Frege.......Santa Claus and psychologism, — Shawn

Adding background for my own benefit.

Psychologism and anti-psychologism
Frege, founder of logicism, attacked psychologism in his book The Foundations of Arithmetic

Psychologism is where psychology plays a central role in explaining some non-psychological fact in the world and where the observer interprets events in the world in subjective terms. Anti-psychologism, aka logical realism, is the position that the nature of logical truth does not depend on the contents of human ideas but exists independently of human ideas

It seems that psychologism is similar to David Dummett's Anti-Realism, where external reality is hypothetical and is not assumed and the truth of a statement rests on internal logic. Anti-psychologism seems similar to Realism, the truth of a statement rests on its correspondence to an external independent reality independent of beliefs.

It also seems that Frege's anti-psychologism requires that relations have an ontological existence in the world, in that tables, apples, mountains exist independently of any observer.

Internal and external relations
There is a distinction between internal relations and external relations. Internal relations are necessary in that the properties of a thing are essential to the existence of the thing. For example, a table composed of parts, a table top and legs. If the parts were removed then the table would cease to exist. External relations are contingent, in that whether a table is in a garden or in a living room does not affect the existence of the table.

However, FH Bradley argued against external relations using a regress argument, such that 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. In other words, a table top may be above table legs, but where exactly does the relation "above" exist. There is no information in the table top that it is above table legs, there is no information in the table legs that they are below the table top and there is no information in the space between them that there is a table top at one end and table legs at the other.

I see no metaphysical difference between internal relations and external relations. There may be an internal relation between a table and the table top, but at the same time, there is also the external relation between the table top and the table. Wittgenstein discusses something similar in para 59 of Philosophical Investigations - "A name signifies only what is an element of reality. What cannot be destroyed; what remains the same in all changes."—But what is that?....................We see component parts of something composite (of a chair, for instance). We say that the back is part of the chair, but is in turn itself composed of several bits of wood; while a leg is a simple component part. We also see a whole which changes (is destroyed) while its component parts remain unchanged. These are the materials from which we construct that picture of reality"

Frege and Santa Claus
Frege's attack on psychologism seems to me to suggest that Frege supported the idea that relations have an ontological existence in the world. But for me the problem remains, as pointed out by Bradley, exactly where in the world are these relations ? I can appreciate that the parts table top and table legs exist in the world and are spatially separate, but I cannot accept that "above" has an independent existence in the world.

IE, if Frege supported anti-psychologism, it follows that he must have supported the idea that relations have an ontological existence in the world. Therefore, not only must he have believed that the parts of Santa Claus have a real existence in the world, plump, white-bearded, red-suited, etc, but also that the relations between these parts have a real existence in the world, meaning that a Santa Claus consisting of real relationship between real parts must have a real existence in the world.

Are you going by an account of aesthetics rooted in modernist theory, or are you just using the terms as you see them apply? — Tom Storm

I am distinguishing between modernism and Modernism, whilst defining modernism as art that includes aesthetic quality.

Some reference material includes aesthetics as part of the definition of Modern Art and some don't. Generally they don't. For example, the Tate UK description of Modernism doesn't mention the aesthetic. The V&A article on "What was Modernism" mentions beauty. The Wikipedia article on Modernism has a small reference to aesthetics.

And yet there is The British Journal of Aesthetics which promotes debate in philosophical aesthetics and the philosophy of art.

However, it seems to me that the aesthetic is the primary dividing line within art as discussed today.

Even though not central to contemporary articles on Modern Art, I would argue that every important artwork pre-1960 had aesthetic quality, from the Lascaux cave paintings, through Egyptian, Greek and Roman art, from medieval religious art to Impressionism.

Whereas, I would also argue that no important Postmodern art since the 1960's has had aesthetic quality, partly due to Postmodernism's deliberate exclusion of any aesthetic.

IE, within modernism are many different approaches, as with postmodernism, but for me the primary dividing line within art is the presence or absence of the aesthetic.

The process of determining their commitment as ontological entities seems important to say as clear as possible, that they are a fiction. — Shawn

The fictional "Santa Claus" has an ontological existence,
The name "Santa Claus" exists within fiction, fiction exists within language, language exists within the physical structure of the brain, the brain exists as part of the world and is not separate to it, meaning that "Santa Claus" does have an ontological existence in the world.

Where "Santa Clause" exists depends on the ontological nature of relations
The question as to whether relations between parts has an ontological existence in the world is not agreed.

Wittgenstein in para 60 of Philosophical Investigations discusses composite objects composed of parts in relation to each other.

The mind is only able to contemplate a fictional character - Santa Claus, unicorns, Bart Simpson, etc - if the mind already has priori knowledge of the real parts that make up the mereological whole. For example, Santa Claus may be a fictional character, but its parts are known a priori as having ontological existences in the world - plump, white-bearded, red-suited, jolly, old, man, Christmas presents, children. IE, the mind cannot invent parts for which it does not already have a priori knowledge.

Either relations don't have an ontological existence in the world or they do.

If they don't, then relations exist only in the mind and not the world. Such that tables, being a relation between a table top and table legs, don't exist in the world but only in the mind. Similarly, Santa Claus, being a relation between plump, white-bearded, etc doesn't exist in the world but only in the mind.

If they do, then not only tables but Santa Claus exists in the world as mereological objects

Admittedly the parts of Santa Claus are physically separated, but then so are the table top and the table legs, which combine to form a table, and so are the broomstick and the brush in Wittgenstein's example, which combine to form a brush. The parts combine into a "simple" whole. And the "simple" whole ontologically exists in the world.

It could be argued that one problem with mereological objects that every possible combination of parts becomes an object, such that my pen and the Eiffel Tower becomes a "peffel". However, it is in the nature of the mind to name only those mereological objects that it finds pragmatically useful, discarding the uselessness of the concept "peffel" for the usefulness of the concept "table". Therefore, human vocabulary is a mirror of those concepts that the human pragmatically requires in order to evolve within the world.

IE, if relations don't have an ontological existence in the world, Santa Claus only exists in the mind. But if relations do have an ontological existence in the world, then Santa Claus exists in the world.

The information is not so much in the brick, but in the fact that a person who has total freedom to do as they like, chooses to put a brick on a pedestal. — Pop

Perhaps this remains the sticking point, in that I tend to Modernism whilst you may be leaning towards Postmodernism. Both valid as definitions of art, but different.

Within Postmodernism, an artist has total freedom to create whatever object, concept, performance they want for it to be called art.

Whereas in Modernism, regardless of the definition of art, some objects have artistic value and some don't, where someone who makes an object with artistic value is an artist and someone who makes an object lacking artistic value isn't an artist.

IE, personally, I don't agree with the Postmodernist definition of art, because the words art and artist lose all meaning, as everything can be art and everyone can be an artist.

why is this such a prominent feature of language to posit an ontology for Pegasus or Santa Claus? — Shawn

Perhaps this is what Wittgenstein was talking about in para 58 of Philosophical Investigations, where I think he is saying that a name such as "Santa Claus" is part of the language game, not an ontological part of the world.

You are highlighting that the observer interprets the artwork entirely in terms of their own consciousness — Pop

(y) Yes, "art work is information about............consciousness".

But the only consciousness I have ever known is my own. I assume there are other consciousnesses out there in the world, but I may be wrong, I will never know. Even if there are consciousnesses out there other than my own, I will never have any consciousness of a consciousness that is not my own.

IE, as art is information about consciousness, and the only consciousness that I know exists is my own, art can only be information about my own consciousness.

information has a chronological progression. It is causal, — Pop

(y) Yes, information flow is chronological.

As regards Postmodernism, there is no information within a brick that gives the viewer information about the state of mind of Carl Andre. As regards Modernism, there is no information within a painting of a sombre scene whether the artist was in a sombre or happy mood when they painted it.

So art expresses the same "self organization" that ordered form in the universe expresses — Pop

The figurine is an object that can be described as art, was made by a consciousness, where consciousness is a result of some kind of self-organisation, can be described as information and expresses something to the observer.

When someone observes information, the information can only express something to the observer if the observer can make sense of the information, can see patterns in the information, in that the information is not chaotic. IE, information by itself cannot express anything to the observer until the observer is able to see patterns in the information.

The patterns the observer is able to see is a function of the observer's mind, the observer's consciousness, and is not a function of whatever caused the figurine to come into existence.

IE, seeing art in the figurine is an expression of the observer's consciousness rather than any history prior to the creation of the figurine.

(y) This doesn't affect the idea that art is information about the conscious self-organising mind, it just moves the mind from the maker of the object to the observer of the object.

what can be inferred about the mind activity that made the work, from the work alone — Pop

(y) Anything about art is interesting.

(y) As regards, Integrated Information Theory, I tend to panprotopsychism as an explanation rather than panpsychism.

There is a flow of information - but in what direction ?

I agree that art, especially the aesthetic in art, is a fundamental expression of human consciousness, and art is information, but the question is, in what direction is this information flowing ?

The answer is different for Modernism and Postmodernism

In Modernism, which uses aesthetic form of pictographic representation, as soon as the artist has completed the artwork, the artwork takes on a meaning independent of the artist.

In Postmodernism, which uses symbolic representation, the meaning of the artwork remains tied the artist.

There is a difference between the "maker artist" and the "observer artist"

You write (quote 1) "to explore what can be inferred about the mind activity that made the work" and (quote 2) "you would have to ask the person deeming one object art, and the other one not.....................in an ideal setting we should be able to infer a lot of their mind activity from the clues provided in what they choose as their art".

Quote 1) is about the maker of the artwork as artist. Quote 2) is about the observer of the artwork as artist. Generally writings about art don't make the critical distinction between the person who made the artwork and the person who recognises an object is an artwork. My position is that there is no fundamental, philosophical, metaphysical difference between the "observer artist" and the "maker artist". The person who sees an object and recognises it as an artwork is as much an "artist" as the person who made the artwork. The only differences are practical, in that the "maker artist" has certain skills that the "observer artist" doesn't.

This skill that has taken many years to learn separates the "maker artist" from the "observer artist". The person who appreciates the artistic quality of a Van Gogh has the same artistic appreciation as Van Gogh himself, the difference being that Van Gogh had a profound skill and technical ability in the making of an artwork, whether conscious or instinctual, that most people can never approach.

IE, the difference between an admirer of a Van Gogh and Van Gogh himself is not of artistic sensibilities but of technical skill.

Postmodernism

In Postmodernism, information must flow from the artist that made the artwork to the observer of the artwork, and such information must flow separate to the artwork.

For example, Carl Andre's Bricks, where the meaning of the brick as a symbol cannot be discovered in the symbol itself, but only in the mind of the maker of the artwork.

Modernism

You write "to explore what can be inferred about the mind activity that made the work". I would argue that it is impossible to discover from a Modernist artwork anything about the mind of the maker of the artwork for the following reasons:

1) Some artworks have two or more makers, such as the collaborative work of Ruth Lozner and Kenzie Raulin. To which mind does the artwork have insight into ?
2) Some artworks are ambiguous, such as Monet's St Lazare Station. Is Monet referring to progress in the 20th C or the interplay of light onto physical objects ?
3) Some artworks have no artist makers, only observer artists, for example Warhol's Brillo Box
4) The same artist may paint in completely different styles, such as Van Gogh's early and late period.
5) Different artists may have painted in the same style, such as the Fauves. Vlaminck having a reputation as a loudmouth, troublemaker, and womanizer, whilst Matisse had a conservative appearance and strict bourgeois work habits.
6) The same artist, such as Briton Riviere, may paint a scene of despair Fidelity or of joyful humour Geese
7) Picasso painted Guernica at his home in Paris away from the bombings in Spain, whilst Monet painted Water lilies to the sounds of war.
8) An atheist may paint a religious scene, as Francis Bacon's Crucifixion and the Pope, whilst a religious person may paint a secular scene, such as Caravaggio
9) Interpretation of an artwork is open to debate. Robert Frost's The Road Not Taken is popularly generally taken as a poem about hope, success, and defying the odds, whereas it is in fact the opposite.
10) A contemporary performance of a Mozart piano sonata uses a different type of piano to that used by Mozart, meaning that the modern concert goer is hearing a different sound to that intended by the composer, meaning that a modern performance cannot be expressing what was in the composer's mind.

IE, there is a practical impossibility for the observer to discover links from the artwork into the mind of the artist.

Summary - information cannot flow from the maker of the artwork to the observer via the artwork.

The direction of flow of information is a crucial consideration in art.

In Modernism, which uses aesthetic form of pictographic representation, as soon as the artist has completed the artwork, the artwork takes on a meaning independent of the artist. Information flows between the maker of the artwork and the artwork, between the artwork and the observer of the artwork, but cannot flow from the maker of the artwork to the observer via the artwork.

In Postmodernism, which uses symbolic representation, the meaning of the artwork remains tied to the artist. Information flows between the maker of the artwork and the artwork, and from the maker of the artwork to the observer of the artwork by-passing the artwork entirely, but cannot flow from the maker of the artwork to the observer via the artwork.

Before it is art, it has to be deemed to be art. — Pop

Suppose a person is conscious of the information arriving through their senses from two objects in the world.

For what reasons would that person deem one object to be art and the other object not art ?

We now know definitively that all art is information - since information is fundamental. The only question that then remains for art is - information about what? And the obvious answer is consciousness. — Pop

(y) I can see that Integrated Information Theory and Peirce's Theory of Pragmatic Information would be relevant to the meaning of art, and should therefore be considered.

I walk along a path and see a few blown pieces of coloured paper on the ground, making a shape that appeals to me. I pick them up, put them in a frame and hang it on my wall. One year later, happening to visit MoMA, I notice exactly the same image as on my wall, but titled Matisse CutOut. As the two artworks are identical, the artistic quality of the artwork must be independent of whatever created it. I don't care whether the artwork was created by a 20 year old or a 80 year old, was French or Peruvian, had a headache or was worried about paying the rent, in that whatever created the artwork is irrelevant in the recognition of the object as an artwork.

It is true that i) to be conscious is to be conscious of something, ie, intentionality ii) consciousness creatively organises information iii) the observer of the artwork is conscious of receiving information from the artwork, shapes, colours, relationships, etc.

@Pop - i) "art work is information about the artist's consciousness" ii) "art conveys.........the consciousness of the artist" iii) "art's function is to express our consciousness". Summarising, the artwork expresses the consciousness of the artist.

But an actuary table is not art, and a Matisse CutOut is art. Therefore there must be a conscious act of determining what is art and what isn't. If whatever created the object is irrelevant in the recognition of the object as an artwork, and the object itself cannot determine that is an artwork, then the conscious act of determining the object as an artwork must be in the observer.

But the observer only knows that the object is an artwork by recognizing it as an artwork, regardless of the intentions of whatever made the object.

IE, looking at the object as an artwork is an expression of the ability of the observer to recognize an object as an artwork, rather than any expression of the observer's ability to look into the mind of whatever made it.

They have an information theoretic running through them, which I am in the process of understanding. — Pop

For my own knowledge:

Is Norbert Wiener's 1950 The Human Use of Human Beings: Cybernetics and Society relevant to your position - where art is just a part of patterns of information within the world ?

Also, is the article Dissecting landscape art history with information theory 2020 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America relevant to your position - whose approach at a meta-narrative is that of a quantitative understanding of a landscape painting rather than a qualitative one ?

I think art is to grounded in the aesthetic, and the aesthetic is to be grounded in affect. — Constance

@Constance "Calling an eclair sweet is certainly not a priori"

(y) True. As further described by post-Darwinian "evolutionary aesthetics" and "evolutionary ethics", humans are born with certain innate abilities, in that the brain is not a blank slate. The contemporary word "innate" serves the same purpose as Kant's 18th C word "a priori".

There is a certain ambiguity in the phrase "a priori knowledge". On the one hand it can mean a priori knowledge of the subjective experience of the colour red, sweet taste, aesthetic form, etc. On the other hand it can mean that some people have a genetic predisposition to certain skills and abilities, whether being naturally good at languages, mathematics, people skills, dance, football, etc, where such innate knowledge is not of the goal itself - but an instinctive understanding of how to achieve the goal

IE, it is a priori knowledge of how to achieve a goal rather than a priori knowledge of the goal itself.

@Constance "visual form may elicit the aesthetic...........form itself is not aesthetic"
@Constance "Affect is..............the essential feature of art"
@Constance "I think art is to grounded in the aesthetic, and the aesthetic is to be grounded in affect"

(y) I agree. Clive Bell proposed the concept of "Significant Form", where "There must be some one quality without which a work of art cannot exist; possessing which, in the least degree, no work is altogether worthless" and "lines and colours combined in a particular way, certain forms and relations of forms, stir our aesthetic emotions".

Commentators write "the origin of the aesthetic emotion is within the object itself", but such explanations are ambiguous. Someone observes an object, and there is something about the particular form of the object that induces an aesthetic experience in the mind of the observer. The thing to note is that the object only has a form that is significant to the observer, not that the object has a significant form that is independent of any observer

IE, "significant Form" exists in the observer, not the object observed.

@Constance "This brings the issue to Wittgenstein and why he refused to talk about ethics and aesthetics"

(y) Wittgenstein wrote in TLP 6.421 "It is clear that ethics cannot be put into words. Ethics is transcendental".

In a sense Wittgenstein refused to talk and ethics and aesthetics, but as Bertrand Russell wrote in the introduction to the Tractatus "Mr. Wittgenstein manages to say a good deal about what cannot be said, thus suggesting to the sceptical reader that possibly there may be some loophole through a hierarchy of languages, or by some other exit".

In a letter to Bertrand Russell, Wittgenstein complained that the British philosopher did not understand the main message of theTractatus. He explained that “the main point is the theory of what can be expressed by propositions—i.e., by language . . . and what cannot be expressed by propositions, but only shown; which, I believe, is the cardinal problem of philosophy”

But in practice, philosophers have made reasonable livings from teaching and writing books about aesthetics and ethics, so it cannot be as clear cut as Wittgenstein suggests.

It is interesting fact that I know for certain that my private subjective experience of the sweet taste of an eclair and aesthetic form are the same as yours, as much as I know that there is a cup of tea on the table in front of me.

So how is it that communication using language is possible, using public words such as sweetness of taste and aesthetic form, where such public words refer to private subjective experiences that can never be described in words.

So how do I know for certain that my private subjective experience of aesthetic form is the same as your private subjective experience of aesthetic form, when the only thing they have in common is the public word "aesthetic form".



Using only six pictures, I believe the meaning of "togavata" would be generally understood, sufficient to be able to classify the final picture on the far right as either "togavayat" or not "togavata"

IE, I cannot describe my private subjective experience of "togavata", yet I can relatively easily communicate my private subjective experience of "togavata" by attaching a public word to it.

Language is thereby able to communicate private subjective experiences by linking public words to them, thereby allowing language to be used to communicate private subjective experiences, whether aesthetic form, sweetness of taste, the pain of a headache, etc.

IE, Wittgenstein could have sensibly talked about aesthetics and ethics by linking public words to his private experiences of them.

Can you identify a critic or writer who embodies this view — Tom Storm

In particular - Professor Denis Dutton.

In general - "Evolutionary Aesthetics".

Professor Dutton talks about "The Art Instinct" at www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-Di86RqDL4

(a priori knowledge).. .....This post is not relevant to the discussion — T Clark

Since at least the Lascaux cave paintings 17,000 years ago, beauty and aesthetics have been considered part of the essence of the meaning of art, part of the "definition of art".

Sentient life is born with certain innate "a priori" abilities. We are able to know the subjective experience of the colour red, a bitter taste, an acrid smell, the pain of a headache, as well as aesthetic form. These subjective experiences don't need to be taught in school.

In Western philosophy since the time of Immanuel Kant, such knowledge, acquired independently of any particular experience, has been known as "a priori knowledge".

IE, any discussion of art needs an understanding of aesthetics, which in its turn needs an understanding of "a priori knowledge".

(a priori knowledge)............"You're stretching the meaning of those words to match reality. — T Clark

In a sense I am stretching the meaning of the words a priori and knowledge within the phrase "a priori knowledge".

But in the case of the phrase "a priori knowledge", it is the phrase as a whole that has meaning rather than the particular words within it. It is the same as if I said "In my job interview I had to jump through hoops", where the concept "jump through hoops" is not determined by the particular words jump, through and hoop. Or if a said "Mary is a breath of fresh air" or "John flew off the handle". In the same way, expressions such as "a priori knowledge", "synthetic a priori" and "transcendental idealism" are more idiomatic expressions than literal descriptions. The phrase "a priori knowledge" then becomes a key phrase when used in search engines conveniently leading to more extensive explanations, such as in The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy or Wikipedia.

IE, "a priori knowledge" is an idiomatic expression and is only a guide to the concept rather than a literal description of it.

Van Gogh — Pop

(y) If only in real life were there Doctor Henry Black's who were present in art museums explaining to the passing public the importance of the paintings they were looking at.

"art." — T Clark

@T Clark - "There are also definitions that are of very little use" (y)

@T Clark - "Keeping in mind that "aesthetic" actually has an accepted meaning - Concerned with beauty or the appreciation of beauty"

Not exactly.

Aesthetic as an adjective is the study of beauty.

But beauty as a noun surely has a different meaning to aesthetic as a noun. For example, taking the examples of Picasso's Guernica 1937, a moving and powerful anti-war painting, and Bouguereau's 1873 Nymphs and Satyr, mythological themes emphasising the female human body

Dictionary definitions generally agree that aesthetic as a noun means a set of principles governing the idea of beauty, such as "modernist aesthetics" and beauty as a noun means qualities such as shape, colour, sound in a person or thing that gives pleasure to the senses.

Both the Picasso and Bouguereau are important paintings and have aesthetic values. Whilst the Bouguereau may be said to give pleasure to the senses, the Picasso certainly doesn't.

IE, it follows that the aesthetic must be more than being concerned with beauty

@T Clark - "I've always hated this idea - that we can't explain sight to a blind person"

I know the subjective experience of colours in the visible light spectrum, red, orange, yellow, green, cyan, blue, violet. It seems that reindeer can also see the colour ultraviolet, which is useful to them in spotting lichens that they can eat.

The trick is, can you explain to me in words the subjective experience of the colour ultraviolet !

@T Clark - three cords and the truth. (y)

Exactly. Matisse's Cut-outs are some of my favourite artworks, minimal yet sophisticated.

@T Clark - value may be as much or more important than pattern. (y)

@T Clark - We are born with inborn instincts for certain ways of processing the world, learning about it...................We are born with the equipment to collect sensory input and the processing ability to interpret and use it" (y)

I agree.

I wrote "Humans have a priori knowledge", and I agree that my use of the word "knowledge" may be problematic, but I stick with it

"Knowledge" is defined as "facts, information, and skills acquired through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject" which seems fair enough.

1) Our inborn instincts could be said to include "facts, information and skills"
2) Our "experience and education" has been acquired through billions of years of evolution rather than the schoolroom.
3) As regards innate "theoretical or practical understanding" of the colour red say, "understanding" may be defined as the capacity to apprehend general relations of particulars and the power to make experience intelligible by applying concepts. Then it must be the case that the brain has the innate capacity to apprehend general relations of particulars and does have the innate power to make experience intelligible.

IE, I stick with the concept of "a priori knowledge"

The artwork is a mirror of the spirit — Constance

If this were part of the Stanford University undergraduate progam in philosophy, it would be costing me $58,000 a year - so I can't complain at $40 a year.

There is no correct definition of art

The definition "art is a bottle of Guinness" is as correct as any other. Definitions are determined by Institutions and the majority of interested people.

Various definitions of art

@Constance - "Art has this, I say. It is called the aesthetic"
@Constance - "The question of art lies with one question: is there anything that is both the essence of art, what makes art, art, and absolute?"

My personal definition of visual art is aesthetic form of pictographic representation

Definitions of the aesthetic

@Constance - "As to Beauty, I don't think, frankly, Hutcheson has a clue"

I would define the aesthetic as unity in variety, along the lines of Hucheson. Hucheson is giving an objective definition of the aesthetic, not attempting to describe the subjective experience.

I can describe objective facts about the colour red - seen in strawberries, sunsets, etc, has a wavelength of 625 to 700nm. I can also describe objective facts about the aesthetic - unity in variety, observed in a painting by Matisse, a book by Cormac Mccarthy, a song by Sade, etc. But I can never describe the subjective experience of the colour red or the aesthetic to someone who can never experience the colour red or aesthetic. However, I can use language to communicate my subjective experience of the colour red or aesthetic to another person who has also experienced the colour red or aesthetic.

IE, language can communicate general things about subjective experiences but can never communicate the particular subjective experience.

Aesthetics has value of two kinds

@Constance - " in aesthetics and ethics, there is value. Value is non cognitive"

The aesthetic can have two kinds of value, and these two meanings of value are independent of each other.

1) Value as the regard that something is held to deserve, the judgement of good or bad, in that the aesthetic of a Rembrandt is better than the aesthetic of a child's crayon sketch.
2) Value as a numerical measure, magnitude, quantity. Note that aesthetic value is not binary. It is not the case that an object either has an aesthetic or doesn't. As every object has a temperature , objects may have different temperatures. As every object has an aesthetic, different objects may have a different degree of aesthetic value.

Judgement of value as regards good or bad
The good of the aesthetic may exist in either the observer or the world.

@Constance "Wittgenstein thought that Good was divinity, and I think this problematically right"
My belief is that the source of the Good is human pragmatism

1) As regards the observer, the judgement of the Good certainly exists in the observer
2) As regards the world, the question as to whether morality exists in the world independent of any observer is open to debate. Moral realism says that morality does actually exist, and it exists in a knowable, universal way. Moral subjectivism claims that morality is not real or universal, and it does not exist outside the mind.

Judgement of value as regards degree
The degree of aesthetic may exist in either the observer or the world

1) As regards the observer, the judgment of degree certainly exists in the observer.
2) As regards the world, if the aesthetic is unity in variety, meaning a particular relationship of parts to the whole, the question as to whether relations ontologically exist in the world or merely attributions made by conscious entities and expressed in language is open to debate.

Evolution explains why we have the aesthetic

@Constance - "Evolution has always been uninformative, anyway, for it could never explain meaning, aesthetic, ethical"
@Constance "Evolution, at this level, says nothing"

In the world is chaos. Sentient life is able to survive and evolve by its innate and intellectual ability to discover patterns within this seeming chaos, ie, by discovering unity in variety. In other words, humans have an aesthetic sensibility. Evolution does not explain what the aesthetic is, but evolution does explain why the aesthetic originated in sentient life.

The brain has evolved in the world to be able to survive within the world.

Human a priori knowledge is that knowledge necessary to survive in the particular world we find ourselves in. It would follow that a sentient life evolving in a different world, whether hotter, silicon based or higher gravity, would have different a priori knowledge suitable for that different world. Rorty and the neo-pragmatists accept a mind-independent reality, whilst maintaining that this world can never be knowable. The human develops beliefs and habits which allow them to adapt to their environment with success. If humans had no a priori knowledge we would be back at Hume's problem of inference regarding the observation of a constant conjunction of events. This is the problem Kant attempted to solve with his concept of the synthetic a priori.

IE, the truth is a matter of perspective. Rather than as the neo-pragmatists propose, humans can only make sense of the world by applying reason to what they observer through their senses, it is more the case that sentient life, not separate to the world but as a part of it, have evolved innate a priori knowledge of the world. Such a priori knowledge allows them an understanding of the world even before experiencing it through their senses.

Our conscious mind has transcendent connection with the world bypassing the senses

@Constance - "Art may be an open concept, utterly, but it is grounded in the pragmatic authority of our times"
@Constance - "for to speak of a world of which we are a part is to speak of something not witnessable"
@Constance - "Rorty and others deny that knowledge can in any way align with "reality" at the foundational level"
@Constance - "The real issue lies in meta-aesthetics/ethics: what is the Good?.............The understanding is pragmatic, I claim, which is why the aesthetic cannot be spoken"

Sentient life, including humans, are born with certain innate knowledge - such as the colour red, bitter tastes, acrid smells, what is hot to the touch, the pain of a headache, as well as the aesthetic. In line with Kant's view, a priori intuitions and concepts provide a priori knowledge, which also provides the framework for a posteriori knowledge. This a priori knowledge does not need to be taught, in that the brain is not a blank slate when born. IE, children don't need to go to school to learn how to have the subjective experience of the colour red.

But this is particular knowledge, in that I am not able to imagine an bitter taste independent of experiencing through my senses an object in the world that gives me the subjective experience of a bitter taste. This a priori knowledge is about the possibility of being able to experience a particular subjective experience, not the subjective experience itself. The point is that this a priori knowledge of the possibility of experiencing a particular subjective experience exists in the brain prior to any observation of the world through the senses.

IE we have a priori knowledge of certain subjective experiences prior to ever experiencing them through our senses, in that we can speak of a world which we have not witnessed.

Summary
Art is important because it is aesthetic form of representative content. The aesthetic is important because it is an innate foundational ability of sentient life to discover patterns in a seemingly chaotic world. Art is therefore an outward expression of the innate character of the brain and conscious mind.

for Rorty, this world is "made, not discovered" — Constance

Sentient life is not just an observer of the world but is a part of the world

The human observer does not lead an existence separate to the world. The human is an integral part of the world, and has been part of an evolutionary process stretching back at least 3.7 billion years - a synergy between all parts of the physical world, of matter and force, between nature and life.

IE, the human is not an outside observer of the world, but part of the world.

The pragmatist view is only half the story

The pragmatist holds the position that the purpose of our beliefs as expressed in language is not to understand the true nature of reality existing on the other side of our senses, but to succeed in whatever environment we happen to find ourselves. As with Kant's synthetic a priori, we make sense of the world by imposing our a priori concepts onto the world we observe

However, the human observer does not have a separate existence to the reality of any world external to their senses, but is an intrinsic part of reality. The observer is part of the world and the world is part of the observer, they are one and the same.

As the observer is part of reality, then any beliefs the observer has about the reality of logic, aesthetics, ethics, space, time, etc must also be an inherent part of reality itself.

Rather than we make sense of a reality external to our senses by imposing our a priori concepts onto it, part of reality makes sense of itself through a priori concepts.

IE, the pragmatist holds the position that the human observer only has an indirect contact with reality through the senses, whereas in fact, the human observer's knowledge also comes from being in direct contact with reality, being an intimate part of reality.

The question as to whether the aesthetic exists in the object observed the other side of the sense or within the observer disappears, as the reality on the other side of the senses is the very same reality as within the observer, in that there is only one reality. The aesthetic within the world and the aesthetic within the observer are one and the same, as any aesthetic in the sentient life is exactly the same as the aesthetic in the world from which it evolved over billions of years. IE, The word "aesthetic" only exists within human language, which only exists within humans, which exist within the world, meaning that "aesthetics" must exist in a world within which humans exist.

As I see it, the aesthetic is an abstract expression of the human ability to discover pattern in seemingly chaotic situations, to discover uniformity in variety, an invaluable trait in evolutionary survival. As Francis Hutcheson wrote in 1725: “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”.

For me, important visual art requires aesthetic form of pictographic representation. As expressed by Hegel, formal quality is the unity or harmony of different elements in which these elements are not just arranged in a regular, symmetrical pattern but are unified organically together with a content of freedom and richness of spirit (though for me not a content of the divine).

Summary

In summary, the pragmatists are making the mistake of not taking into account the fact that because we are in intrinsic part of the world, this world "is also discovered, as well as made".

When art is undefined it fragments — Pop

An object can only have value if first defined. An object defined as a ship that sinks on first entering the water can rightly be said to be no good as a ship. The same object defined as a submarine that sinks on first entering the water may rightly be said to be good as a submarine.

With postmodernism, where anything can be art, then there cannot be good art or bad art. Then the well-known artwork A mail box in a lake is equal to the most prominent postmodernist works in the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art (badly named, however)

But in modernism, where art has been defined (albeit in more than one way), there can be good and bad art. Then a child's crayon sketch of a dog can never be the equal of a Rembrandt or Matisse.

is there anything that is both the essence of art, what makes art, art, and absolute?......But I claim art has this foundation......Art has this, I say. It is called the aesthetic......Propositions are inherently defeatable........ words all carry their own begation... — Constance

The problem is, how can the idea that "the essence of art is as an aesthetic" be expressed but not in propositional form, if as you say that "propositions are inherently defeatable" and "words all carry their own negation" ?

the essence of art — Constance

Language is not part of the essence of a modernist artwork.
I don't want to give the impression that I think that linguistic descriptions are part of the fundamental essence of a modernist artwork. Descriptions and definitions (succinct descriptions) may be helpful in the viewer's understand of the artwork but any such description is external to the artwork.

Though language is important in understanding the artwork
For example, when looking at a Classical Greek sculpture such as Laocoon and his Sons, admired by Hegel for its form and content, a deeper understanding of both the artwork and artist may be gained by knowing that for Hegel formal qualities meant "a unity and harmony of different elements in which these elements are not just arranged in a regular, symmetrical pattern but are unified organically" and content meant "an expression of freedom and richness of spirit".

Language is part of the essence of a postmodernist artwork
Language in postmodernism has a different function to that of language in modernism.
In postmodernism, there has been a blurring of the lines between art and language, where language itself has become a part of the artwork and where through the text the viewer is invited to directly engage with political and social issues within contemporary life. In postmodernism, the artwork is not an end in itself, but is an instrument by which the viewer is directed to political and social concerns held by the artist.

Modernism is more profound than postmodernism
Modernism (whose essence is aesthetic form of pictographic representation) enables a profundity not present in postmodernism because the viewer's interpretation is not restricted by having to comply with any language imposed on the artwork by the artist, as would be the case within a postmodernist artwork (where the aesthetic has been deliberately excluded and whose essence is symbolic representation).

IE, modernism is democratic in allowing the viewer a free interpretation, whereas postmodernism is authoritarian in directing the viewer's interpretation by means of the language imposed by the artist.

art — praxis

If I could suggest a description for your next Venice Biennale exhibit : "Located somewhere between a fantastical reality and the political chaos of modern life, praxis' sculptures weave together multiple narrative threads. As a keen observer of complex social dynamics, he subverts conventional codes of representation through the language of narrative sculpture. Magnifying issues of inequality and political uncertainty, the picturesque beauty of his vivid landscape belies a sinister reality in which the collision of sumptuous detail and subtle colour provides an insight into the social mores and political ideologies of the working postman.

In my opinion, equal if not better than Teresa Margolles 2019 Venice Biennale exhibit.

art theory — Constance

There are different approaches to a definition of art

1) Definitions as universal - @Pop wrote: "Art is an expression of human consciousness" - "consciousness unifies and integrates information, and I postulate - in a creative process. It seems consciousness is creativity" (y)

2) Definitions as abstract - @Constance wrote: "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." (y)

3) Definitions as particular - @RussellA wrote: "the two main approaches to art are modernism and postmodernism. In modernism, the artwork is more important than the artist, the aesthetic is of equal importance to the representation and the representation is pictographic. In postmodernism the idea of the artwork is more important than the physical artwork, any aesthetic has been deliberately removed and any representation is symbolic rather than pictographic. (y)

4) Definitions as unhelpful - @Banno wrote: "definitions are not all that helpful, but further, any definition of art will immediately encourage any sensible artist to produce something that does not meet that definition" (n)

5) Definitions as futile - @TheMadFool wrote: "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." (n)

Definitions are important in understanding modernism

In postmodernism the meaning of art has become meaningless as anything can be art, such as Warhol's Brillo Boxes, so any attempt at an underlying definition becomes pointless.

However, in modernism, it is the case that some objects have artistic value, such as Matisse's Dance 1910, and some don't, such as Warhol's Brillo Boxes. If some objects within modernism have artistic value and some don't, there must be objective and subjective reasons. As modernist artworks have great social, cultural and intellectual value, intellectual curiosity requires an attempt to discover reasons why they hold such important meaning.

IE, definitions, as succinct summaries of complex ideas, are an important aspect in the understanding of modernism.

Definitions can communicate subjective experience

As with Mary in Mary's Room, Mary may know all the objective facts about the colour red, and yet never had the subjective experience of the colour red.

The value of a modernist artwork, its essence, is in its particular subjective experience. The idea that definitions are unhelpful in communicating the nature of art assumes that definitions can only describe objective facts and not subjective experiences. But definitions do more than this. Definitions communicate between people by describing the whole - "aesthetic form is unity of parts within a varied whole" - and naming the parts - "unity", etc. Linguistic communication depends on agreed public names having private subjective meanings.

IE, as definitions are able to communicate the subjective essence of an artwork by naming rather than describing, definitions are invaluable in any discussion about art.

Definitions are not futile

If definitions were futile, then we would be deep in a postmodernist Alice in Wonderland world where any word can mean whatever the speaker wants it to mean. This would result in the breakdown of communication, such that when I talk about my car I mean a small vessel for travelling over water, propelled by oars, sails, or an engine, and when I talk about my boat I mean a four-wheeled road vehicle that is powered by an engine

Definitions are not unhelpful
If definitions about art were unhelpful, the Tate would not write that "Performance Art is artworks that are created through actions performed by the artist or other participants, which may be live or recorded, spontaneous or scripted".

Or why the SEP have a 10,000 word long article on "The Definition of Art" - including Kant's definition as “a kind of representation that is purposive in itself and, though without an end, nevertheless promotes the cultivation of the mental powers for sociable communication”

Or the Minnesota State University's web site linking to Tolstoy's definition of art as "a means of union among men, joining them together in the same feelings, and indispensable for the life and progress toward well‐being of individuals and of humanity."

IE, Even if there is no agreement as to a single definition of art, definitions are helpful in attempting to understand the meaning of art.

Summary

Any underlying definition of art is pointless in postmodernism, as anything can be art, but in modernism, definitions are an important aspect in understanding the great social, cultural and intellectual importance of modernist artworks.

I find the idea of a mailbox standing in the middle of a lake rather aesthetically appealing. — praxis

I can see your artwork Mailbox in Lake taking pride of place at the 2022 Venice Biennale. (y)

Again, we can easily imagine a red letterbox out of context. In experience we cannot separate one from its context, — praxis

I agree that I would have difficulty understanding what was going on if I saw an object such as a red letter box out of its normal context in the middle of lake

But I would have no trouble with my subjective experience of the colour red (or aesthetic form) regardless of the object's context - whether at the end of a street or the middle of a lake.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 ?

you seem to have made up your own meaning of aesthetic. I’ll wager that you can’t explain what this is supposed to mean. — praxis

Thinking about the meaning of aesthetics rather than the definition of aesthetics:

The belief that the aesthetic is Uniformity within Variety goes back to at least Aristotle

Aristotle's Poetics is the first surviving philosophical treatise about the theory of drama in literary works. He wrote "Tragedy is a representation of a serious, complete action which has magnitude, in embellished speech, with each of its elements [used] separately in the [various] parts [of the play] and [represented] by people acting and not by narration, accomplishing by means of pity and terror the catharsis of such emotions."

As regards Variety, complex plots have reversals and recognitions, threats are resolved, and many types of art are blended, including language and music.
As regards Uniformity, actions should follow logically from the situation created by what has happened before, poetic narratives are unified by a plot whose logic binds up the constituent elements by necessity and probability.

As Francis Hutcheson wrote in 1725: “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”.

IE, The belief that the aesthetic is Uniformity within Variety goes back to at least Aristotle.

The aesthetic is in the observer's experience of the object's form, not in the object's form

There are certain objective facts that may be described regarding the meaning of aesthetic, but the subjective experience itself is beyond description as that needs direct acquaintance.

Subjective experiences can include the perceived sensation of the pain of a headache, the taste of wine, the redness of an evening sky, as well as aesthetic form. A subjective experience stands in contrast to a propositional attitude, a conscious visceral experience rather than an intellectual belief about the experience.

Starting with colour as an analogy, an observer observes a wavelength of 700nm. The observer can describe objective facts about the wavelength of 700nm, but cannot describe their subjective experience of the colour red. I can be described objective facts about a wavelength of 700nm, but I must have subjective acquaintance with the colour red.

Although the colour red is not in the object, the object is the cause of the subjective experience of the colour red, in that a change in the object may cause a cause in the subjective experience, ie, from red to blue. Although the object is the cause of the effect of subjective experience of red, the object does not determine that the subjective experience is red rather than blue say. The particular object is the cause of the subjective experience of red, which is external to the object, and not contained within the object.

Similarly, an observer observes a physical object, where the whole object is made up of parts, and the observer observes the parts and the relationships between the parts. The particular object is the cause of an aesthetic experience, which is external to the object, and not contained within the object. The particular form of the object is the cause of an aesthetic experience, and a subjective aesthetic experience is the effect. As effects are not contained in their causes, it is not the form of the object that is aesthetic but rather the observer's subjective experience of the form of the object.

IE, the aesthetic is in the observer's experience of the object's form, not in the object's form.

The aesthetic and Uniformity within Variety are both Kantian a priori knowledge

Kant in Critique of Reason wrote: i) "Space is a necessary a priori representation that underlies all other intuitions", ii) “any knowledge that is thus independent of experience and even of all impressions of the senses. Such knowledge is entitled a priori”, iii) “in whatever manner and by whatever means a mode of knowledge may relate to objects, intuition is that through which it is in immediate relation to them”, iv) "nothing in a priori knowledge can be ascribed to objects save what the thinking subject derives from itself".

Innate human a priori knowledge has been part of the evolution of sentient life since the Cambrian period 541 to 485 mya. Humans are born with significant innate a priori knowledge, such as the instinctive knowledge of the difference in touch between a hot and cold object, knowledge of spatial relationships in knowing whether object A is to the left or right of object B, knowledge of the difference between a red object and blue object, knowledge of the difference between horizontal and vertical lines as well as a rudimentary knowledge of the difference between good and bad, etc. If this were not the case then there would be classes in school teaching the subjective experience of hot and cold, red and blue, etc. However, whilst subjective experiences cannot be taught, the words describing these experience must be taught, whether hot and cold, chaud froid, caldo freddo, etc.

Included within such a priori knowledge is the aesthetic. 10 million people didn't visit the Louvre annually without a desire for an aesthetic experience, nor admire Derain's Collioure, never mind the classic lines of the Mercedes 560SL, the magnificence of the Empire States Building, the complex themes of Cervantes Don Quixote or the timelessness of Sade's Smooth Operator.

What these aesthetic experiences have in common is the observer's consciousness of an inexplicable, undeniable mysterious unity within what at first sight appears chaotic, unintelligible and complex. The conscious mind, in observing a world of seemingly chaotic complexity, is able to self-organise all this maelstrom of information using a priori knowledge of balance, colour, movement, scale, shape, good and bad and mixed with a fundamental morality into comprehensible and intelligible patterns of understanding - an aesthetic Uniformity within Variety.

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

Summary

As the aesthetic as a formal arrangement of the parts within an object has been discussed since at least Aristotle, I would have thought the more difficult problem would be to give an example of an aesthetic that didn't depend on the formal arrangement of the parts within the object.

Part of the problem when discussing "art" are problems with terminology. As I see it:

There are two meanings of aesthetics
Aesthetic as a verb means the study of beauty.
Aesthetic as a noun means a particular formal unity of parts within a complex and varied whole

There are two main definitions of art
Art as modernism, where aesthetic form and pictographic representative content have equal roles. An art going back the Lascaux cave paintings and beyond.
Art as postmodernism, where aesthetic form is deliberately excluded and the representation is symbolic. An art that originated in the 1960's.

Art as modernism can be further subdivided into Modernism, Expressionism, Baroque, etc.
Art as postmodernism can be further subdivided into Conceptual, Contemporary, Performance, etc.

There are two meanings of modernism
There is the modernism as an approach going back to the Lascaux cave paintings and beyond.
There is the Modernism of Monet and the Impressionists where the representation was of contemporary society rather than historical subject.

There are two meaning of contemporary
A contemporary artist can mean any artist currently living and who can be working in a variety of styles.
A Contemporary art is a subdivision of postmodernism, where artists from the 1960's onwards wanted to reconnect art with contemporary life.

There are two meanings of "an artwork has value"
It can mean that there is an object that can have aesthetic value independently of any observer.
It can mean that objects cannot have aesthetic value independently of any observer, but only in the mind of an observer.

The meaning of words can change with time
When today we use the word aesthetic, Kant in the 18th C would have used the term "free beauty"
When today we use the word beauty, Kant would have used the term "adherent beauty".

Things are complicated when contemporary commentators on Kant replace the term "free beauty" by "beauty"

The aesthetic and beauty have different meanings
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.

The "Artworld" is not "The Art World"
The "Artworld" has been hijacked by the postmodernists. This can be dated back to Arthur Danto's The Artworld, which gave the "institutional definition of art", defining art as whatever art schools, museums, wealthy collectors and the media say it is.
"The Art World" is the world of most everyday practising professional and non-professional artists, predominantly working in the modernist style .


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

aesthetic value — praxis

You are right. Similarly, when I am in the presence of any object, even though all objects have a temperature, I am not always appreciating that object's temperature.

Every observed object has aesthetic value - but not all aesthetic values are equal
If the aesthetic is understood as Hutcheson's "compound ratio of Uniformity and Variety", then every observed object has an aesthetic, and every observed object is an artwork. An observed object could be Derain's Bridge over the Riou or the Golden Gate Bridge. (y) @Constance

From the fact that every object has a temperature, it does not follow that all objects have the same temperature. The Mercedes AMG F1 W12 E Performance and the Skoda 1100 R are both cars, but it does not follow that they are the same. Warhol's Brillo Box and Rembrandt's Self Portrait are both artworks and both have an aesthetic, but it does not necessarily follow that they have the same artistic and aesthetic quality.

As the aesthetic experience originates in the observer and not the observed object, the aesthetic experience is subjective rather than objective, and it follows that there cannot be an absolute measure of aesthetic value. But even so, there may be general agreement between different observer's as to the aesthetic value of a particular object.

IE, even though every observed object has an aesthetic value, some observed objects have a greater aesthetic value than others.

Of what use is the aesthetic
One could ask of what practical use is Kirchner's Alpleben. It just sits on the wall doing nothing. At least with a car I can get from A to B, and at least with an oven I can cook evening dinner. The Kirchner gives me nothing practical, and yet for me the aesthetic value of the kirchner outweighs anything that is mundanely practical.

As the aesthetic experience is a qualia (apologies to Banno - although it is a useful word), in the same way as the pain of a headache, the taste of wine or the redness of an evening sky, it is a Kantian a priori intuition, and therefore beyond being able to be described.

As the value of tasting red wine is in the experience itself, the value of the aesthetic is in the experience itself.

Aesthetic intuition doesn't give specific knowledge, but it does point to the possibility of discovering greater knowledge. An aesthetic of "Uniformity and Variety" gives the promise of being able to to discover and understand patterns within a seemingly chaotic mass of unconnected information. The experience of the aesthetic points to the conscious organisation of seemingly chaotic information into comprehensible patterns. (y) @Pop

The engineer who designs a bridge and the child that makes a car of lego are both using their imagination and understanding in creative acts, though only the child's parents or the postmodernist would say that their creations have the same value. A Rembrandt Self-Portrait and a Warhol Brillo Box both have artistic and aesthetic value, but their artistic and aesthetic values are not comparable. It is better to strive for the sophistication of a Rembrandt than a simpleness of a Warhol.

IE, the aesthetic experience points to the possibility of discovering the "Uniformity" of patterns within a "Variety" of information.

Summary
Every observed object is an artwork and has an aesthetic, but the aesthetic value of some artworks is higher than others.

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 ?

"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

Art is an expression of human consciousness — Pop

"Art" is expressed in human consciousness
My belief is that "art" is a combination of an aesthetic and representation. As "aesthetic" and "representation" are human concepts, then "art" is also a human concept. As humans are conscious of their concepts, then humans are conscious of "art" as a concept. IE, I agree that "art" is expressed in human consciousness.

But - every observed object is an "artwork"
As everything observed has some degree of aesthetic and representation, then everything observed is an artwork - a Rembrandt, a leaf on the ground, a sunset, a Renault Kangoo, a Derain, a computer keyboard, a Falcon Heavy, a sunset, a tin of baked beans, an unmade bed, a Picasso.

Though - artworks don't even need to be physical objects
Artworks can exist as an idea or a concept. My description of a sunset over a Norwegian forest is also an artwork. In 1960, the artist Stanley Brouwn declared that all the shoe shops in Amsterdam constitute an exhibition of his artwork. In conceptual art, the idea or concept behind the work is more important than the finished art object.

However - all artworks have a quality as all objects have a temperature
I am following previous comments to make my point.
TheMadFool - "Yet, someone can present anything under the sun as art"
Praxis - "If art is anything an artist presents as art then anything can be art, and by extension, anyone can be an artist"
Tom Storm - "it interests me how often the question 'what is good art?' is often mistaken for the question, 'what is art?"
T Clark - "There can be low quality art".

As every observed object has an aesthetic and representation, the terms aesthetic and representative are not binary, but rather have a subjective "quality". IE, as every object has a temperature, and this temperature can range from extreme heat to extreme cold, a Derain has a greater aesthetic than two sticks on the ground artistically placed, and a Thomas Cole has a greater representative content than two sticks on the ground in the shape of a mountain.

However - an artwork's quality is subjective
I agree that as aesthetic and representative content is subjective, there can never be an absolute standard by which artworks are judged, and there will always be argument as to the quality of an artwork. However, this being said, the degree of aesthetic and representative content does vary between artworks, even if there can never be any absolute agreement as to which of two artworks is the better.

In summary - the definition of art should include a reference to "quality"
As with Wittgensteins' "game", I agree with Wheatly that "I don't think Art (with a capital 'A') can be boiled down to a definition." As every observed object is an artwork, the definition "Art is the expression of human consciousness" is far too broad to be useful. The next step in improving the definition would be to include reference to a major distinguishing feature of art, ie, its quality. This is easier said than done, as, for a Modernist quality in art means one thing, and for a Postmodernist quality in art means something totally different.

IE, improving any definition of art by including reference to quality is perhaps where the task of defining art gets a bit tricky

“Art is an expression of human consciousness. Art work is information about the artist’s consciousness.” — Pop

There are many different definitions of "Art", of which the above is more relevant to the Post-Modernism that arose in the 1960's.

This definition doesn't relate to Modernism and Pre-Modernism

For example, "Art is an expression of human consciousness" is not referring to Kirchner's Expressionism, where the artist expressed their inner feelings, not their consciousness.

"I am however, saying that being beautiful or ugly are optional elements of art" is clearly not referring to the Modernism of Monet's Impressionism, which is about the aesthetic arrangement of representative forms.

"Art work is information about the artist’s consciousness” surely does not apply when looking at the Mona Lisa , which seems more about Lisa Gheradini's self-conscious reflections within the Lombardy countryside than any reference to the artist.

"Art is information about the artist's evolving process of self organization" certainly does not apply to a landscape by Thomas Cole, where no information is given about the process of the artist. It the landscape itself rather than the artist that is the subject of self-organization.

This definition relates more to Post-Modernism

If Art is about consciousness, then any conscious act can be art, such as the Post-Modernist Andy Warhol's Oxidation Series 1977, where he invited friends to urinate onto a canvas of metallic copper pigments, so that the uric acid would oxidize into abstract patterns.

If Art is about consciousness regardless of quality, then this would fulfil the Conceptual Art of Tracey Emin, where the concept or idea involved in the work take precedence over traditional aesthetic, technical, and material concerns.

If Art was about expressing the consciousness of the artist, this would include Cut Piece 1964 by Yoko One, a performance in which people were invited to cut away portions of her clothing.

If Art was about expressing the consciousness of the artist through the ideas and concepts of language, this would include the Language-based art of Joseph Kosuth, such as his 1997 work Titled Quotation (for L.C.) consisting solely of the text "SORRY, NO IMAGE AVAILABLE"


IE, the above definition relates more to that of the Post-Modernism that arose in the 1960's, where the artist has become more important than the artwork, rather than any definition of art that preceded it.

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"