it's a wild animal now and taming it, which a definition is, is futile. — TheMadFool

"Hard to see, the future is" - Yoda. :grin:

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

I would deny that amorality is a fit description of the world at the basic level. Of course, I see as you do that the world does not give favor in its distribution of good and bad affairs, and in fact, on second thought, it likely favors the latter in terms of quantitative utility. But the argument I would defend would be grounded on qualitative distinctions.

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. — frank

But the ontology of pain and bliss looks to neither the beginning nor the end. It simply takes what is there as it is, a phenomenon of certain properties. I am not concerned about how other matters work out, only one: I ask, what IS this pain. Does it have a nature that is clear and present, and that figures into our understanding of ethics and aesthetics? I am not judging actions, but trying to understand in any given action, what is it that makes it ethical? Call it a secret ingredient: value, the most mysterious thing in existence, by far.

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? — frank

You mean if the artist is a novelist. But for the painter, say, it is not a car wreck, but it is the struggle to produce affect (the aesthetic) in the medium. For the composer it is the same. For the player, it is mastery of the instrument and the "work" of the performance. And so on.
If the one bound to the car about to go up in flames grabs his pocket knife, struggles to cut free, then succeeds, then there is art in this, Dewey would say, and I would agree.
I am not interested in saving the world, but I do think if we are going to understand what it is that all the fuss is about, then we have to look at the aesthetic simplciter, as such? When I am in aesthetic rapture listening to whatever, what is this rapture? Asking what it is means to allow its presence to come forward and be acknowledged., apart from all the contextualizing.
The Knight of Faith is one who singularly lives in God's grace. See the first chapter of Fear and Trembling. S/he has posited spirit and unqualifiedly affirms God, the soul and their primacy over all things, securing eternal happiness. Abraham was this.

Hard to see, the future is" - Yoda. :grin: — Pop

Yep!

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. — Pop

Errr, no. Art still remains undefined, because the question is still there: what kind of meaning, aesthetic, value phenomenon is this that makes art, what it is?Is it emotional? Is it pragmatic? is it cognitive? Is it form? What is there is experience that is already there that is taken up in art? What is aesthetic rapture? Is beauty only art? Can art be ugly, and if so, what does this say about art as a general concept?

Or: you are saying artworks are essentially an index to states of mind, that they "carry" information about this inner experience, but: information as such is free of that which is carries, that is, information as information itself is not art, so calling art information certainly does not tell us anything about what art is; only that is can be represented in a medium and the medium is not the art--the interior experience is the locus of the REAL artwork.

What is "consumed" is not information.

Or: you are saying artworks are essentially an index to states of mind, that they "carry" information about this inner experience, — Constance

Yes, that is a good way to put it.

the interior experience is the locus of the REAL artwork. — Constance

Art work is information about the artists consciousness.

Consciousness, or evolving process of self organization, is an umbrella term for the inner information that creates it, which you call - the interior experience or locus of the real artwork.

Consciousness, as an evolving process of self organization, encompasses all things mental and experiential.

According to American philosopher John Searle: “Consciousness is that thing that presents itself as we wake up in the morning and lasts all day until we go back to sleep again at night.” It isn’t simply awareness or knowledge – I believe Carl Jung would agree that to every bit of consciousness is attached 100 bits of the subconscious, interwoven into a mental lattice presenting as a united front. It is fundamental to us. Consciousness is personality in action, yet we are hardly aware of it. Modern science has not been able to pin consciousness down, however panpsychism and eastern philosophy agree that consciousness is a fundamental property of the universe - from this perspective consciousness takes on a much deeper meaning — Pop

Again (technical issue screwed with the first) — Constance

Don’t ya hate that?! When all else fails click the edit button, which sits at the bottom of posts to the immediate right of the time stamp. You may need to tap on that spot in order to see the icon with three dots, and if you tap on that you’ll see the pencil icon. Tap on the pencil icon to edit posts.

Don't know why you want to talk about hot coals or billowy clouds. It isn't to the point. — Constance

How astute of you, indeed hot coals or billowy clouds are not the point, the point utilizing those examples was that what we can imagine doesn't always correspond to reality.

moves away from explanatory accounts that are merely factual — Constance

I’m not sure if it’s possible for you to move any further away from such a lowly place.

facts are, as such, ethically arbitrary — Constance

I suppose you’re right about that, the capricious little bastards.

you owning the gun I borrowed and wanting it back under, say, dangerous and suspicious circumstances. — Constance

Are you threatening me?

The gun ownership, the circumstances and so on, these are facts that have no ethical dimension to them as facts. — Constance

In my country there are laws about gun ownership which strongly suggests that there is in fact an ethical dimension to gun ownership.

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. — Constance

Not even the value of pie?!

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. — Constance

No worries, keep the damn thing.

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. — Constance

Clear as mud at this point. :up:

Not clear why you talk about panic. — Constance

Because it’s the most unaesthetic kind of experience that readily came to mind. I explained that. Are you only skimming my posts? How dare you. :rage:

I don't want to muddle things with what is not at issue. — Constance

Good call.

If all things are in space, then nothing is in space? Are you kidding? — Constance

You said it, not me. If all things are in space, then all things are in space (as a matter of fact all things do appear to be in space). If all things are space, then all things are space, right? If all things are space then there’s nothing to compare space with, right? There is only space, so space has no meaning.

I'm trying to impress on you, but without much success, that consciousness is the root of creativity.
Consciousness unifies and integrates information.
Creativity unifies and integrates information
This bears thinking about. — Pop

I think I see what you are getting at. Let me see if I can clarify a bit. Phenomenalogically speaking, art is creation. Man creates himself and his world through art, and it is through the prism of art that man and the world appears as it does to man. Every category whereby man shares his knowledge is a form of art, it is a way in which mankind portrays, frames, interpret, imagines, communicates, &c. the world as it appears and seems.

I would go so far as to assert science to be the dominant artform of our time, having long ago replaced religion and myth (although not absolutely) as the way in which the world generally appears to man. The interesting thing is how religion/myth and science differ in essence. Science depends entirely on strict methodology and lacks a definitive ethical component, whereas religion/myth is exactly the opposite, a strict ethics and vague methodology. I could say more...

I believe there were some famous philosophers that implied or explicitly held aesthics to be a kind of a priori category, I would include Hegel, Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, and Kierkegaard amongst others.

I think I see what you are getting at. Let me see if I can clarify a bit. Phenomenalogically speaking, art is creation. Man creates himself and his world through art, and it is through the prism of art that man and the world appears as it does to man. — Merkwurdichliebe

Yes basically. This definition of art is an artwork, in the form of a scientific, irreducible, and falsifiable definition of art, to the extent that art can be defined. Clearly art is information about human consciousness. I am amazed about the fuss.

It is often thought art is about aesthetics, but really it is about an artists interpretation of aesthetics. So it is aesthetics through their eyes, so their consciousness, entangled into the form of the art, to then be reinterpreted in terms of the consciousness of the viewer. So a consciousness to consciousness communication. Art needs to be in some form, so will have an aesthetic quality, but aesthetics need not be it's focus. It is unlimited in focus.

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

In a previous post I wrote "The aesthetic form of an object is independent of the object's context, as an object's aesthetic is the formal arrangement of the parts within the object, not any external context. The violence of a war can have an aesthetic and be ugly. The serenity of a garden can have an aesthetic and be beautiful".

In this particular post I summarised with the phrase "aesthetic as a formal arrangement of the parts within an object". Although not specifically referring to the context of the object, the phrase infers that the object's context is not part of the object's aesthetic.

Suppose that no human ever bothered to distinguish the color of red from other colors. — praxis

When looking at the world, humans don't decide to distinguish between colours, but instinctively distinguish between colours, without thought or conscious effort.

post modernism has made a mockery of art — Pop

I agree - the postmodernist "Artworld" with its "institutional definition of art" is destroying any value in the definition of art by pushing the agenda that art is defined in whatever way they deem it to be defined.

You said it, not me. If all things are in space, then all things are in space. If all things are space, then things are space, right? If all things are space then there’s nothing to compare space with, right? There is only space, so space has no meaning. — praxis

You're a good man...errrr...woman....errr person... you're a good agency of interlocution, Praxis, who can spin tedium into levity. The world needs more like you.

Consciousness, as an evolving process of self organization, encompasses all things mental and experiential.

According to American philosopher John Searle: “Consciousness is that thing that presents itself as we wake up in the morning and lasts all day until we go back to sleep again at night.” It isn’t simply awareness or knowledge – I believe Carl Jung would agree that to every bit of consciousness is attached 100 bits of the subconscious, interwoven into a mental lattice presenting as a united front. It is fundamental to us. Consciousness is personality in action, yet we are hardly aware of it. Modern science has not been able to pin consciousness down, however panpsychism and eastern philosophy agree that consciousness is a fundamental property of the universe - from this perspective consciousness takes on a much deeper meaning — Pop

All I can say is, and I hope you give this more than a glancing thought, you're thesis is not about the definition of art. It is about the definition of the art object. You are saying, I am pretty clear by now, is that, that painting, novel, performance, and so on, are not where art is to be found. The true locus of art is experience, the perspective imposed on an object by the artist or observer, and here, of course, you have to distinguish yourself from others who argue like this.
I would otherwise be close to agreeing except for this big objection: the physical art work in its actual presence is also what is in my mind when I think of the artistic nature of the thing. In other words, one cannot call the one art and the other, the art object, information because when it comes to an analysis of the art itself and not the information, the object remains in place. In general information, too,one could make a similar claim: information as to how a computer mouse functions, say, is words on a page, or verbally produced; but the consciousness that receives it, understands it, does not stand apart from the words. It recalls the words, written or otherwise, IN the conscious event. So, the exteriority of the object is not detachable from the interior conscious event.
Not sure how you will handle this. Even in Dewey, the making of a chair and its physical engagement cannot beabout the making of a chair's interior value making events, for when this interior is conceived, the "object" dimension is necessarily there.

I agree - the postmodernist "Artworld" with its "institutional definition of art" is destroying any value in the definition of art by pushing the agenda that art is defined in whatever way they deem it to be defined. — RussellA

An interesting statement, and I am inclined to agree, if it wasn't for impossibility of pinning art's definition elsewhere. How else can you account for art's infinite malleability? Where did art theory lose its way? When it abandoned beauty? Significant form? If you can't really say, then art remains an open concept, like ethics: we continually try to make sense out of it, but it seems it is the kind of thing lost in contingencies that cannot be settled.
And: in the end, all concepts are open. Art is just among the most intractable. The only way to pin it down is to move into metaphysics. This is not impossible, I claim.

Art began simple - as mere 2D shadows of the world around us depicting hunting scenes, herds of animals, etc. Artists then developed techniques to convey depth - they went to town with it. What followed was probably more because the novelty of 3D images wore off - artists took greater risks, they ventured into uncharted territories, and boldly presented never-before-seen works for consumption by connoiseurs and lay people alike. Artists, it seems, were under a great deal of pressure, or perhaps it was the strong creative impulse in them, that made them constantly reinvent themselves. By the time philosophers got involved, art was a literal smorgasbord of subjects and styles that it was quite impossible to find, paradoxically, a leitmotif for art, an activity that usually itself, as individual works, has one.

Suppose that no human ever bothered to distinguish the color of red from other colors.
— praxis

When looking at the world, humans don't decide to distinguish between colours, but instinctively distinguish between colours, without thought or conscious effort. — RussellA

Unless you have perfect pitch you couldn’t hear a musical note and identify it. You could learn how to do this with practice however. Just because sense data is available doesn’t mean that we can naturally distinguish parts of it. We may be better at visual distinctions but we still need to learn how to make ever finer distinctions. A ‘colorist’ will be far better at distinguishing colors than the average.

In a study of ancient writing, it was discovered that black and white were the first colors mentioned, followed by red. Blue was the last, as I recall. Apparently some colors are more important than others, to humans, and the least important are distinguished last.

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

In a previous post I wrote "The aesthetic form of an object is independent of the object's context, as an object's aesthetic is the formal arrangement of the parts within the object, not any external context. The violence of a war can have an aesthetic and be ugly. The serenity of a garden can have an aesthetic and be beautiful".

In this particular post I summarised with the phrase "aesthetic as a formal arrangement of the parts within an object". Although not specifically referring to the context of the object, the phrase infers that the object's context is not part of the object's aesthetic. — RussellA

As I repeatedly pointed out with Constance, we can easily dismiss context with our imagination, but in real life it may not be so easy. What does it even mean to say that an object can be removed from its external context? And are you saying that’s a requirement for aesthetic experience? If so, why would it be a requirement?

Unless you have perfect pitch you couldn’t hear a musical note and identify it. You could learn how to do this with practice however.
What does it even mean to say that an object can be removed from its external context? — praxis

If I see a letter box at the end of the street, I may have the subjective experience of the colour red.

I don't need to identify what shade of red it is in order to have the subjective experience of the colour red.

The aesthetic form of the object can be removed from its external context
My subjective experience of the colour red is independent of any function the letter box may have. Similarly, my subjective experience of the aesthetic form of the letter box is independent of any function that the letter box has.

The aesthetic form of the object can be removed from its external context
My subjective experience of the colour red is independent of any function the letter box may have. Similarly, my subjective experience of the aesthetic form of the letter box is independent of any function that the letter box has. — RussellA

If you know what a letterbox is, and you know the color red, you'll experience a red letterbox. If you don't know what a letterbox is, you'll experience an unidentifiable red object. If you know what a letterbox is then you know what its function is. Do you know what the function is of something that you can't identify? No. Further, if you noticed a red letterbox out of context, that is, in a place where you don't normally see them, and a place where they can't function properly, such as standing in the middle of a lake, it would surprise you. Unless that was commonplace for some reason it would surprise you because according to your internal model of the world red letterboxes don't stand in the middle of lakes and your mind could not have predicted one being there. You could not help noticing and being surprised, whereas you may pass red letterboxes on the street all the time without noticing them.

Again, we can easily imagine a red letterbox out of context. In experience we cannot separate one from its context, though we can modify our model of the world to accommodate a new context.

I would deny that amorality is a fit description of the world at the basic level. — Constance

I would too. Amorality appears to you against a background of morality, and vice versa.

But the ontology of pain and bliss looks to neither the beginning nor the end. It simply takes what is there as it is, a phenomenon of certain properties. I am not concerned about how other matters work out, only one: I ask, what IS this pain. — Constance

Could be a result of hot sauce about to be drowned in some awesome beer as you celebrate with close friends. Could be the same pain in the back you've struggled to deal with for months and despair is setting in.

What the pain is and how you deal with it is definitely a matter of how you cast it. Why would you analyze pain without a context? That doesn't happen very often.

The Knight of Faith is one who singularly lives in God's grace. See the first chapter of Fear and Trembling. S/he has posited spirit and unqualifiedly affirms God, the soul and their primacy over all things, securing eternal happiness. Abraham was this. — Constance

Particularly as he was about to kill his beloved son. What does that tell you?

So, the exteriority of the object is not detachable from the interior conscious event. — Constance

Exactly - that is why the art work is information about what is occurring in the artist's mind, or in other words consciousness. Likewise this art object representing the artist's consciousness, then interacts with the consciousness of the viewer, to become something in their mind. So it is a communication of consciousness to consciousness and what is exchanged is information, but just like the information communicated in this forum, so little of it gels. :lol:

So it is a communication of consciousness to consciousness and what is exchanged is information, but just like the information communicated in this forum, so little of it gels. :lol: — Pop

Alas, arrogance unmatched by intellectual content. Your ideas have been deservedly rejected by most members of the forum. Most people would take that as a sign to rethink their position. Anyone unwilling to face the fact that their positions might not be correct or not the only way of seeing things cannot truly considered a philosopher, or even an intelligent thinker.

Alas, arrogance unmatched by intellectual content. Your ideas have been deservedly rejected by most members of the forum. Most people would take that as a sign to rethink their position. Anyone unwilling to face the fact that their positions might not be correct or not the only way of seeing things cannot truly considered a philosopher, or even an intelligent thinker. — T Clark

An opinion bereft of substance, in the face of a scientific, irreducible, and falsifiable definition of art.

Neither do you represent the opinion of the forum, nor have you provided an argument - opinionated noise, nothing more. :lol:

So it is a communication of consciousness to consciousness and what is exchanged is information, but just like the information communicated in this forum, so little of it gels. — Pop

Neither do you represent the opinion of the forum, nor have you provided an argument — Pop

You gloat that people don't understand or agree with your ideas, then crow that the forum supports you.

You gloat that people don't understand or agree with your ideas — T Clark

This is an imagination of your mind.

then crow that the forum supports you. — T Clark

Again you reveal your consciousness.



Still no argument. Still no substance. Just opinion philosophy. :lol:

Still no argument. Still no substance. — Pop

I explained my ideas about art back in the beginning of the thread. I read your ideas but disagreed with them. I didn't respond because I thought others addressed your arguments effectively. When they did, all you did was repeat and repeat your litany - "a scientific, irreducible, and falsifiable definition of art."

My problem isn't with your ideas, although I disagree with them. It is the pompous, smug, condescending attitude with which you present and repeat, and repeat, and repeat them without addressing the arguments of those who disagree with you.

Is this a forum about problems individuals have with other individuals?

If so, then my problem with you is that you seem to mistake your opinions for something of worth. Your opinions are just noise without substance, you provide no argument whatsoever.

Again more opinionated noise, in the face of a scientific, irreducible, and falsifiable definition of art.

What more needs to be said?

I would too. Amorality appears to you against a background of morality, and vice versa. — frank

But then, what is morality, so that we can talk about amorality at all? This is, in keeping with the OP, an aesthetic question as well, by implication.

Could be a result of hot sauce about to be drowned in some awesome beer as you celebrate with close friends. Could be the same pain in the back you've struggled to deal with for months and despair is setting in.

What the pain is and how you deal with it is definitely a matter of how you cast it. Why would you analyze pain without a context? That doesn't happen very often. — frank

But how one casts it is incidental. We have the category of painful events. What is it that binds the particulars to the generality?

Particularly as he was about to kill his beloved son. What does that tell you? — frank

I take it as something other than what it seems. Putting aside the puzzle of Abraham, there is beneath ethics, and the principles we abide by, a vacuum. The real question is this: Is there a foundation for art and ethics that is absolute? This kind of thing is not presented to us in our principled thinking. It is as Hegel said, each affirmation made contains its own negation. K's point is that value has no grounding in ethics. The matter must go beyond ethics for its affirmation.

Exactly - that is why the art work is information about what is occurring in the artist's mind, or in other words consciousness. Likewise this art object representing the artist's consciousness, then interacts with the consciousness of the viewer, to become something in their mind. So it is a communication of consciousness to consciousness and what is exchanged is information, but just like the information communicated in this forum, so little of it gels — Pop

But there was an objection in this! The term 'information' fouls up the works, for the painting, say, is not about a state of mind sans the painting. The painting itself cannot be reduced to information about something else, like ones and zeros of a program, because the consciousness that is the seat of art's meaning necessarily includes the painting itself. Take a Beethoven sonata. What is exterior is the vibrating piano strings, BUT, to say those vibrations are merely information about something else denies the obvious presence of those very sounds in the consciousness where the experience resides. That is, the art object is not some carrier of information; it is part and parcel of the art event within.
Address this??

Again you reveal your consciousness. — Pop

You have to admit that this is an odd thing to say. Especially odd because in your very next post you say:

Your opinions are just noise without substance…

So is Clark revealing his consciousness or his opinions? He’s expressing his opinions, right? To actually reveal his consciousness we would somehow have to be able to be in Clarks mind and experience his consciousness. I can’t imagine how that’s possible, and neither can you, apparently.