It is not possible to make art without expressing your consciousness.
Something I keep repeating every few posts, but not many seem to get it. — Pop

We get it, we just don't think it is a useful way of characterizing or defining art. People have been saying this to you ever since this thread started. People have explained their objections, but all you do is keep repeating yourself. There are three possibilities 1) You have not done a good enough job explaining yourself 2) You're wrong or 3) There's more than one reasonable and defensible way to define art.

We are not, of course IN the situation above, but to conceive it honestly shows that ethical nihilism is foundational inadequate to "totalize" what it is all about.
The final trouble is metaethics. — Constance

Morality is only half the concept, right? The other half is amorality.

You could say when we jump into the car, this is amoral Eros. There's no good nor evil yet because the story arc is at its beginning. There's no action to judge. Only once we're hanging upside down (which would be an odd place to end the story), do we lay out our condemnations. Morality is a post-event perspective. We weigh the actuality against the ideal.

Cognitive dissonance appears when we recognize that the very thing the artist needs: some sort of wreckage, is deadly to that innocent who climbed behind the wheel.

But then there's the world's pain. It's a burden for some. Nietzsche says that if you long to save the world, you're rejecting it at the same time. We can say yes to life. Accept the car wreck in all it's glory. Isn't that what the Knight of Faith does?

The color is not in the object but on the object. — Khalif

Supposing that humans didn't exist, would the colour red still be on the object ?

IE, in discussions about art, as with philosophy in general, communication can break down when different contributors attach different meanings to the same words. — RussellA

:up: Thanks for the great post. With so many contrarians to attend to I forgot to comment on it. Yes, I also believe post modernism has made a mockery of art. I suspect neoliberalism and it's post modernist art, will be seen by future generations, in the midst of climate change and other environmental and social disasters, as similar stupidities.

The realization that information is fundamental, is growing , and so ultimately art also will have to be understood as being fundamentally information. And so then the question will be - art is information about what? And the answer to that is obvious.

We get it, we just don't think it is a useful way of characterizing or defining art — T Clark

No you do not get it. It has nothing to do with your opinion, or whether you think something is useful or not. It is to do with whether the definition is valid - is this a scientific, irreducible, and falsifiable definition of art - this is the only issue that is relevant! All the rest is noise and opinion.

Can you invalidate the definition? If not, you have to concede it is a valid definition of art. End of story.

means art can't be — TheMadFool

But I have defined it. You have to invalidate the definition, or otherwise accept it.

IE, the aesthetic and Uniformity within Variety are both innate parts of the structure of the brain as Kantian a priori knowledge. — RussellA

We all know that people have the capacity for aesthetic experience. Was that ever in dispute?

Remarkably, in that long post you didn't use the word 'context' even once.

No one is fooled by an untrained violinist pretending to be a master, for instance. — praxis

This is true regarding the violinist, but notions such as art about art are so dim witted! :grimace: Similar to philosophy saying - life is about life, no more needs to be said!

The color is not in the object but on the object.
— Khalif

Supposing that humans didn't exist, would the colour red still be on the object ? — RussellA

Suppose that no human ever bothered to distinguish the color of red from other colors. They would need to learn the distinction as well as learn the word for red.

This is true regarding the violinist, but notions such as art about art are so dim witted! :grimace: Similar to philosophy saying - life is about life, no more needs to be said! — Pop

We can make art about art and philosophize about philosophizing, or make art about philosophizing and philosophize about art. Use your imagination.

With the one caveat that a term like "mind" we have in itself an open question — Constance

Yes, and this will remain an open question. This is what art is information about. Note how you have described how a changing social mind results in changing art. Mind or consciousness continues to evolve, and always will - and art will reflect this.

One should look at the artwork as the outward manifestation of an actual consciousness, and its value reducible to palpable consciousness. — Constance

Yes!! Now we are on the same page. That is all I am trying to say with the definition. Art is always some manifestation of this - an expression of human consciousness, for the consumption of another human consciousness. This is what it provides - constantly, and everything else is variable. This defines art.

If you are going to call something information, then it has to information ABOUT something. — Constance

Art is always information, and it is information about the artist's consciousness, and this information is entangled into the form of the art object, to be interpreted by another consciousness.
So, art is a process of communication, which depends on information, and the information, at all times, is about the artist's consciousness ( mind activity ) as it cannot be about anything else. This mind activity does not have any limits.

We can make art about art and philosophize about philosophizing, or make art about philosophizing and philosophize about art. Use your imagination. — praxis

So if I was to say the comment you just made is words about words - you would be satisfied?

** I don't think you would.

It is rather that there is one, final context, and that is at the basic level, and this is phenomenology. On ethics and aesthetics: take lighted match and apply it to your finger. Now, there is a lot one can say about this anatomically, motivationally, psychologically, and any other context you can imagine; but put those aside and consider only the pain itself, pain simpliciter, qualia-pain if you like, or, the phenomenon of pain eidetically free, or context free. Forget about whether you think this is possible (Dennett doesn't, but that is another argument) for it being there AT ALL is a context, you can, and many do, including myself, argue. But IN this most foundational context of observing the pain just as pain and not of or in this or that, the pain can be seen most vividly for what it is, and not for what something tells us it is.

This presence is, I argue, pure, or close to pure. Entangled, yes, but here in this "reduction" it stands before one as a pure presence, what it IS as presence prior, that is, logically prior, for you can't even think of Hitler's genocidal cruelty without know what pain is to begin with that makes the whole affair so horrible.
This is what I have in mind. — Constance

There's a couple of issues, I'm afraid, that prevent your 'reductionist' theory from rising above the level of nonsense. I already pointed out the first issue in my previous post. Using our imagination we can take a concept or general mental representation of something like aesthetic or pain and do whatever we want with it. We can associate pain with hot burning coals, for example, and that's relatively easy to do. It's a bit harder to associate pain with distant billowy clouds, but we can still do it. Anyway, jumping to the point, the point is that what we can imagine doesn't always correspond to reality. I suspect that you already know that, but in any case, a practical example may help to elucidate the point further.

Offhand, pain/panic is the most unaesthetic kind of experience that comes to mind. If I understand your reductionist theory rightly, we can 'reduce the context' of any situation where pain and panic are experienced and the experience will then be that of aesthetic experience. As I've pointed out, we can easily dismiss context with our imagination, but how do we do this in real life? How do we reduce or turn off context? For our purposes, it doesn't matter because reducing is changing, and we already know that changing a situation (context) can change our perception.

The second issue has to do with the basics of meaning. If everything is aesthetic then nothing is aesthetic and the concept loses all meaning.

We can make art about art and philosophize about philosophizing, or make art about philosophizing and philosophize about art. Use your imagination.
— praxis

So if I was to say the comment you just made is words about words - you would be satisfied? — Pop

It wasn't about words, so no, I wouldn't be satisfied with that erroneous assessment. I could post something about words and then you could accurately say that I posted words about words.

It wasn't about words, so no, I wouldn't be satisfied with that erroneous assessment. I could post something about words and then you could accurately say that I posted words about words. — praxis

The point I was trying to make is that you would not be satisfied with somebody calling your post arbitrary and indefinite - words about words. But some people are happy to leave art in a such a situation - as art about art.

Your point is still far from clear. I've heard of 'art for art's sake', but I've never heard the expression 'art about art' and I don't know what it's supposed to mean beyond what it means at face value.

and I don't know what it is supposed to mean — praxis

It means art for arts sake.

But I have defined it. You have to invalidate the definition, or otherwise accept it. — Pop

Indeed, you've defined it but my contention is that you had to make the definition so very broad, necessary since art is so variegated in nature, that you might as well not define it. Suppose you have a certain number of people in a room. You want to develop a criterion that includes everybody in the room but then you don't have to develop a criterion; you could simply say all people in the room.

It means art for arts sake. — Pop

What's the problem with it? I basically interpret it to mean 'art for aesthetics' as opposed to art for profit, or art for deliberate messaging as in politizing, or art for any other utilitarian purpose. Of course, capitalist societies are loathe to the idea.

All the rest is noise and opinion. — Pop

Of course it's opinion. Do you think your thoughts are somehow something somehow grander than your opinion? The definition you've provided is not a good one. People have been explaining why they think that since the thread started. You have not defended your position well. It doesn't work to just repeat yourself over and over.

You want to develop a criterion that includes everybody in the room but then you don't have to develop a criterion; you could simply say all people in the room. — TheMadFool

I don't think this follows. Art was thought to be indefinite, but it is definite as per the definition, and then beyond this it is indefinite, for now at least. :smile:

You are not objecting to the definition, but to its utility. I have given my reasons, now several times, about how a definition is potentially useful.

Of course it's opinion. Do you think your thoughts are somehow something somehow grander than your opinion? — T Clark

Mine is not opinion. Is 1+1 opinion? It is logical fact, as opposed to your opinion.

Mine is not opinion. Is 1+1 opinion? It is logical fact, as opposed to your opinion. — Pop

Nuff said.

What's the problem with it? — praxis

It trivializes art. Imagine philosophy for philosophy's sake.

Mine is not opinion. Is 1+1 opinion? It is logical fact, as opposed to your opinion.
— Pop

Nuff said. — T Clark

What I meant is - the definition is not opinion.

What I meant is - the definition is not opinion. — Pop

And what I meant is that we've taken this discussion as far as we can.

What's the problem with it?
— praxis

It trivializes art. Imagine philosophy for philosophy's sake. — Pop

Most people think aesthetic experience is trivial, I believe, so you’re in good company the majority.

There's a couple of issues, I'm afraid, that prevent your 'reductionist' theory from rising above the level of nonsense. I already pointed out the first issue in my previous post. Using our imagination we can take a concept or general mental representation of something like aesthetic or pain and do whatever we want with it. We can associate pain with hot burning coals, for example, and that's relatively easy to do. It's a bit harder to associate pain with distant billowy clouds, but we can still do it. Anyway, jumping to the point, the point is that what we can imagine doesn't always correspond to reality. I suspect that you already know that, but in any case, a practical example may help to elucidate the point further.

Offhand, pain/panic is the most unaesthetic kind of experience that comes to mind. If I understand your reductionist theory rightly, we can 'reduce the context' of any situation where pain and panic are experienced and the experience will then be that of aesthetic experience. As I've pointed out, we can easily dismiss context with our imagination, but how do we do this in real life? How do we reduce or turn off context? For our purposes, it doesn't matter because reducing is changing, and we already know that changing a situation (context) can change our perception.

The second issue has to do with the basics of meaning. If everything is aesthetic then nothing is aesthetic and the concept loses all meaning.[/quote

Don't know why you want to talk about hot coals or billowy clouds. It isn't to the point. The reduction is the phenomenological reduction, which moves away from explanatory accounts that are merely factual, and this is important because facts are, as such, ethically arbitrary. In a typical ethical case, the facts are what they are, like you owning the gun I borrowed and wanting it back under, say, dangerous and suspicious circumstances. The gun ownership, the circumstances and so on, these are facts that have no ethical dimension to them as facts. As Wittgenstein put it in his Lecture on Ethics: in all facts of the world, were they laid out in a great book, there would not be a mention of value at all. The sun is further from earth that the moon: a fact, and as such, nothing ethical about it. Then what is it that makes the case ethical (or here, aesthetic; same applies here) at all? it is the value: the injury and pain that is at stake, also my breaking the implicit promise to return the gun that could undermine confidence that thereby undermines friendship and comfort, and so on.
So. you see the point being made here is to try to analyze an ethical case, any one at all, to find how its parts work, and what they are. This should be clear. Keep in mind that I am not the author of these ideas, but I do put them together as I see fit.
Not clear why you talk about panic. I don't want to muddle things with what is not at issue.


If all things are aesthetic, than nothing is aesthetic? If all things are in space, then nothing is in space? Are you kidding? — praxis

There's a couple of issues, I'm afraid, that prevent your 'reductionist' theory from rising above the level of nonsense. I already pointed out the first issue in my previous post. Using our imagination we can take a concept or general mental representation of something like aesthetic or pain and do whatever we want with it. We can associate pain with hot burning coals, for example, and that's relatively easy to do. It's a bit harder to associate pain with distant billowy clouds, but we can still do it. Anyway, jumping to the point, the point is that what we can imagine doesn't always correspond to reality. I suspect that you already know that, but in any case, a practical example may help to elucidate the point further.

Offhand, pain/panic is the most unaesthetic kind of experience that comes to mind. If I understand your reductionist theory rightly, we can 'reduce the context' of any situation where pain and panic are experienced and the experience will then be that of aesthetic experience. As I've pointed out, we can easily dismiss context with our imagination, but how do we do this in real life? How do we reduce or turn off context? For our purposes, it doesn't matter because reducing is changing, and we already know that changing a situation (context) can change our perception.

The second issue has to do with the basics of meaning. If everything is aesthetic then nothing is aesthetic and the concept loses all meaning. — praxis

Again (technical issue screwed with the first)
Don't know why you want to talk about hot coals or billowy clouds. It isn't to the point. The reduction is the phenomenological reduction, which moves away from explanatory accounts that are merely factual, and this is important because facts are, as such, ethically arbitrary. In a typical ethical case, the facts are what they are, like you owning the gun I borrowed and wanting it back under, say, dangerous and suspicious circumstances. The gun ownership, the circumstances and so on, these are facts that have no ethical dimension to them as facts. As Wittgenstein put it in his Lecture on Ethics: in all facts of the world, were they laid out in a great book, there would not be a mention of value at all. The sun is further from earth that the moon: a fact, and as such, nothing ethical about it. Then what is it that makes the case ethical (or here, aesthetic; same applies here) at all? it is the value: the injury and pain that is at stake, also my breaking the implicit promise to return the gun that could undermine confidence that thereby undermines friendship and comfort, and so on.
So. you see the point being made here is to try to analyze an ethical case, any one at all, to find how its parts work, and what they are. This should be clear. Keep in mind that I am not the author of these ideas, but I do put them together as I see fit.
Not clear why you talk about panic. I don't want to muddle things with what is not at issue.


If all things are aesthetic, than nothing is aesthetic? If all things are in space, then nothing is in space? Are you kidding?

I don't think this follows. Art was thought to be indefinite, but it is definite as per the definition, and then beyond this it is indefinite, for now at least. :smile:

You are not objecting to the definition, but to its utility. I have given my reasons, now several times, about how a definition is potentially useful. — Pop

Your effort to define art is commendable of course for it's a holy grail of art philosophers but what I want to point out is that art has, in a sense, transcended philosophy if philosophy is about getting our hands on a crispy clear definition of art. Art has been allowed to explore the world on its own for too long - it's a wild animal now and taming it, which a definition is, is futile.