You've never had an aesthetic experience?

You've never had an aesthetic experience? — praxis

Maybe I have? I'm just not familiar with terminology.

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

:up: Very well put.

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

Isn't that just a variation of the old - 'Does a falling tree make a sound if no one is there to hear it?'

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

I would have thought that all art effects people's minds when they consider it. There has to be something for the mind to reconstruct.

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

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

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

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

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

To see something aesthetically.

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

But the idea is that to perceive at all is inherently aesthetic. to put this pencil to use or operate a forklift is aesthetic in that the applied skills are motivated, interesting, valuable, and so on. Speech itself is all of this, so when I speak, I confirm an idea and this is not exclusively a cognitive matter. It is real, a meaningful, the taking up of something that was learned, and in the learning, a thing of value. Dewey held that as we live and breathe, we experience the world aesthetically, AS art, if you will.

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

I do qualifiedly follow Dewey: To find the essence of art, one must examine experience. But since experience is an entangled affair, not given to us in parts, but as a whole, with cognition and affect, we analytically dismiss the arational parts, and miss that to do logic or math is to care about doing his, to be engaged fully interested.

All you are saying is fairly interesting but what does it bring us in real terms? So we have yet more theory about art - a subject that virtually hemorrhages theory. What do we do with it?

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

Yes, to perceive is inherently experiential, so emotional - has feeling and quality. This begs the question how are aesthetics relevant to art exclusively? The answer is that they are not. This would be a confusion of what art is about. Art is about mind meeting mind, but in this process information of various kinds can be entangled into the form of the artwork, including aesthetic information, but this is just one of the many different forms of information that can be entangled in art. Revolution can also be entangled into it. Really, it is as flexible as any form of communication.

Artist's generally speak of the style of their work as a language.

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

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

And then what? What does this insight provide us with?

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

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

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

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

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

But doesn't this also describe any experience humans have, art being just one of an endless possibility? It doesn't help us understand art in any way as you could use this lens to view even a basic conversation between people.

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

Yes, it is no different really. The only difference is that the artist is not there. What is there is something that represents him / her - entangled into the form of an evolving idiomatic ungrounded variable mental construct called art.

When you create art you are giving me information about your consciousness, and subconsciousness. You tell me how you understand art by showing me what you use it for. You give me an insight into your intelligence, your intent, your sympathies, your talent, your demographic, your politics, your spiritual beliefs, etc, etc. A whole bunch of information which I have to interpret with my consciousness, just like a conversation on TPF.

**You could say art is symbolic of the self that created it, but really it is symbolic of self organization - which is much the same thing.

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

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

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

Maybe there's some degree of meeting.

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

Yes. I don't think there's really one all-purpose definition of art.

The value in debating it is that it leads me to think through my ideas about it, with something to contrast my ideas with, and someone to bounce ideas off of. :grin:

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

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

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

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

I wanted to respond to this since praxis' post was in response to mine. I remember in an earlier thread about art, I waxed rhapsodic about the passion I feel for writing technical specifications for earthwork construction projects. I don't know if you've ever read any Tech Specs, as we call them. They are the driest, pared down, compact descriptions of the work to be performed you can imagine. And they are very important. A bad set of specs leads not only to an improperly constructed project, but also to claims and lawsuits. A good set, in the hands of our intrepid engineer, provides a legally enforceable guide to what is expected from the contractor. I love them. I love writing them. I love going out into the field and discovering the mistakes I made.

Not to overstate things, but my mind and all my creativity go into writing Tech Specs and preparing Drawings for these projects. Don't you think that all Einstein's intellect, imagination, and creativity went into his 1905 relativity paper? Darwin? There you go. Me, Einstein, and Darwin in the same paragraph.

I have written poetry. It's something I enjoy once in a very long while. Writing poems is not the same thing as writing Tech Specs. It feels like it comes from a different place in me. Civil engineering, in general, is not art. I guess not craft either...I don't think physics or evolutionary biology are either art or craft. I guess my conclusion is that what makes art art is not creativity or imagination. It's something else.

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

Yes, it is not at all clear cut, but roughly it provides such information, imo. Art symbolizes a certain attitude, or mindset, or understanding, and If I agree with the understanding symbolized then it is something that I would consider hanging on my wall. Likewise Rap symbolizes a certain cultural view, but it is not one I can warm to, so I do not listen to it.

I think your definition is false. If you mean people by "a consciousness, than the people have ideas and emotions, thoughts and pain, suffering and humor, orsay a religious experience. The can express these. You can translate them in information and consciousnesses experiencing them but what does this add? It only sattisfies your own will or wanting to integrate all of it. But integrating is the opposite of differentiating. Like you define it, art becomes empty and meaningless. Just some vague idea about information, self-organising structures, and "consciencenesses" (why don't you say "people"?) is introduced. I'm sorry to say but your definition is inhuman.

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

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

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

What do you mean by symbolizing a cultural view? Rapping against authority on cool music? And hot words, in the case of true rap. On flowing rhyme.

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

I think art is confused and often meaningless in its current state, and was recently well symbolized by a banana nailed to a wall. Whether you like the definition or not, it is what is always present in art, so is the only way to define art. Art can be defined, but only to this extent, and not to everybody's satisfaction.

Elementary particles are present in ALL art too...

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

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

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

But now we know what that means?

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

:roll: How?

I don't wanna destroy your dream... :lol:

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

But now we know what that means? — Pop

We've never not known. :wink:

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

That is obviously not true, and Dewey doesn’t hold to this. I spent a few minutes reading about Dewey this morning and he appears to claim that there’s always the potential for aesthetic experience. It is plain silly to say that we always experience the world this way.

I can’t tell if you’re having language trouble, or understanding Dewey trouble, or just goofing.