By "muck" are you talking about personal baggage, etc? I would say that certainly has to play an integral role, and it doesn't have to be the stereotype of a super introspective, personal, almost private expression. It's easier said than done, but personal issues are reflected universally as well; so reflecting them in the work can be a universal expression. If that's not what you meant, then let me know. — Noble Dust

Not necessarily personal baggage, though that can be part of it, or it. I think I just mean whatever seems to be in the way of a pure aesthetic experience. There's probably a neat conceptual paradox that's something like : the universal experience is always the failure to reach the universal. Or something like that. ick. But it's too late and I gotta go to sleep!

obscuring theory dialogue I've accumulated — csalisbury

I think I just mean whatever seems to be in the way of a pure aesthetic experience. — csalisbury

So more like theory over direct experience/creativity? Are you talking about the creative process as an artist, or as the experience as an audience member?

I think I just mean whatever seems to be in the way of a pure aesthetic experience.
— csalisbury

So more like theory over direct experience/creativity?
- Noble Dust

I think what he means is that, for example, if you are a philosopher, or a writer of theory, you end up with a whole lot of internal dialogues going round in your head, or positions, opinions, arguments. So when you want to get creative you have to muscle your way past them to find a quiet place in which to explore a creative process.

For a painter, for example, this not usually an issue, as your mind might be quite clear. But it comes from different places in the subconscious instead. For me it is easy to become immersed in a creative process with a pallet knife and some paint, but somewhere along the process, something happens subconsciously which distracts me, leads me down a creative dead end, I get hung up on a technical difficulty in something I wanted to follow, I find myself trying to copy something I saw another artist doing. So I have to stop, contemplate all these things, identify them, use them in a constructive way, or throw them out. Sometimes they are persistent like ear worms.

You might find that in order to simply be creative you have to resolve to just go with it whatever happens, ignore anything which comes into your head. Decide not to want anyone to see it, who might have a critical eye.

These were the vision and creation of God, about God’s world on earth. All art reflected God’s vision. Morality existed in beauty, beauty was a set of aesthetics, morality was aesthetics, God set down morals for man to live by. Art had to be created in that sense because it could be nothing else, it could have no purpose.

I see this as a supportive structure, a matrix in which people could dwell and all their psychological and intellectual needs were met and they could be creative within the expression and confines of that world. If and when they were praised they would be elevated higher up the structure in an orchestrated way, adhering the the highest principles set down by the gods.

It was a totally free act and it was all man’s. Now he could create whatever he could imagine. This is a primitive act, driven by primitive impulses.

But without the supportive structure, what will fill that void, the arts institutions? Without it the arts will fragment and vernacularise.

Mysticism is part of it in the fact that it’s a primitive action. But I would not call it mysticism. I think that confuses things, as if art has a higher purpose

Yes it's not mysticism, as that is a precise discipline in the communion between the self and god/s. But "a higher purpose" whether there is actually a higher purpose, or not, is something which must be allowed within art. As Noble Dust says, if spirituality in art is not respected, it implies that where an artist allows some kind of spirituality in art, they are wrong, mistaken, or harking back to a rejected paradigm.

For example,for a science fiction writer, no one would say they weren't allowed to include any kind of spirituality in their work, because it is fiction, not doctrine. It is the same for all art, surely.

But "a higher purpose" whether there is actually a higher purpose, or not, is something which must be allowed within art. — Punshhh

What exactly is it you mean by “a higher purpose”?

As Noble Dust says, if spirituality in art is not respected, it implies that where an artist allows some kind of spirituality in art, they are wrong, mistaken, or harking back to a rejected paradigm. — Punshhh

I don’t understand this.

What exactly is it you mean by “a higher purpose”?

Well I think it boils down to the idea that humanity's purpose in life is to become a follower in the divine plan via the Christ. A situation where there is a divine art, of which human art is a pale derivative.

If you know where you're going, though, you can just punch it into the gps, and get the route sketched out. — csalisbury

Yes, the world of the imitator, the fake, the thief.

Well I think it boils down to the idea that humanity's purpose in life is to become a follower in the divine plan via the Christ. A situation where there is a divine art, of which human art is a pale derivative. — Punshhh

And what does this make the artist?

I don’t understand this.

I think my wording was a bit clumsy there. I think my analogy of the science fiction writer illustrates it,

"For example,for a science fiction writer, no one would say they weren't allowed to include any kind of spirituality in their work, because it is fiction, not doctrine. It is the same for all art, surely."

Art is fiction, so any kind of spirituality, or mysticism depicted is only fictional and so not the artist saying this is reality, or the truth of existence. It's no more than a decorative aspect of the work. If the viewer interprets this as some kind of divine message, that is their choice and not a sufficient reason for censure.

And what does this make the artist?

If one is of the opinion or conviction there there is a divine art up there, then the artist is attempting to depict this through some kind of artistic vision.

Alternatively if one is of the opinion or conviction that there is no divine art up there, then the artist is simply including some spiritual, or divine content in their art, which they have been inspired to do from something they have seen in the human world, in which religious motifs can be found.

As Noble Dust says, if spirituality in art is not respected, it implies that where an artist allows some kind of spirituality in art, they are wrong, mistaken, or harking back to a rejected paradigm.
— Punshhh

So did you mean if spirituality is not respected by the artist.?

Right. I'm more experienced in art than philosophy myself, and I find that there's two truths to the creative process. One is that disciplined, steady work ultimately brings the best results; practicing the craft, "forcing" oneself to sit down and work, is important. I find that, at worst, when I do this, I can last maybe two hours, and at least have something down, even if not exciting. But, eventually (days or months later), along comes an idea, and I can work for 5-7 hours straight. Those instances are more rare, but they consistently yield the best work. But paradoxically, the second truth to the process, is that sometimes, even when I'm not disciplined and not working much, something from the unconscious/spirit/creative brain will still bubble over, and I'll write something good. Usually my stamina is lower, so I can't work as long, but it's the same creative urge. So, that process of the creative emanation exists in and of itself, but it's best served when you are disciplined in the work.

Alternatively if one is of the opinion or conviction that there is no divine art up there, then the artist is simply including some spiritual, or divine content in their art, which they have been inspired to do from something they have seen in the human world, in which religious motifs can be found. — Punshhh

Your post seems to suggest that artists are trying to include some sort of spiritual aspect to their work, regardless of what they believe. That all work contains the divine, or fake divine.

So did you mean if spirituality is not respected by the artist.

No, the viewer, or the critic. Although the artist is a viewer and their own critic during the process as well.

Well I think it boils down to the idea that humanity's purpose in life is to become a follower in the divine plan via the Christ. A situation where there is a divine art, of which human art is a pale derivative. — Punshhh

To be clear, this isn't what I'm saying by "higher purpose". I don't have any answers as to what the higher purpose is, I just am of the conviction that there is one, and that the history of art, as it coincides with history at large, demonstrates this.

Your post seems to suggest that artists are trying to include some sort of spiritual aspect to their work, regardless of what they believe. That all work contains the divine.

No, I'm saying that the artist is free to choose a spiritual motif, as with any motif. And if an artist chooses a spiritual motif, that is not necessarily evidence that they are religious, or of the opinion that there is a divine art up there. They might just like the religious imagery.

To be clear, this isn't what I'm saying by "higher purpose". I don't have any answers as to what the higher purpose is, I just am of the conviction that there is one, and that the history of art, as it coincides with history at large, demonstrates this.

I am the same, although I reserve judgement on whether the history of art implicitly demonstrates this.

I practice mysticism and the core consideration is that the divine, or higher purpose is entirely unknowable to a human and any interpretation of it( including whether it exists or not) is a human fiction( fiction in a sense that any human interpretation of reality is inaccurate and an expression of the ideas that human, or humanity has)

I see art as a human creation and if it contains a spiritual dimension that is fine, because it is a fiction, whether there is a divine world, or not. If there is a divine world then we will never know how it would be different from a world where there isn't a divine world. Likewise, if there isn't a divine world we will never know how it would be different from a world where there is a divine world.

So there isn't at any point a kind of art, which incorporates anything spiritual, which isn't valid, or is false, or is in any way deluded.

Usually my stamina is lower, so I can't work as long, but it's the same creative urge. So, that process of the creative emanation exists in and of itself, but it's best served when you are disciplined in the work

I feel as an artist that I am reaching, an artist reaches for that next work which takes him/her further along the road to improvement. I am reaching now for my next work, to decide what subject will act as a good subject for me to achieve this step forward, for three weeks I have been struggling. If I didn't want to reach like this, there would be a myriad of subjects I could start right now. But that would not be the progress I want. I am ruminating, there is a subject I keep hovering around, but it will require a lot of dedication to pull it off and it might not work. It's a bit like spinning plates on poles.

I think what seems like a period of incubation, in terms of art movements, is perhaps an art movement of individualization, as opposed to a group of artists purposely exploring someone else's ideas.

I think what seems like a period of incubation, in terms of art movements, is perhaps an art movement of individualization, as opposed to a group of artists purposely exploring someone else's ideas.

Does this mean we have millions of mini art movements? And who decides which artists, or art work, will be elevated to the national, or world stage?

Well, there isn't any current new art movements.
If I am wrong, please tell me which it is/are.
If I am right, perhaps what needs to change is not the artists, but the expectations of the nation, or world stage. Perhaps artists are sick of being controlled by those who are not artists but have the money to say what is currently art.

I was suggesting that each artist is a single person art movement. This might be what an art movement of individualism looks like.

I asked who would decide which of these artists are to be elevated to a world stage? I suggest who that turns out to be dictates what the public thinks, because the public does not see the art of the others who have not been elevated, especially if they are not involved in a movement.

Perhaps artists are sick of being controlled by those who are not artists but have the money to say what is currently art.

I'd agree with that, it's not just the money, but also the institutions.

(4). It's probably the case that art has always been torn between these two impulses, commercial and aesthetic. Maybe not always commodification, per se - but certainly producing art for social purposes has been there for a long time, probably since the beginning.

There is the phenomena that the artist strives to develop a skill, a style, something which appeals to a number of people, or what is praised by a number of people, at the beginning of their career, or sometimes their whole career, while in obscurity. With the money and commodification starting later on, perhaps after the artist has finished working.

Perhaps this aspiring artist is looking to do something that people like, or they might disregard such considerations completely. An example of this is Edward Degas, he sculpted maquettes of ballet dancers solely for the purpose of helping him to paint 3D figures. He did not intend them to be viewed by the public. Now following his death they are now greatly admired by the public. For me these sculptures are some of the finest sculpture of the human body ever produced.

So if art happens with the artist, there are some works free of commercialisation, although this might be a rarity. The public do seem to have a particular interest in these pieces which were not meant to be viewed.

The problem, and why it's so easily dismissed, is there's not really a formal or logical argument to make in favor of the connection between spirituality and art. It's experiential, and not theoretical. And maybe that means the concept really doesn't have a place on the forum, but then the question arises of the whole meta-concept of a "philosophy of art". Can it only be done theoretically? If so, does that meta-concept preclude the very possibility of art having a higher purpose? If so, who's wrong: the theoretical philosopher of art, or the artist making the assertion of art's higher purpose? Again, the problem is that, when you begin theoretically, there's not even a question of the artist being wrong; he is. But that doesn't mean he's in fact wrong. If we're going to do philosophy about art, we have to use art's tools: the intuition, the imagination, the connection to the spiritual. Otherwise it's meaningless, or at best, severely handicapped.

I wholeheartedly agree, this is perhaps a danger with a philosophy of art, or the role of the critic. Often the public, or collectors will follow a particular preference regardless of what commentators on art say.
I think it is important for these commentators to pay attention to the whole experience of an artist who they comment on, and if they are philosophising, or offering a critique they should attempt to convey the philosophy of that artist, or at least not ingnore or devalue it. Or a critique should respect the intention and technique of the artist.

Now that art has, at least in theory, become all encompassing, what can a critic say now? Surely anything they say which isn't praising the work is to diminish it. Likewise, what is the point of a philosophy of art, again it limits art, although it can do the job of cataloging, or creating archives.

Now, at least in theory, the artist is king. The trouble with this is, what does the artist do now? Vernacularise perhaps, what does the art world do, split into a cult of indivualism? Who is it who chooses which artist, or which art work is good and therefore worthy of being elevated to a global exposure? Without the structured art world which was provided by the religious inheritance and the institutions which developed from it. What system, or institution is going to moderate the art scene.

Does it still all depend on patronage?

If so and an artist wishes to attain recognition, or to earn a living from their work again they are beholden to the patrons and who moderates the patrons?

This being the case art is not free, is not all encompassing, unless the artists intention is to ignore what anyone else might think.

@Noble Dust

I think what he means is that, for example, if you are a philosopher, or a writer of theory, you end up with a whole lot of internal dialogues going round in your head, or positions, opinions, arguments. So when you want to get creative you have to muscle your way past them to find a quiet place in which to explore a creative process.

For a painter, for example, this not usually an issue, as your mind might be quite clear. But it comes from different places in the subconscious instead. For me it is easy to become immersed in a creative process with a pallet knife and some paint, but somewhere along the process, something happens subconsciously which distracts me, leads me down a creative dead end, I get hung up on a technical difficulty in something I wanted to follow, I find myself trying to copy something I saw another artist doing. So I have to stop, contemplate all these things, identify them, use them in a constructive way, or throw them out. Sometimes they are persistent like ear worms.

You might find that in order to simply be creative you have to resolve to just go with it whatever happens, ignore anything which comes into your head. Decide not to want anyone to see it, who might have a critical eye. — Punshhh

Yes, perfectly put, that's what I was trying to get at.

For me (drawing/poetry/short stories) I'm wildly blocked up creatively, and I'm lucky if I can go a minute without getting distracted, and trapped in thought. Sometimes, it's theory/philosophy stuff which pulls me out of it; more often, I imagine this person or that person and I either criticize myself through their eyes, or, in this weird mechanical way, I start to try to mold whatever I'm doing to something I think they (or my mental construct of who they are) would approve of. It's pretty hard to shake.

So more like theory over direct experience/creativity? Are you talking about the creative process as an artist, or as the experience as an audience member? — Noble Dust

Both. I really think there's a point at which those two things converge. Now it's rare for me to experience either immersion in the work of others, or creative immersion (I'm certainly not a natural artist, or aesthete), but if I look back at the few times I have been immersed, in either, they seem similar. My experience has been that when you're really in the flow, creatively, it's like you're following something that's directing you, and uncovering things. When you're really immersed experiencing another's art, it's like you're following whatever they're following, and also seeing something uncovered.

I certainly don't disagree. The distinction I'd make is being active (creation) vs. passive (experiencing as an audience member).

Edit: but I think I would make that enough of a distinction to say that the "flow" isn't exactly the same.

For me (drawing/poetry/short stories) I'm wildly blocked up creatively, and I'm lucky if I can go a minute without getting distracted, and trapped in thought. Sometimes, it's theory/philosophy stuff which pulls me out of it; more often, I imagine this person or that person and I either criticize myself through their eyes, or, in this weird mechanical way, I start to try to mold whatever I'm doing to something I think they (or my mental construct of who they are) would approve of. It's pretty hard to shake.

I think all creative people have their cross to bare, because the creative process requires one to develop inventive patterns of thought beyond what is normal in human psychology. This includes contemplation, focussing on undefinable, or ambiguous concepts. In some this extends to brainstorming, forcing, straining the mind to push forward. I am doing this at the moment and have been having intense dreams where I am struggling mentally to achieve something. Last night In my dream I was sitting with a pencil and paper straining my mind to breaking point to come to a design which cracked some Gordian knot, it felt like trying to square the circle. Unusually it was productive and I woke up with a concept which was rather like twisting a slinky spring in on itself like an Escher drawing. And a vision for how I can use it to finish off a painting which went wrong a couple of months ago.

You might not be surprised that I would advise a little gentle meditation training, and or mindfulness. I found these very beneficial in the past, I think I ought to do a bit more at the moment as I am getting distracted to easily.

There's probably a neat conceptual paradox that's something like : the universal experience is always the failure to reach the universal. — csalisbury

Immediately reminded me of having sex. If you've had sex, you haven't just had sex, you've also lost your virginity.