Art is an umbrella term,a flexible word for expressions that are beautiful,funny or entertaining. Inspiring racous passionate!

It's obviously subjective ( as are all things!) But there is a lot of intersubjective agreement. ( for honest people! )

To say art is information without recourse to talking about feelings and aesthetics is the height of anti artistry!

The OP is boring,banal,non artistic,the definitional opposite of art! And far worse than duchamps urinal!

Art is an overwhelming expression of desire and ideology!

Anti art AKA shit art is science most politics and most philosophical discourse!!! Banal wannabe scribbling!

Finally,for the real artists in this thread (!!!) there are two types of art. "Cruel art" and FUN Art.
Cruel art is the bible,nietzsche,Greek tragedy.
Fun Art is Karl Krauss,all great comics,all great Satirists all Love Poets.

Scientists,philosophers,linguists,political administrators,academics,keep your dirty definitional hands off art! You know shit about art!!!
Your expressions and definitions are the excrement of your Soul!!! Passionless piss!

The scientist,the politician,the scribbler,the academic,the philosopher,ALL
Failed artists! Trying to take their revenge,the jealous schmucks!

Please! Don't start also! I mean, Pop is a nice guy (girl?) but one pop is more than enough... :grin: — Thunderballs

You missed the point.
read on.

Art is an umbrella term,a flexible word for expressions that are beautiful,funny or entertaining. Inspiring racous passionate!

It's obviously subjective ( as are all things!) But there is a lot of intersubjective agreement. ( for honest people! )

To say art is information without recourse to talking about feelings and aesthetics is the height of anti artistry!

The OP is boring,banal,non artistic,the definitional opposite of art! And far worse than duchamps urinal!

Art is an overwhelming expression of desire and ideology!

Anti art AKA shit art is science most politics and most philosophical discourse!!! Banal wannabe scribbling!

Finally,for the real artists in this thread (!!!) there are two types of art. "Cruel art" and FUN Art.
Cruel art is the bible,nietzsche,Greek tragedy.
Fun Art is Karl Krauss,all great comics,all great Satirists all Love Poets.

Scientists,philosophers,linguists,political administrators,academics,keep your dirty definitional hands off art! You know shit about art!!!
Your expressions and definitions are the excrement of your Soul!!! Passionless piss! — Gogol

I rather like what you said here. I think Dewey was right, if you want a philosopher who, though not passionate at all, found out why art cannot be pinned: it is because the aesthetic is an integral part of experience itself. All experience, whether I am pondering a thesis,peeling potatoes or painting a masterpiece, is inherently aesthetic. The artist is the one who takes this inherent aesthetic and brings it out, showcases it, amplifies it. Picasso paints the Old Guitarist and what has he done? He augments with the lowered head, the waste of ages etched in his emaciated features. We all feel this, know this without being artists, but Picasso really laid it out there, made this empathy into a spectacle. That is what art does. Whistle a tune and it's catchy. Now let Dvorak take it to romantic heights. The art is always, already there, you could say, in the world, in the interest we take in things mundane or profound, in the tying of a shoe properly, andin the our gait as we stride down the street (but the dancer with grace and expression sets the heart aglow).

Art is not to be defined not because everything can be art (though this is true) but because everything already IS art. Even the concept and the proposition. Art IS this emotion, this ghastly reaction: Is that really a can of human shit?? (Piero Manzoni). It issues from what is always already there.

... the aesthetic is an integral part of experience itself ... everything already IS art. — Constance

This could use some explaining, don't you think?

I agree, but would add that art usually has a frame around it, or a museum to hold it, a display case over it, etc. Something to hand it forward for the consideration of the audience.

You can put your own invisible frame around the lines on the highway if you like, I suppose, but then it's your own private art.

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.

Incidentally Pop, I can be pretty plain spoken and direct. Some can be offended. You handle this very well. — Constance

No problem at all. :smile: You raise reasonable objections in an intelligent manner - what more can one ask for?

the medium is just the catalyst, the vehicle through which art is communicated. — Constance

:up: Art is an expression of human consciousness. It seems we agree on this, just disagree on the language perhaps.

See Dewey's Art as Experience — Constance

Dewey says something similar to me, but in romantic language:

"The free individuality which is the source of art is also the final source of creative development in time."

Let me translate: The self organization of the individual which is the source of art, is also the source of all self organization in time - universally. In other words, this element that is being expressed in art, has its ontological roots in the self organization of the universe. What the universe expresses and what art expresses are the same thing. It seems to me this is the pinnacle of what can possibly be expressed, and any talk of aesthetics just diminishes and confuses this.

But the real event is interior, in the interpretative milieu of mind. Also, you would need to identify what this essence is. Is it form? And what is meaning as an aesthetic idea, not what language produces fit for a dictionary. — Constance

Identifying that art is an expression of consciousness does this, but then to say consciousness can only exists in respect to aesthetics, or in line with some limited conception of subjectivity, is an error, as consciousness is open ended and will continue to grow, in ways we cannot imagine, and art will reflect this.

The reason I am saying this is that art is certainly NOT information in its essence. — Constance

Everything is information from every perspective. All the disciplines are coming around to understand this. It is the way of the future my friend! :smile: There is a thread open, and I will post more in time, if you are interested in joining the conversation. The information game is just a notch deeper then Wit's word game, imo.

And what does predicting something have to do with defining art? Does this mean with your theory, an object that comes up can be measured by a reliable standard to make the determination as to whether it is art or not? How? — Constance

The definition defines the elements present in art "always - for all time" and discards the elements that are only sometimes present in art. Art work understood as information about the artists consciousness is valid for the first cave art, and it will be valid for the last art ever created, as well as all art in between. It is the only element that is constant in art - all the other elements - aesthetics, subjectivity, beauty, etc are endlessly variable and open ended, so art can not possibly be defined in terms of them, as they are not always present, and the forms of them that will be present in future is unpredictable. It is a definition of art, not a subjective response to what are the best things about art, as most art oratory and definitions seem to be.

But why do you think the analysis of the nature of art rests with organizing? — Constance

Self organization is a concept in Systems Theory that is a place holder for the source of all creation in the universe. Systems theory is pretty much a theory of everything, especially when coupled with emergent information theory. It is a way of seeing what it is all about.

It brings up such questions as who "self organized" first - God or us?

Art expresses this self organization. Most art theory is oblivious to it. I'm surprised by Dewey's intuition though, given he predates these theories. I'm not surprised by his romantic expression however - it reflects the collective consciousness at the time. His work too is information about his consciousness.
By focusing on how consciousness is expressed, you start to understand why the form of something is the way it is, and perhaps start to understand what makes art Art.

This could use some explaining, don't you think? — praxis

Yes, of course:

All experience, whether I am pondering a thesis,peeling potatoes or painting a masterpiece, is inherently aesthetic. The artist is the one who takes this inherent aesthetic and brings it out, showcases it, amplifies it. Picasso paints the Old Guitarist and what has he done? He augments with the lowered head, the waste of ages etched in his emaciated features. We all feel this, know this without being artists, but Picasso really laid it out there, made this empathy into a spectacle. That is what art does. Whistle a tune and it's catchy. Now let Dvorak take it to romantic heights. The art is always, already there, you could say, in the world, in the interest we take in things mundane or profound, in the tying of a shoe properly, andin the our gait as we stride down the street (but the dancer with grace and expression sets the heart aglow).

Art is not to be defined not because everything can be art (though this is true) but because everything already IS art. Even the concept and the proposition. Art IS this emotion, this ghastly reaction: Is that really a can of human shit?? (Piero Manzoni). It issues from what is always already there.

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.

It issues from what is always already there. — Constance

:up: In systems theory what is always there - what is common to all systems, is self organization.
In information theory, it is information that self organizes. In Yogic logic this self organizing element present in everything is consciousness.

I have said art work is information about an artists consciousness, and I have defined consciousness as an evolving process of self organization. So art work is an expression of the artists evolving process of self organization. This IS the something that is always there. There are no other somethings always there. All the other somethings are variable, and open ended - and continually emerging.

I think we just misunderstand each other rather then disagree. Perhaps disagree on expressive style. :smile:

I agree, but would add that art usually has a frame around it, or a museum to hold it, a display case over it, etc. Something to hand it forward for the consideration of the audience.

You can put your own invisible frame around the lines on the highway if you like, I suppose, but then it's your own private art. — frank

The way I see it, the pothole in front of my house is a nuisance and an obstacle to my daily affairs. But then, ask me what I think of it from the perspective of art, and I will say, hmmm, let me see, the curvature of the line meets the dark middle, reminiscent of a spider's web, and the cloudy middle a kind of abstract lair.....; whatever. I say this is exactly what happens when we see the Mona Lisa. I know I am in the Louvre, I know Devinci painted it, and it is art, so I am there to assess what is before me AS art. But make a print of it. put it on a rug where I feet are wiped and we forget it's art. It's a rug. An intruder enters the house and I grab the rug an assault him.
The "artwork" lies in taking something AS art. But then the final question remains a mystery: what is it to take something as art?

The way I see it, the pothole in front of my house is a nuisance and an obstacle to my daily affairs … we forget it's art. It's a rug. — Constance

What about your claim that the aesthetic is an integral part of experience itself? You seem to be describing situations where there is not an aesthetic experience.

The "artwork" lies in taking something AS art. But then the final question remains a mystery: what is it to take something as art? — Constance

It's not much of a mystery. What is it to take anything as anything, as people are wont to do? Humans are meaning making creatures and we like decorative things and we enjoy making statements and we see patterns and meaning in ordinary items. We have a ready facility towards the aesthetic and it takes little to activate this.

"Does the quality of an artwork reside in the art work itself, or in the mind of the observer, or artist?" — Pop

I agree with Pop "the quality of the art work resides in the mind of the artist, or observer" and Constance "I would put the entire enterprise of art creation in the mind. An object in the world is nothing at all until it is invested with meaning by an interpretative agency." (y)

As I see it, today in the West, there are two main approaches to the practice of art, what I may as well call the postmodernist and the modernist.

A background to postmodernism
The postmodernist approach began in about the 1960's and includes artworks such as Warhol's brillo boxes, Carl Andre's bricks and Tracy Emin's unmade bed. Major aspects include i) the idea of the artwork is more important than the physical artwork ii) any aesthetic has been deliberately removed iii) any representation is symbolic rather than pictographic.

A background to modernism
The modernist approach goes back to the first art created in the stone age between 300,000 and 700,000 years ago, and includes artworks such as Monet's Impressionism, Casper David Friedrich's Romanticism, Classical Greek sculpture and the wall paintings in the Lascaux caves. Major aspects include i) the artwork is more important than the artist ii) the aesthetic is of equal importance to the representation iii) the representation is pictographic.

The definition of "art" has been hijacked by the postmodernists
Even though postmodernism in art has existed for only the last 60 of the 700,000 years that humans have practised art, and probably 80% of contemporary artists work in the modernist rather than postmodernist style, the definition of "art" has unfortunately been hijacked by the postmodernists who now run the "Artworld". This is the same nihilistic doctrine of Derrida's postmodernism that dominates the humanities and media and rejects the established structure of Western civilization and culture.

Where does meaning reside in artworks
As modernist artworks are fundamentally aesthetic form of pictographic representation, and as postmodernist works are fundamentally symbolic representations, the question whether meaning resides in the artwork or the observer may be reduced to asking where meaning resides in i) aesthetic form ii) pictographic representation and iii) symbolic representation.

Where does meaning reside in aesthetic form
An aesthetic is a particular variety in balance. As Frances Hutchinson wrote “What we call Beautiful in Objects, to speak in the Mathematical Style, seems to be in a compound Ratio of Uniformity and Variety; so that where the Uniformity of Bodys is equal, the Beauty is as the Variety; and where the Variety is equal, the Beauty is as the Uniformity”

The aesthetic is in the relationship between the parts. This raises the question of the ontology of relationships in the world - do relationships exist in the world or do they only exist in the mind of the observer. FH Bradley argued against any reality of relations between things in his regress argument. He presented the dilemma to show that external relations are unintelligible. Either a relation R is nothing to the things a and b it relates, in which case it cannot relate them. Or, it is something to them, in which case R must be related to them.

Either relations do or do not exist in the world.
a) If relations don't exist between things in the world, then the aesthetic, which is a particular relationship between things cannot exist in the world within the artwork, and therefore can only exist in the observer's mind.
b) If relations do exist between things in the world, then there would exist relationships between every single part of the object presented as an artwork, and beyond countable, meaning that an aesthetic - understood as a particular relationship between particular parts - would become indistinguishable from every other set of possible relationships.

IE, an aesthetic cannot exist within the object presented as an artwork, but only in the mind of the observer.

Where does meaning reside in pictographic representation
Pictographic representation can vary from the photorealism of Ralph Goings 1970 McDonalds Pickup representing American culture, to the abstracted water-lilies of Monet and to the drum in Ghanain art representing goodwill and diplomacy.

Taking the abstracted water-lily of Monet as an example, a patch of pale blue contained within a circle of dark blue, the question is, can the shapes on the canvas have a meaning independently of any observer. Pictograms are a language, where the individual shapes within a pictogram are like the letters within a word. Taking the analogy of language, does the word "house" have a meaning independent of any observer. Clearly no, as a German, for example, could never discover any meaning in the letters by themselves, as words have to be learnt.

Similarly, do the symbols of a patch of pale blue within a circle of dark blue have any meaning independently of any observer, or does the meaning have to have learnt. If the shapes have meaning independently of any observer, then the fact that a mass of pale blue represents a water-lily must be internal within the mass of pale blue. But, a patch of pale blue can represent anything the observer wants it to: water, a sky, the feathers of a bird, the concept of peace, etc. Therefore, the fact that the patch of pale blue represents a water-lily cannot be within the shape itself but only in the mind of an observer.

IE, the meaning of a pictographic representation is not within the representation but within the mind of the observer.

Where does meaning reside in symbolic representation
Taking the example of Joseph Kosuth's One and Three Chairs 1965, consisting of a chair, a photograph of a chair and a dictionary definition of a chair, where the observer is invited to philosophically question in the spirit of Plato the nature of reality and the observer's place in society.

Any observer entering the gallery and seeing a chair could never discover from any inspection of the chair the artist's intended meaning, but only by reading about the artist's intentions.

IE, in such an artwork, the meaning of a symbolic representation cannot be discovered in the object itself, but only in the mind of the artist, and through a textual description then into the mind of the observer.

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

deleted

The "artwork" lies in taking something AS art. But then the final question remains a mystery: what is it to take something as art? — Constance

I see what you're saying.

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

How do you understand a given artistic work through this position? Does a work not provide the observer's mind with something to consider?

I would say that the purest definition of art is:

A creation created intentionally as an expression with the intent of a receiver experiencing it.

Everything else starts to dig into how people subjectively define art. But this definition denies agents that are unaware of what they do to be artists, since a monkey drawing, a tree formed by evolution etc. shouldn't be considered "artists". We can appreciate the end result of their output, but they are unaware of that output being experienced as a form of expression and are unaware of having made it with any such intent. A computer AI that is fully self-aware and "wants" to create art in order for people to experience it, is indeed an artist. A computer algorithm AI that scans millions of pictures to form a collage animation that looks dreamlike, is not an artist.

Art has to have the intent of it being art with the focus on being experienced by another agent. Any deviance from it removes every common trait that is connected to definitions of art. If someone creates an art piece and it is not experienced by anyone, not even the artist himself, then it is not art, but how can an artist create something without experiencing it themselves? So art becomes art just by making it with the intent of someone experiencing it, in this case, the artist themselves. But even if it were possible to create art without experiencing it yourself, as soon as it is discovered, it is art, as the intention was there from the beginning.

If people start discussing what art is based on the quality of craft and such, that is not the definition of art, that is the definition of craft. And craft can be somewhat objectively judged, art can't. But as a form of definition, the question of "what is art?" is a pretty basic definition.

The more interesting question is, how does the perceiver's experience of the art define the artwork itself in relation to the artist's intention? If an accident reshapes the artwork after the artist's death, but people have forgotten that the accident happened, how would this new experience exist or be defined when neither the artist's intention nor the perceiver's experience truly correlates.

The "artwork" lies in taking something AS art. But then the final question remains a mystery: what is it to take something as art? — Constance

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.

Are you familiar with feng shui?

Does a work not provide the observer's mind with something to consider? — Tom Storm

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.

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

Vaguely.

I agree, but would add that art usually has a frame around it, or a museum to hold it, a display case over it, etc. Something to hand it forward for the consideration of the audience.

You can put your own invisible frame around the lines on the highway if you like, I suppose, but then it's your own private art. — frank

The way I see it, the pothole in front of my house is a nuisance and an obstacle to my daily affairs. But then, ask me what I think of it from the perspective of art, and I will say, hmmm, let me see, the curvature of the line meets the dark middle, suggestive of mystery, and the cloudy middle a kind of abstract aquatic whatever.....; whatever. I say this is exactly what happens when we see the Mona Lisa. I know I am in the Louvre, I know Devinci painted it, and it is art, so I am there to assess what is before me AS art. But make a print of it. put it on a rug where I feet are wiped and we forget it's art. It's a rug. An intruder enters the house and I grab the rug an assault him.
The "artwork" lies in taking something AS art.

In systems theory what is always there - what is common to all systems, is self organization.
In information theory, it is information that self organizes. In Yogic logic this self organizing element present in everything is consciousness.

I have said art work is information about an artists consciousness, and I have defined consciousness as an evolving process of self organization. So art work is an expression of the artists evolving process of self organization. This IS the something that is always there. There are no other somethings always there. All the other somethings are variable, and open ended - and continually emerging.

I think we just misunderstand each other rather then disagree. Perhaps disagree on expressive style. — Pop

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? I mean, something that the analysis of which does not reveal something more basic because it is already a singular basis for all other things? "Self organizing" is a strong claim, after all, where did the organizing self get is motivations and contents? There is the counterclaim that says this self is a construct and self organizing really has no self at all. And if there is a self, it is not to be identified with all it does.
When I talk about always, already there, in this context, what is meant is that art built out of experience, and an artwork is part and parcel of the structure of experience itself. Dewey's key concept is "consummation". A pragmatist, he defined art in pragmatic terms, so the essential structure of successful problem solving yields aesthetics, cognition, affect, consciousness and everything you can imagine. A self IS a pragmatic construction.

Vaguely — praxis

There's an idea that the mind follows the chi (if I'm not mangling that). Think of garden design where a poorly planned garden turns the mind away, but one that nurtures the flow of chi invites the mind in to be arrested, or moved.

Surely you're aware of the poor garden, so you're perceiving it. But in another sense, you aren't seeing it.

Feng shui is kind of like the frame around the painting (that I mentioned before), the museum around the art., that points to this experience of being invited in to truly see.

Surely you're aware of the poor garden, so you're perceiving it. But in another sense, you aren't seeing it. — frank

I don't know what you mean.

don't know what you mean. — praxis

That's odd. I would have expected you to.

So I experience the poor garden. In the most basic sense it could be said that I'm aware of the garden, and that I'm aware of how I feel about the poor garden experience. It is not an aesthetic experience though it could be under different circumstances or if it were 'framed' propely for someone with my sensibilities, I suppose.

I did a bit of reading on Dewey just now since our new friend Constance is apparently incapable of relating Dewey's ideas well. I copied this bit from Stanford.edu:

From a Deweyan viewpoint, aesthetic experience, then, has roughly the following structure. The experience is set off by some factors, such as opening a book, directing a first glance at a painting, beginning to listen to a piece of music, entering a natural environment or a building, or beginning a meal or a conversation. As aesthetic experience is temporal, the material of the experience does not remain unchanged, but the elements initiating the experience, like reading the first lines of a book or hearing the first chord of a symphony, merge into new ones as the experience proceeds and complex relationships are formed between its past and newer phases. When these different parts form a distinctive kind of orderly developing unity that stands out from the general experiential stream of our lives, the experience in question is aesthetic.

Are you saying that by failing to experience the world aesthetically we are, in a sense, not fully experiencing it?

Are you saying that by failing to experience the world aesthetically we are, in a sense, not fully experiencing it? — praxis

I'm not getting how Dewey's "aesthetic experience" is different from experience in general.

What other kinds of experience are there?