I agree with this sentiment.I think I've gotten to the point where I don't think art can be defined or fully described philosophically.
art is supposed to transcend culture - transcend the time and place in which it was created, and speak to the ages. Therefore knowledge of the culture in which it was created should not be essential to recognising it as a work of art (if it was, then it would not be speaking to the ages, and thus would not be art). — Bartricks
I agree with your thoughts about Consciousness, but I would extend the definition of consciousness beyond the sensibilities of mind. For example, as Colosseum said, animals are artists, but they don't have conscious minds like humans. Fish, clear a patch of gravel, for a female to like it, or the bower bird creating a beautiful bower for his female, who has a critical eye. — Punshhh
Why are they artists?
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.