism. You did say that the earth is “hardening” and your erect mailbox is ready to destroy somebody else’s “car” in the neighborhood. It sounds an awful lot like you’re the one in desperate need of a leg over, or at least that’s what your subconsciousness is expressing.

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

Freud would advise that you see some relationship between sex and destruction, or death. That's why you haven't pursued this zesty enterprise as you could have: you see sex as the death of your creative potential which you want to preserve for your artistic shenanigans.

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

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

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

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

To paraphrase the immutable words of Sigmund Freud, sometimes a letterbox is just a letterbox.

And holding the note…

The TPF education-in-a-paragraph. — tim wood

We can’t think for ourselves?

When art is undefined it fragments — Pop

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

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

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

We can’t think for ourselves? — praxis

If you have to ask, maybe better you did not. Do you have a problem with education or being educated?

I couldn't care less about what the powerful or the knowledgeable consider good art because I can think for myself and I'm not a mindless herd animal.

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

Why, RussellA, you surprise me. That IS the question. It is the issue of "presence" or the metaphysics of presence, which issues from the assumption that any given moment of experience can never be this immediate apprehension: affirmations of the world are inherently expressions of underlying complexity, "adumbrations" of what was past that, on apprehension of an object, or anything at all (eidetic or otherwise), gather to produce identity and knowledge. This general line of thought is Heidegger's contra Husserl, claiming the latter was "walking on water". This is picked up by Derrida, who coined "the metaphysics of presence". The solution lies with Kierkegaard's Concept of Anxiety. Kierkegaard saw that temporality subsumed the past-into-future dynamic. The real solution is this: past and future can only be In the eternal present, in and of and throughout, the unrealized present; unrealized because, and this becomes a major theme is the existentialism to come, in our everydayness we are naturally disposed ignore the present AS present, and we live in an inherited body of culture which fixates and dazzles our engagements.

Fascinating, really. I am reading Hegel now and everywhere I see Kierkegaard, and everywhere in Kierkegaard I see Sartre, Heidegger, and so on. But this doesn't advance my point.

The real issue lies in meta-aesthetics/ethics: what is the Good? Wittgenstein thought the Good was divinity, and I think this problematically right. Witt was very fond of Kierkegaard. My entrance into this issue begins with the concrete: that spear in my side and the pain it produces: this is not an interpretative construction of language, even though language brings its disclosure to "light". This pain/joy dimension of our existence is the existential essence of aesthetics. Dewey didn't talk like this, but he was right: the Real is an originary whole, cognitive, aesthetic, sensory, intuitive, that is in essence pragmatic. The understanding is pragmatic, I claim, which is why the aesthetic cannot be spoken (and Wittgenstein does not speak of it. Though, Witt was no pragmatist). It is a "presence" which is simply there.

Interesting how this works out. If you follow Heidegger, no foundation can exist, for hermenuetics resists such a thing (though he is attacked on this very idea). We take up the world "as" the interpretative meaning (and Derrida later saying these meanings are self referential in their Saussurian differences). I admit this is right, not to put too fine a point on it, but in aesthetics and ethics, there is value. Value is non cognitive; of course, as with all things, cognition "takes up" present pain or joy and the recognition of it in thought depends on this (accepting that we are agencies of thought) . The difference here is that these aesthic/ethical modes, if you will, "speak". They have a nature beyond what can be spoken, yet they speak undeniably, intuitively of what they are. This is a very different affair from say, some qualia, like Moore's color yellow.

Of course, these thoughts are a work in progress. Any contribution you can make would be appreciated.

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

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

Just to add: Rorty thought things could be reconciled pragmatically. I look at him like this: there are no absolutes for, in good old Hegelian fashion, all utterances contain their own contradiction, and for Rorty, this world is "made, not discovered" and the contradictions are essentially pragmatic. But it is in pragmatics that things get settled. Art may be an open concept, utterly, but it is grounded in the pragmatic authority of our times, our zeitgeist, if you will. Peirce has a "long run" view that Rorty had to dismiss, but I think Rorty believes that in the play of thought, irony, that is, some things comes out ahead of others in concepts like a successful society, a well structured social environment.
There was this essay by Simon Critchley which called him on this. Sound like Rorty wants to have his cake and eat it. too: Pragmatism holds NO favorites, and cares nothing for a well governed world.

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

:vomit:

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

:100: :100:

It's hard to grasp/explain how the bootstrapped can be absolute, but you come admirably close (imho) without recourse to thousands of words in arcane argument (aka philosoph-whatever).

but in aesthetics and ethics, there is value. — Constance

Would you agree with me that's some is?! Seeming implied, but for being implied, as well being!

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

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

You're forced to alter what I say to make a point. :roll: I value knowledgeable people in general but when it comes to art I can tell if I like something, and no authority on earth can know what may offer an aesthetic experience, though they may know general principles. I'm the best authority on my own sensibilities. Any of us can recognize that we may lack sufficient knowledge of an art form to more fully appreciate it. Does an authority telling you that something has greater value than you think it does make you value it more? I imagine that it does.

but when it comes to art I can tell if I like something, — praxis

Yes. You know what you like - that was apparent and no one questions it. But as with tools, do you buy the better tool for the job or the one you like? And does not education and knowledge inform that decision?

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

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

This is a poor analogy because, in art, liking (aesthetic experience) is the job.

And does not education and knowledge inform that decision? — tim wood

I don't think that aesthetic experience is something that you consciously decide to have or not have. Education and knowledge contribute to shaping our own experiences, of course.

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

I don't know what you mean.

in art, liking (aesthetic experience) is the job — praxis

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

Liking helps. It may even be the price of admission. But it's not the thing itself.