An understanding of what art provides. — Pop

This is interesting. Art provides something? How is this related to what we were saying?

So far I thought the point was that I have personal taste (such as it is). You asked where this comes from. I said this was elusive and suggested a few options. You then added that they are elements of consciousness and self-organization, which sounds like an unnecessarily sententious way of describing personal taste.

You write the following:

When it comes to deciding on a work of art ( painting ) it is consciousness that decides on the canvas. It is consciousness that decides on image.It is consciousness that decides composition. It is consciousness that decides on colour.It is consciousness that decides how to mix the colours and whether the hues are correct. It is consciousness that decides which brush you use and how you place the paint on the canvas. It is consciousness that decides how well you are going. . It is consciousness that decides when the painting is finished. And it is consciousness that decides if it is a success or not. — Pop

This seems to me to be an example of romantic, selective exaggeration. I would swap 'consciousness' with personal choice or taste (and resources) - how much money you have for materials may determine what is possible. Art is often derivative and/or influenced by and borrowed/stolen from others and lacking in invention and vitality - it is consciously contrived rather than the expression of (noble) consciousness as you are seem to be suggesting.

Do we need to work so hard at mystifying a very primitive impulse to make things and decorate stuff?

@Pop My mistake? I thought you stated you wanted to 'publish' something. Either you editted that out or I'm confusing this with something else?

If you are wishing to publish this in some manner then this isn't really up to scratch regardless of the audience you're aiming at. If you want critique in that area I can give it. For philosophy forum anything goes really.

Either way have fun with it :)

If I make a hyperreal painting of a vase with two bright flowers, three grass green leaves, one bud, black background and surreal lightning the what makes it different from a photograph?

I think those are just words. Not sure they really connect to anything except as a figure of speech. You could also say, and with no greater meaning, that my tastes are elements of my psychological essence - of my personal identity. What does this contribute? — Tom Storm

Exactly! An art showing our relation to Nature and the gods (no relation at all, I hope, but the simple fact of acknowledging their being and presence), how can information interpret this? Or dissipative systems? Or entropy evolving on a rotating Earth, between heat and cold, day and night? The daytime breaths out. The nighttime inhales. How do you, @Pop, interpret Aboriginal art or the Hopi art? I like your paintings and understand them. But they reflect your view. It can't embrace all art. Well, it can, but then you destroy it.

So, @Pop, art is basically a window to the artist's mind. I've heard people say the same thing though not exactly in the same words as yours, nor do I recall anyone making this particular aspect of art the cornerstone of the subject, definitionally speaking. The way everyone seems to have treated this facet of art as trivial, unimportant, accidental suggests that even non-art fits this description.

It's possible that what you're really saying is anything to do with the human mind is art; after all, everything we think/speak/do provides a glimpse of our consciousness. If so, what's unrelated to consciousness is not art. How do you explain the warm, fuzzy feelings one gets when watching a sunset, the sky ablaze yellow, red, orange? A sunset isn't a human artefact ergo, not linked to consciousness at all and yet we're moved by it as much as we would be looking at the Mona Lisa.

It's possible that what you're really saying is anything to do with the human mind is art; after all, everything we think/speak/do provides a glimpse of our consciousness. If so, what's unrelated to consciousness is not art. How do you explain the warm, fuzzy feelings one gets when watching a sunset, the sky ablaze yellow, red, orange? A sunset isn't a human artefact ergo, not linked to consciousness at all and yet we're moved by it as much as we would be looking at the Mona Lisa. — TheMadFool

I have to say that once in a while you say sensible things! :ok:

I have to say that once in a while you say sensible things! :ok: — VerdammtNochMal

I wasn't fishing for compliments but thanks.

I wasn't fishing for compliments. — TheMadFool

I know. But still! Great words! Truly. Ohoh, another compliment... :smile:

I get to know you better each day. By words only!

Art is an expression of human consciousness — Pop

Does creativity originate in the brain, mind or consciousness.

There is some kind of relationship between the brain, mind and consciousness. There is the question of where creativity originates: the brain, mind or consciousness.

Consciousness cannot exist independently of a brain/mind, whereas a brain/mind can function independently of consciousness. IE, the brain/mind can be creative independently of consciousness. Art is one example of brain/mind creativity.

I agree that there is the question of whether my brain/mind would be creative, such as in creating art, without the driving force of consciousness. But even so, even if consciousness is the driving force, creativity still originates in the brain/mind.

After randomly imagining several marks of varying colours, sizes and shapes, I choose to paint that mark which is, for me, the most aesthetically pleasing. I am only conscious of whether a mark is aesthetically pleasing after having imagined it. IE, I am conscious of my brain/mind's creativity, not that my consciousness is creative.

The expression "art is the expression of human consciousness" seems to infer that art is a creation of consciousness, rather than, as I see it, consciousness being a "passenger" on the brain/mind's creativity.

IE, rather than say "art is an expression of human consciousness", one could perhaps say that "art is the conscious expression of the creativity of the brain/mind"

There is some kind of relationship between the brain, mind and consciousness. — RussellA

The brain is the place where the mind, consciousness, emerge. The brain is a usefool tool. Matter only for outside observers. But with soyl content for the one interacting with it. Creativity and art and ideas origin there.

I know. But still! Great words! Truly. Ohoh, another compliment... :smile:

I get to know you better each day. By words only! — VerdammtNochMal

:ok: If that's what floats your boat, by all means, be my guest.

:ok: If that's what floats your boat, by all means, be my guest. — TheMadFool

My boat is word filled
Playful and light
My hunger stilled
With words of joy and fright

Pop My mistake? I thought you stated you wanted to 'publish' something. — I like sushi

Initially I did want to publish it, but then I changed my mind.

It is a scientific, irreducible, and falsifiable definition of art, something Wittgenstein gave up on, thinking it impossible. But the main thing it has going for it is that it is a work of art. It is a work of art defining and challenging art. It is conceptual art in the vein of Duchamp's urinal - by far my best work so far, so I would not be interested in changing it in any way.

Either way have fun with it :) — I like sushi

Am having a ball with it, thank you. :smile:

This is interesting. Art provides something? — Tom Storm

Yes, art provides information about an artist's consciousness - we came full circle by way of questioning, since, it seems, you did not really understand what was meant by this.

This seems to me to be an example of romantic, selective exaggeration — Tom Storm

There is nothing romantic about this, just your misinterpretation. I am making the point, If everything is an expression of consciousness how can art not be? Making the point that expressing ones consciousness is an unavoidable fact.

Exactly! An art showing our relation to Nature and the gods (no relation at all, I hope, but the simple fact of acknowledging their being and presence), how can information interpret this? Or dissipative systems? Or entropy evolving on a rotating Earth, between heat and cold, day and night? The daytime breaths out. The nighttime inhales. How do you, Pop, interpret Aboriginal art or the Hopi art? I like your paintings and understand them. But they reflect your view.It can't embrace all art. Well, it can, but then you destroy it. — VerdammtNochMal

At least you acknowledge this much. An artwork is information about the artist's evolving process of self organization. We dont know what self organization is, but it is this that ultimately all art expresses, regardless of time or culture. And we have spoken about this variously. What is being created is forms - endlessly variable, and open ended forms.

Does creativity originate in the brain, mind or consciousness. — RussellA

I have defined consciousness as an evolving process of self organization, but I do not know what is the source of self organization in the universe, however I do know that it is this that art is expressing.

It's possible that what you're really saying is anything to do with the human mind is art; after all, everything we think/speak/do provides a glimpse of our consciousness. If so, what's unrelated to consciousness is not art. How do you explain the warm, fuzzy feelings one gets when watching a sunset, the sky ablaze yellow, red, orange? A sunset isn't a human artefact ergo, not linked to consciousness at all and yet we're moved by it as much as we would be looking at the Mona Lisa. — TheMadFool

I have defined art in such a way as it could be defined. In irreducible terms, and at the same time defined the limits of art. I don't think my definition is something new to many practicing artists. What is new is that it has been done - in no uncertain terms! It is a conceptual artwork itself - literally, and intentionally.

Art can be far more then what I have defined it as. It can be awesome and inspiring, but it need not be anything much at all. I am highlighting that it is the consciousness of the artist that is special, not art per se. But I am not being judgmental in this. A simple consciousness will be appealing to simple people, so the success of art can not be judged from any particular perspective.

I am however, saying that being beautiful or ugly are optional elements of art. The elements I have identified are constants in art - all forms of it, for any culture and time. These are the elements present in every work of art. These are the elements Wit could not find, and so he gave up on a definition of art. Saying there were no constituent elements that make something art, so it is indistinguishable from anything else. But it is distinguishable by the consciousness of the artist!! Consciousness is unique in every instance, and it is information about this that art provides.

If everything is an expression of consciousness how can art not be? — Pop

You still haven't explained why this point matters. Essentially you are saying that anything done by humans is consciousness at work. If everything is consciousness, then art is no different to spitting on the floor. It's not a criterion of value, it's a criterion of everything and by implication, nothing.

Please read my reply to Madfool, RusselA, Netzolief above.

I am highlighting that it is the consciousness of the artist that is special, not art per se — Pop

Sorry this just sounds confused. Again, what does it add to any understanding of art? You might as well say it is the talent of the artist that is special, not art per se. I don't see how idea the of consciousness provides anything useful. People have always tried to reduce art to single dimension - will, being, talent, personality, genius - your idea of 'consciousness' is just another one (perhaps an umbrella term of all of these) that doesn't really help us.

Art is always a reflection of who an artist is and what choices they make. Even when they are faking it...

Well you can not say I haven't tried. :smile:

I can't and I bear you no ill will. Just don't see your point. I am very interested in what people say about art. Even critics. :fire: Seems to me art and religion spawn the most elaborate theories and reactions.

:up: No ill will in philosophy, just endless debate! :smile:

↪Pop I can't and I bear you no ill will. Just don't see your point. I am very interested in what people say about art. Even critics. :fire: Seems to me art and religion spawn the most elaborate theories and reactions. — Tom Storm

This is the central difficulty of all art discourse; essentially we are talking about different things. We vaguely agree on a central concept, but we experience it differently When we understand how the notion of art is related to personality and consciousness, we can predict that two very different personalities, or cultures, must as a result of this difference, construct different conceptions of art. So the resultant discourse about art is immediately disagreeable, and if any progress is to be made, an agreement about art must first be made. We have all experienced this, and it is illustrated in the difference in the art of native cultures, subcultures, the art of the mainstream, and the elite. — Pop

One last try, and I am done.

Art is information about the artist's evolving process of self organization.

Philosophy can be defined in exactly the same way.

Philosophy is information about the philosopher's evolving process of self organization.

These are the constant elements in art and philosophy, everything else is optional - endlessly variable and open ended.

Art is information about the artist's evolving process of self organization.

Philosophy is information about the philosopher's evolving process of self organization.

These are the constant elements in art and philosophy, everything else is optional - endlessly variable and open ended. — Pop

Sorry, still doesn't work for me. There's nothing in the use of the word information or self-organization that informs the idea of art or philosophy. Again, you could equally say that 'all is information about the evolving process of personality' (which seems just as blandly true to me).

But the issue for me is, so what? What are you saying this concept provides you?

I also think there are additional problems in comparing philosophy with art. Can you compare say Rembrandt's The Night Watch with Kant's Critique of Pure Reason? They provide quite different experiences and share no common properties. To say they are both the product of the creator's evolving process of self-organization is kind of meaningless since it provides no insight into the creative process. Seems to me you're just renaming creativity as a process which it already is...

Maybe we can come to some other aspect at a later point. Take care.

Art is information about the artist's evolving process of self organization.

Philosophy can be defined in exactly the same way.

Philosophy is information about the philosopher's evolving process of self organization.

These are the constant elements in art and philosophy, everything else is optional - endlessly variable and open ended. — Pop

Artists and philosophers don't organize themselves the same way. Thus, art and philosophy, using your logic, are different.

Artists and philosophers don't organize themselves the same way. Thus, art and philosophy, using your logic, are different. — Noble Dust

Are you serious? :chin:

Yes.

All I'm saying is this: There are many aspects of nature, where consciousness is not involved, that instill the same emotions as when viewing a human art piece. That seems to undermine your definition of art as all to do with the mind unless, of course, you also believe in god, the creator whose handiwork the universe is.

Also, in your attempt to find an essence, a leit-motif, to art, could you have immeserated rather than enriched the subject? Sometimes, it's better to not know than know.

↪Pop All I'm saying is this: There are many aspects of nature, where consciousness is not involved, that instill the same emotions as when viewing a human art piece — TheMadFool

How is this relevant to a definition of art? Can you produce an art work that is not captured by my definition?

How is this relevant to a definition of art? Can you produce an art work that is not captured by my definition? — Pop

1. Your definition is fantastic. It so happens that art as a window to the artist's mind isn't a new idea at all - many people have already made a mention of it in their writings - but what is novel, pleasantly surprising in my humble opinion, is for someone (you) to take this rather old intuition about art and turn it into something much more interesting - the very meaning of art itself. It's as if you want to tell all the art experts out there that the meaning/essence of art was there right under their noses and they couldn't see it. Kudos to you.

2. However, could there be a good reason why the experts didn't consider your definition as good enough to encompass all that art is? As I said, your notion of what art is - information on the mind of artists - is old news in the art world.