So a spider is conscious and has a mind, I agree, does a bacteria, or a tree as well?

It's not left field, are you familiar with the threads on consciousness?

@Punshhh Could you please point me to other parts of the forum where consciousness is discussed?

This is interesting regarding consciousness as there is a lot of debate. But we are on the verge of artificial intelligence which, even in today's primitive state has emerged a consciousness .Purely out of an algorithm.

It's not left field, are you familiar with the threads on consciousness? — Punshhh

Not really - I don't engage with threads that have 'consciousness' in the title because right at the outset they invariably conflate consciousness with that which is conscious - that is, they conflate states with the things they are states of.

So a spider is conscious and has a mind, I agree, does a bacteria, or a tree as well? — Punshhh

No, I don't think there's any good reason to suppose that a bacteria or a tree has a mind.

I will get back to you tomorrow, as it's a couple of years since I have been involved in such a thread.

Regarding artificial intelligence, I think you are referring to intelligence. Consciousness is not required for intelligence and visa versa.

No, I don't think there's any good reason to suppose that a bacteria or a tree has a mind.

But they are closely related to us, their cells are virtually identical to ours, why would they not be conscious, is it because they don't apparently have a mind? They do create art by the way.

Not really - I don't engage with threads that have 'consciousness' in the title because right at the outset they invariably conflate consciousness with that which is conscious - that is, they conflate states with the things they are states of.

How do you know this conflation happens if you don't involve yourself in such threads? It does become a subject in those threads, but doesn't make them impotent.

They are part of the universal mind, 'spirits' probably use trees.

@Punshhh I found the search function thanks. I have watched bacteria move seemingly meaningfully across a petri dish. They can convey antibiotic resistance amongst each other

But they are closely related to us, their cells are virtually identical to ours, why would they not be conscious, is it because they don't apparently have a mind? — Punshhh

No, it is because they don't have a brain and minds seem to be associated with brains, not mere cells. For example there seems to be precisely one mind - my mind - associated with this body - my body. Yet my body is composed of many, many cells. It has one brain, but lots and lots of cells. And doing things to my brain clearly affects what goes on in my mind. Thus the evidence is fairly overwhelming that minds are associated with brains. Trees and bacteria do not possess these things, and thus it is unreasonable to attribute minds to them.

And they don't produce art, do they?

So a spider is conscious and has a mind, I agree, does a bacteria, or a tree as well? — Punshhh

I don’t think you can say any of these things are conscious of anything. Nor does it help in defining art. If being conscious was all that was required then everyone would be an artist, and some people may be bad artists but many aren’t any sort of artist. But if you’re suggesting every person is an artist then that’s a whole new thing.

But they will be aware that they are members of a culture to which the dug-up item's manufacturer did not belong, and so this should - in the main - operate to prevent them from applying their cultural aesthetic norms to the product they've uncovered. — Bartricks

As I see this what you’re suggesting is that this approach cancels out a bias in what art is and is not, that the archeologist then approaches an artefact without cultural baggage as to what constitutes art. But wouldn’t it also mean the archeologist would have to jettison concepts about repetition, positive and negative space, rhythm, pattern, form, etc. Unless you feel those things are learned, and on that point I’m open at the moment.

This is part of the problem with those who say birds create art when all they’re seeing is the appearance of repetition, pattern, etc.

As I see this what you’re suggesting is that this approach cancels out a bias in what art is and is not — Brett

It would lessen it, but it is not guaranteed to cancel it altogether. The claim is not, then, that if an object passes this test it is necessarily a piece of art, or that if it fails it is it necessarily not. It is just a pretty good test given that whatever it is about the artefact that makes the archaeologist think it is a work of art is going to be some quality that transcends culture, for clearly the archaeologist will assume that the artefact is not an object from their own culture - and thus will resist the temptation simply to speculate on what their own culture would say about it - and they will also not know from what culture it originated. Thus they will see it for what it is, and not for what this or that culture says it is - or at least, they are more likely to. The voice of Reason will be more clearly heard about such matters, now that the cultural noise has been turned off. That doesn't mean it will be perfectly clear what Reason says about the matter, only that it'll be clearer and thus more likely to be correct.

Clearly much 'modern art' would not pass this test. I mean, even an archaeologist who loved modern art would not, if they dug some of it up and assumed they were digging up an object from an ages old unknown culture, classify it as art.

Well, doesn't that tell us something interesting about those pieces? It tells us that they are considered art not on the basis of some detectable timeless quality, but simply because the culture in which the archaeologist happens to live insists that these pieces qualify. And doesn't that then imply that they are not art after all, but objects that - due to cultural indocrination - some are duped into treating 'as if' they are art? I'd say that's the reasonable default, even if it is not guaranteed to be true.

So next time you go to an art exhibition imagine that instead what you are visiting is a museum on objects from an unknown culture in the distant past, and then imagine whether you'd think you're seeing art from a different age, or just a collection of junk from another age. If you'd judge it to be junk from another age, then probably what you're looking at is junk from this age, albeit with the banner 'art exhibition' strung above it.

Thus they will see it for what it is, and not for what this or that culture says it is — Bartricks

I go along with that as a way of approaching art, to a degree, and that it avoids the trap of cultural norms. But if it works and the archeologist resists speculation about what it is, based on cultural norms, what are they using to define it as art? If it’s reason then what is it about reason that’s being applied? How, for example, would the archeologist, forgoing cultural norms, decide if this was art or not?

https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=2ahUKEwiK2eHkj5bnAhWryTgGHVRsDmUQFjACegQIEBAG&url=https%3A%2F%2Fsimple.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FVenus_of_Willendorf&usg=AOvVaw2RlAsFQjayQsoTmgksz64T

Expression of human consciousness? That would be pretty much any human action that is not performed as a result of a mere instinct. Any utterance, even the most trivial like “I want a banana”, is an expression of consciousness and any moderately determined movement like walking from point A to point B expresses that the person is conscious.

My definition of art is “whatever is the result of human creativity”. To create is to make something out of nothing, that is to make an independent and original idea in someone’s mind into a physical expression that can be conveyed to another mind. It cannot be a copy of anything that existed previously, and it cannot be a physical object that is just a combination of other physical objects without an idea behind it.

A house is a work of art when it harks back to an architect’s original idea, otherwise not. An utterance may be a part of a work of art (literature) when it expresses an idea not previously known to have been thought, at least not in that way. “To be or not to be” is art, “I want a banana” is not. If it is an action, the main purpose of it must be an expression of an idea (it must be aesthetical). Walking from A to B is not art, but dancing is.

It cannot be a copy of anything that existed previously, and it cannot be a physical object that is just a combination of other physical objects without an idea behind it. — Congau

Interesting point. Original and consequently unrecognisable as art. What then happens?

They're not 'defining' art.

If you want a definition for art, here's one: art is cheese and cheese is art. There.

That's obviously a false definition, for we recognise that some things are art yet not cheese, and some things are cheese and not art.

We don't have a rival definition in our heads, do we? After all, how would that rival definition show there to be anything wrong with my one?

We already have the concept of art. When we try and 'define' art we are not 'creating' the concept, rather we are trying to capture it.

Big difference.

That's why my definition above should be rejected. Art and cheese are not synonymous. My definition made them so - but so much the worse for my definition.

So, let's be clear about what way around things are. We have the concept of art - a concept given to us by our reason.

We then wonder what it is that qualifies something as art. We have already started recognising some things as art and some things not - so we don't need a definition in order to do this - but we are just wondering if there is something systematic to it.

Hence we speculate about what may qualify one thing as art and another thing not.

But again: we don't need the definition in order to be able to recognise that there is art in the world.

You don't need a definition of a mountain in order to be able to recognise mountains, or a definition of 'you' in order to recognise that you exist. We can try and formulate definitions, but it is a mistake of the first order to think that our definitions are what's in charge.

The archaeologists in my example are less likely to make this mistake.

Other examples of this mistake: thinking that whales are mammals; thinking that peanuts are not nuts; thinking that tomatoes are fruit.

Until a few days ago there was no definition of art.

Duchamp taught us that art can be anything the artist wishes it to be. He illustrated this by presenting a urinal as art.

Nothing else is required of an art object except that an artist deems it to be art.

This has been the state of art for the last hundred years . It is why Pollock could drip paint, and Warhol could stencil prints,and Hurst could cut up cows, and Abramovic could perform, etc, etc it is why I can call a thread in a forum art.

This argument of what is art and what is not is over - its ancient history.

There is no distinction between an arbitrary object and a work of art.

The object becomes distinct when an artist deems it art - that is all, nothing else.

So call yourself an artist and deem that something is art - like magic it is!
Then you get on with what matters - what is good art. and why ?


To put it in the terms discussed - what if the archaeologist dug up Duchamp's urinal ?

To put it in the terms discussed - what if the archaeologist dug up Duchamp's urinal ? — Pop

Well, I expect they'd think it was a urinal and not a work of art. Thus we should take seriously that it is not a work of art.

Artists create art, but that doesn't necessarily make them experts on what it is that makes something art rather than something else (or mean that everything they create is art).

For an analogy: let's say a strange substance starts seeping out of me whenever I think of a strawberry.
I know how to create the strange substance - I can just start thinking of a strawberry and out it seeps. But that doesn't make me an expert on what this curious substance is.

But again: we don't need the definition in order to be able to recognise that there is art in the world. — Bartricks

We can try and formulate definitions, but it is a mistake of the first order to think that our definitions are what's in charge. — Bartricks

So then, man does not produce art, something else does. That’s an interesting perspective.

The object becomes distinct when an artist deems it art - that is all, nothing else. — Pop

Define an artist.

That's not equivalent to what I said. Persons, minds, create art. But we're talking about what it takes for something to qualify.
What I am saying is that 'what it takes' is a matter we investigate - a matter we use our reason to try and discern - rather than a matter that is in our gift.
So you are confusing that which answers to the concept with the concept itself.

That which answers to the concept is 'art' (and we create it). But we did not create the concept.

What I am saying is that what it takes is a matter we investigate - a matter we use our reason to try and discern - — Bartricks

Isn’t that what we’re doing now, aren’t we your archeologist? If we’ve dug up The Venus of Willendorf how are we going to apply our reason, in what way?

And what is the concept?

Do you mean by the concept the idea that we know art exists?

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 - but then that just shows us that it is sometimes unclear whether something is a work or art or not, even once we've cancelled cultural noise.

Don't make the mistake of thinking that the existence of unclear cases means all cases are unclear.

If someone dug up Duchamp's urinal, it would not be classified as art, but as a urinal.

And if someone dug up the Mona Lisa, it would be classified as art.

A small, dumpy, weirdy thing with no feet and no face? Well, probably not art - probably a fertility symbol or some kind of cultural junk. Not entirely clear.

Define an artist.@Brett Somebody who calls themselves an artist. There are no qualifications necessary.

No, I mean the concept of art. A concept is an idea. The 'idea' of art, then.

We have the concept - that is, it is in our intellectual warehouse, as it were - and then we notice that there are things in the world that answer to it.

The concept of a chair is an idea - an idea of a chair. An actual chair is 'that which answers to the concept of a chair'.

Likewise, the concept of art is an idea - the idea of art. Actual art is that which answers to the concept.

The concept of a chair is an idea - an idea of a chair. An actual chair is 'that which answers to the concept of a chair'. — Bartricks

But art doesn’t always answer to the concept of art. That’s the problem. And it’s why we have suspicions about some art we regard as fraud, created by a fraud. How do we prove it’s a fraud?

But art doesn’t always answer to the concept of art. — Brett

Yes it does. It's true by definition. Art is that which answers to the concept of art. It is exactly what that concept is the concept of that is the matter over which disagreement is had. But there cannot coherently be any disagreement over whether art is that which answers to the concept of art, anymore than there can be coherent disagreement over whether a chair is something that answers to the concept of a chair.

Define an artist.@Brett Somebody who calls themselves an artist. There are no qualifications necessary. — Pop

So everyone and everything is an artist. And everything we produce is art. Is that it?

Yes it does. It's true by definition. — Bartricks

You might be getting at something I’m not picking up. But aren’t you just saying art is art?

Art is that which answers to the idea of art.

Yes. That's why it isn't disputable. The idea of art is the idea of art, and art itself is that which answers to the idea.

But although that sounds trivial, what is not trivial is the mistake of confusing the concept of a thing with the thing it is the concept of. So, although we have the concept of art, and art is that which answers to it, art is not a concept.