To begin with, an innocent baby doesn’t know what colours are or what they’re called. They need to be socialised and taught colour, just as they are taught shapes, and patterns and even their meanings and uses (e.g., 'blue for boys, pink for girls'). — Tom Storm

When stung by a wasp, you don't need to know the name "pain" before feeing pain. You feel pain regardless of what it is called.

Similarly with seeing colour, you don't need to know the name "cadmium blue" before seeing cadmium blue.

Similarly with having an aesthetic experience, you don't need to know the name "aesthetic experience" before having an aesthetic experience.

You need a name in order to communicate your subjective experience with other people, but you don't need a name to have that subjective experience.

Do you see light blue and dark blue as shades of the same colour? — Jamal

Yes. Doesn't everyone.

The top two colours have a family resemblance, and as members of the same family are similar but not identical.

The ultimate "innocence," which I'm arguing is an impossible limit-case, would have you looking at the Lascaux painting from a kind of "view from nowhere" — J

This "innocence" is common in human cognition.

For example, when I look at grass, I don't think to myself, what colour should I see this grass as, should I see it as yellow, red, green or purple. I don't approach seeing colours with any preconceptions. In seeing the colour of an object my approach is no different to that of an innocent baby. I see the colour I see.

Similarly, with seeing an aesthetic in an object.
===============================================================================

Are you saying that your own cultural and individual experience of art, which you bring to the Fauve painting, has no effect on your perception of "great aesthetic value"? — J

Yes.

My belief is that every society in the past 17,000 years would recognise the aesthetic value in the Lascaux cave paintings. From the Sumerians through the Minoans up to the Greeks, Romans and into the 21st C, regardless of their particular religious, political or cultural beliefs.
===============================================================================

I think you're wanting to say that the painting contains, in and of itself, aesthetic value? — J

No.

"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder"

The object does not contain aesthetic value. The object contains a certain form in which an observer can see an aesthetic.

There’s plenty of postmodern art created by graduate artists and unknown, underexposed, even struggling artists who see in postmodernism a vitality and opportunity for expression that you or others may not. — Tom Storm

I agree that postmodern art is an opportunity for expression. I think less through the physical object but more through accompanying statements.

These unknown, underexposed postmodern artists, what exactly are they struggling against?

It seems that they are struggling to break into the Artworld, which is, as I see it, an exclusive club rather than a democratic institution.

My list of what constitutes an innocent eye was partial, but taking it as a starting point, do you feel that, when you encounter one of the above artworks (which are extraordinary, by the way, thanks!) you:
- know nothing about it? Really??
- know nothing about art yourself, from your own culture?
- are able to encounter the art in a way that is separate from a time and place?
- bring no cultural or individual experience to bear? — J

There are two distinct, separate and independent aspects.

On the one hand, there is the object as it exists independent of what one knows about it, and on the other hand there is what one knows about the object.

There is the object, for example a Lascaux cave painting.

There is what one knows about it. Estimated at around 17,000 to 22,000 years old, painted by the Magdalenian peoples, reindeer hunters who possibly engaged in cannibalism.

That the the object was possibly painted by a reindeer hunter has no bearing on the aesthetics of the object. The object has an aesthetic value regardless of whether it was painted by a reindeer hunter or a plant gatherer.

It is true that I know something about the Lascaux cave paintings, I know something about the Fauve artists of the 20th C and I have a particular cultural and individual experience, but all these have no effect on my seeing an object that has great aesthetic value.

In discovering an aesthetic in the Lascaux cave painting, my eye is innocent of any knowledge of facts and figures.

There is no such thing as an art work without an "accompanying statement.....................................Is there anyone on this thread who disagrees that this is a fiction? — J

I know that these images have an aesthetic and are therefore art without knowing anything about the cultures they originated in.

The beauty of the aesthetic in art is that the observer only needs an innocent eye.

One problem with Postmodernism is that depends on its existence through the promotion of elitism within society, an incestuous Artworld that deliberately excludes the "common person" in its goal of academic exclusivity.

I guess that's why we have critics... But I'd imagine the statement is part of the artwork. — Tom Storm

Copilot agrees "In Postmodernism, the boundary between the artwork and its accompanying statement is often deliberately blurred."

In that event, even though there may minimal aesthetic in the physical object, such as a pebble, there may be substantial aesthetic in the accompanying statements, whether by the artist, gallery or critic.

So overall, if a Postmodern artwork includes both the physical object and accompanying statements, there may well be substantial aesthetic in a Postmodern artwork.

That is why the physical object in a Postmodern artwork may be either minimal or imagined. In other words, conceptual. The concept in a Postmodern artwork is more important than any physical object.

The aesthetic is in the thoughts initiated by a real or imaginary object rather than the object itself.

As long as we recognise that the hierarchy is man-made......................................The difference isn’t in the objects themselves, but in the interpretive habits we've inherited. — Tom Storm

Exactly my thoughts.
===============================================================================

But since I'm sympathetic to postmodernism and you're not, maybe we won't get passed this. — Tom Storm

Though have sufficient interest to have been to the Venice Biennale.

I have a question.

Suppose the Postmodern artwork is a single pebble in the Whitechapel accompanied by a statement by the artist.

Is the "artwork" just the pebble or is the "artwork" the pebble plus the accompanying statement by the artist?

I’m saying that when an artist presents something as art, it’s an invitation to explore it aesthetically.............................But yes, more broadly, our experience of the world may also be largely aesthetic......................The aesthetic goes beyond art: our sensory and perceptual engagement with the world is aesthetic in nature. — Tom Storm

Totally agree.

As you say "It's pretty easy to say that a cel from a Bugs Bunny cartoon is less 'important' as art than a Rembrandt". There is a hierarchy in the importance as art of an object.

Similarly, it seems clear that there is also a hierarchy in the aesthetic of an object. For example, I am sure that most would agree that the aesthetics in the object that is Leonardo's painting "The Last Supper" are higher than the aesthetics in the object that is a straight line.

In other words, it is not the case that an object is either art or not art, or an object is either aesthetic or not aesthetic

Every object can be thought of as art and having an aesthetic, though some objects are more artistic or more aesthetic than other objects.
===============================================================================

How do you define an aesthetic experience? — Tom Storm

In words, I would agree with Francis Hutcheson's approach:

For Hutcheson, beauty is not in the object but is in how the object is perceived, and stems from uniformity amidst variety. Diverse elements come together in a way that feels balanced and harmonious, a dynamic process where we sense order within complexity.

The ability to discover patterns in chaos (ie, an aesthetic) is an important part of human cognition.

However, as with other aspects of human cognition, there are limits to any explanation.

For example, when you look at grass, why do you perceive the colour green rather than the colour blue. Any deep explanation is beyond current scientific or philosophical understanding.

Similarly, when one looks at "The Last Supper" and a straight line and have a greater artistic and aesthetic experience with "The Last Supper" than the straight line, any deep explanation is beyond current scientific or philosophical understanding.

I could say that "The Last Supper" is more complex than a straight line, but this raises the question, why is something more complex of necessity either more artistic or more aesthetic, to which there is no answer.

For me, an object is aesthetic if I discover within it a unity within variety, in the same way that I discover greenness in grass.

Jeff Koons is a postmodern artist. How is his work not an invitation to have an aesthetic experience?.................................But since you raised it - an experience is aesthetic when we pay attention to how it feels, looks, or affects us, not just what it does. Drinking coffee becomes aesthetic when we enjoy its taste, smell, and warmth. Sitting on a hard chair can be aesthetic if we notice how it feels and how it makes us sit. It’s about noticing and appreciating the experience, not just using it for a purpose. — Tom Storm

You are saying that we have an aesthetic experience when we are aware of having a feeling. This feeling may be pleasant, such as drinking coffee, or unpleasant, such as sitting in a hard chair.

For example, you say that if we have feelings towards a Jeff Koons artwork, then we are having an aesthetic experience.

You seem to be saying that all our feelings are aesthetic experiences.

However, this is not how the word is generally used. I am sure I am correct in saying that as the word is generally used, some feelings may be aesthetic experiences and some feelings may not be aesthetic experiences.

If that is the case, Jeff Koons, as a Postmodern artist, may be inviting the observer to have a feeling towards his artwork, but it does not follow that this feeling must be aesthetic.
===============================================================================

Sounds like you have a hierarchy of what counts as art, or maybe just what counts as good art?............................. It's pretty easy to say that a cel from a Bugs Bunny cartoon is less 'important' as art than a Rembrandt. — Tom Storm

We agree that there is a general hierarchy in art from the more important to the less important. For example, a Bugs Bunny cartoon is less important as art than a Rembrandt. Though of course the particulars may be argued over. For example, is a John Osborne play more or less important as art than a Arthur Miller play?

In short, it takes more than "someone" to successfully place a pebble as art in the Whitechapel Gallery. Who else is needed, and what is that context? This is where so-called institutional theories of art start to gain traction, I think. — J

Yes, that person has to be a member of the pre-existing Artworld, a loose collection of art institutions, artists, critics, curators, art teachers, auction houses and wealthy collectors.
https://fromlight2art.com/institutional-art-theory-explained/

Postmodernism is an example whereby the word "art" has been given a new meaning by this Artworld. As you say, the Institutional Theory.

For someone to place a pebble as art in the Whitechapel Gallery, they would have to "play the game". This may take a few years, but is possible. For example, they could become an art teacher at St Martins School Of Art, submit articles to Art Quarterly, hire a gallery in Shoreditch to exhibit their own conceptual works, volunteer for DACS in order to get to know Gilane Tawadros and perhaps submit to the Venice Biennale.

A fair amount of work, but not everyone gets to see their very own pebble in one of London's most prestigious Postmodern Art Galleries.

All postmodern art has some kind of aesthetic. It doesn’t have to be about beauty; rather, like any work, it’s an invitation to experience something aesthetically. To experience something aesthetically means to engage with it through your senses and perception, paying attention to its qualities: form, texture, colour, tone, or atmosphere. And the work's conceptual and cultural context. It’s about how the artwork affects you emotionally, intellectually, or even physically, whether through pleasure, discomfort, curiosity, or reflection. — Tom Storm

I agree that aesthetics is more than beauty, and can includes the beauty of a Monet "water lilies" and the ugliness of a Picasso "Guernica".

I agree that an observer engages with a Postmodern artwork through their senses and perception, but this does require the artwork to be aesthetic.

An observer of a Postmodern artwork may pay attention to its qualities: form, texture, colour, tone, or atmosphere, but again this does not require the artwork to be aesthetic.

An observer of a Postmodern artwork may pay attention to its conceptual and cultural context, but this does not require the object to be aesthetic.

An observer of a Postmodern artwork may be affected emotionally by looking at it, but in what way is anger aesthetic?

An observer of a Postmodern artwork may be affected intellectually by looking at it, but in what way is knowing that grass is green aesthetic?

In what way is the pleasure of drinking a cup of coffee aesthetic?

In what way is the discomfort of sitting on a hard chair aesthetic?

In what way is being curious about where foxes have their den aesthetic?

In what way is reflecting on what happened yesterday aesthetic?

Of course, you may be defining every object that causes an emotional feeling or intellectual thought as having an aesthetic. But if that were the case, every possible object in the Universe would have an aesthetic. But I don't think that is how the word is used.
===============================================================================

Sounds like you have a hierarchy of what counts as art, or maybe just what counts as good art? — Tom Storm

I find it impossible to believe that most people don't accept that there is a hierarchy in art. Is there anyone who would try to argue that the quality of a Bob Ross painting is equal to the quality of a Leonardo da Vinci painting?

Are you proposing this as context-free? Or does the object need to be presented in some way as to invite such a response? If so, what might be the context? — J

The context of the object is relevant. A pebble on a beach never seen or imagined by anyone cannot be a Postmodern artwork. For someone to take that pebble off the beach, display it in the Whitechapel Gallery, and accompany it with the statement that the pebble represents the anguish of the individual within a capitalist society, then it has become a Postmodern artwork.

In fact, the pebble does not even need to be taken off the beach. A photograph or video of the pebble may be displayed in the Whitechapel Gallery. Or even there may be a video of someone in the Whitechapel Gallery saying that they have seen a pebble on a beach.
===============================================================================

(I think this question applies to conceptual art as well -- not sure what you're including with "post-modern") — J

I include Conceptual Art within Postmodernism.

From the Tate:

As an art movement postmodernism to some extent defies definition – as there is no one postmodern style or theory on which it is hinged. It embraces many different approaches to art making, and may be said to begin with pop art in the 1960s and to embrace much of what followed including conceptual art, neo-expressionism, feminist art, and the Young British Artists of the 1990s.

I rate conceptual art as aesthetic, like any other art, because it engages our senses, and invites emotional and/or intellectual responses. — Tom Storm

As it is said "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder".

An aesthetic may be defined as there being a unity in variety, a pattern in chaos.

Such an aesthetic might be discovered by a human observer in any observed object, whether architecture, dance, science, theatre, philosophy, literature, politics, art and nature.

As a first approximation, the Modernist artist deliberately creates an object in which an aesthetic may be discovered by a human observer. The Postmodernist artist, as a reaction against Modernism, deliberately creates an object minimising any aesthetic.

However, alongside a Postmodern artwork there may be accompanying descriptive text, either by the artist or commentator. As such accompanying textual description is not attached to the artwork, it cannot be considered to be part of the artwork.

As an aesthetic is deliberately minimised in Postmodern artworks, the observer might not discover any aesthetic within them, although they may discover an aesthetic in any accompanying descriptive text.

In summary, an aesthetic is not part of a Postmodern artwork, athough may be discovered in an accompanying descriptive text.

Postmodern art is diverse and self-aware, tends to use irony and blurring of categories to challenge traditional ideas of originality, meaning, and distinctions between high and low culture. It often appeals to people who like puzzles, gimmicks, statements and ambiguities. — Tom Storm

I don't disagree with your description of Postmodernism, but none of the terms used requires an aesthetic. For example, something may be diverse without being aesthetic.

As regards language, it is nature of language that there is a spread of meaning in a term, and it may well be the case that the meaning of two different terms may overlap.

Postmodernist artworks certainly don't lack pragmatic function or practical purpose.

Feminist artists worked to create a different cultural narrative that gave women a place to be heard where they could express themselves through their art and engage with the world through encouraging various social and political conversations.
https://artincontext.org/feminist-art/

Well, I don’t think art is about beauty. I think it’s about evoking an aesthetic experience in a particular context; one shaped by culture, intention, and the viewer’s own perspective. Beauty might be part of it, but it’s not the point. — Tom Storm

I agree. That is why I wrote on page 6

Modernism
It only becomes an artwork if the human responds to the aesthetics of the object. Note that an aesthetic response can be of beauty, such as Monet's "Water lilies", or can be of ugliness, such as Picasso/s "Guernica".

Postmodernism
It only becomes an artwork if the human responds to the object as a metaphor for social concerns.

In what sense is conceptual art intended to be aesthetic?

Is this right? Can't utilitarian objects also be understood as art? Think of works by William Morris, for example, or Greek Attic vases. And then there’s conceptual art. — Tom Storm

Yes, an object may be both beautiful and utilitarian, such as William Morris wallpaper. But these properties are independent of each other. The beauty of the wallpaper does not affect its function of covering over a wall, and it fulfils its function of covering over a wall whether or not it is beautiful.

A utilitarian object can also be artistic, but a utilitarian object doesn't need to be beautiful in order to be utilitarian.

Conceptual art is part of Postmodernism and Postmodernism specifically excludes the beautiful in its rejection of Modernism.

In what sense is conceptual art intended to be either beautiful or utilitarian?

What is an artwork?

A Modernist artwork may be defined as any object real or imagined that has no utilitarian purpose that has been observed or thought about by a human as an aesthetic, which is about a sense of order within complexity.

A Postmodernist artwork may be defined as any object real or imagined that has no utilitarian purpose that has been observed or thought about by a human as a metaphor for social concerns, which is about the collapse of grand narratives leading to plurality and fragmentation.

Modernism and Postmodernism
Step one. Any object real or imagined, such as a hammer or Voldemort

But, objects like hammers are thought of as utilitarian rather then art. Therefore remove any utilitarian purpose to the object and just consider the hammer in the absence of having any purpose

Step two. Any object real or imagined that has no utilitarian purpose

But, if such an object has never been observed or thought about by a human it can never be an artwork

Step three. Any object real or imagined that has no utilitarian purpose that has been observed or thought about by a human

But, even so, this doesn't mean that the human observing or thinking about the object treats it as an artwork.

From now, there are two different directions, Modernism and Postmodernism.

Modernism
It only becomes an artwork if the human responds to the aesthetics of the object. Note that an aesthetic response can be of beauty, such as Monet's "Water lilies", or can be of ugliness, such as Picasso/s "Guernica".

Step four. Any object real or imagined that has no utilitarian purpose that has been observed or thought about by a human as an aesthetic.

But what is an aesthetic. Francis Hutcheson amongst others describes it as a sense of order within complexity.

Step five. Any object real or imagined that has no utilitarian purpose that has been observed or thought about by a human as an aesthetic, which is a sense of order within complexity.

Postmodernism
It only becomes an artwork if the human responds to the object as a metaphor for social concerns.

Step six. Any object real or imagined that has no utilitarian purpose that has been observed or thought about by a human as a metaphor for social concerns.

But what are social concerns. Jean-Francois Lyotard wrote about the collapse of grand narratives leading to plurality and fragmentation.

Step seven. Any object real or imagined that has no utilitarian purpose that has been observed or thought about by a human as a metaphor for social concerns, which is about the collapse of grand narratives leading to plurality and fragmentation.

There are also transcripts for each episode — GrahamJ

The problem is that Grayson Perry does not seem to give his opinion as to what art is, other than saying what art could be.

Now there’s no easy answer for this one, I’m sorry to say. I’m not going to live up to sort of like the Reith Lecturers’ code of honour which is to have definite strong opinions and be a kind of certainty freak because many of the methods of judging are of course very problematic and many of the criteria that you use to assess art are conflicting. I mean we have financial value, popularity, art historical significance, or aesthetic sophistication. You know all these things could be at odds with each other.

https://downloads.bbc.co.uk/radio4/transcripts/lecture-1-transcript.pdf

I was beginning to wonder if part of what makes paintings and drawings paintings or drawings is that they are in 2-dimensional space. — Moliere

The question why is a painting not a sculpture is the same kind of question as asking why is a play not a film or why is a cat not a dog.

If something is a domesticated mammal and a subspecies of the gray wolf then it it is a dog and if something is a small, domesticated carnivorous mammal that is commonly kept as a pet then it is a cat.

If something is performed by live actors then it is a play and if something is a recording of live actors then it is a film.

If something is an artwork in 2D then it is a painting and if something is an artwork in 3D then it is a sculpture.

There is a human need to divide the observed world into smaller parts using language. This helps the human make better sense of their observed world. As Derrida pointed out, part of the meaning of a word derives from what it is not.
===============================================================================

but even the painter wouldn't say it's art — Moliere

The man paints a wall red. How do you know what is in his mind?
===============================================================================

On the multiplicity of artworlds — Moliere

As of 1 January 2025, there were about 8,250,423,613 different artworlds, in that it seems true that no two people have identical minds. As they say, the world exists in the head.
===============================================================================

Also, a general caution for family resemblance -- I like that concept a lot for tamping down the desire for universal and necessary conditions as a foolhardy quest.........................................There's still the work of specifying that family resemblance — Moliere

Yes, even if we agree that there is a family resemblance between André Derain's "Henri Matisse" (1905) and Georges Braque's "The Harbour" 1906, this doesn't explain why there is a family resemblance.

As a first step, the "why" can be put into words. The Tate writes:

Fauvism is the name applied to the work produced by a group of artists (which included Henri Matisse and André Derain) from around 1905 to 1910, which is characterised by strong colours and fierce brushwork. The paintings Derain and Matisse exhibited were the result of a summer spent working together in Collioure in the South of France and were made using bold, non-naturalistic colours (often applied directly from the tube), and wild loose dabs of paint. The forms of the subjects were also simplified making their work appear quite abstract.

There is much that can be said.

But sooner or later, some words cannot be described using other words, such as "Wild loose dabs" or "fierce brushwork". The meaning of words such as "wild" and "fierce" cannot be said but can only be shown.

And they can only be shown as family resemblances.

It is the intrinsic nature of the brain to be able to discover family resemblances in what it is shown, and this ability is beyond any philosophical explanation

I am sure a case could be made that I am not looking at things properly. And a case could be made that there is no such thing as looking at these things properly. And a case could be made that I was looking at things properly, (no matter what I said I saw, or because of what I said I saw, namely, a sculpture with a blue wall). — Fire Ologist

On the other hand, perhaps artworks need to looked at "properly" if they are to make sense.

Today, as a simplification, we can say that there are two main approaches to painting, Modern and Postmodern. The Modern is drawing attention to the aesthetic within the modern world, such as Georges Braque, and the Postmodern is drawing attention to the social situation within a postmodern world, such as Damien Hurst.

These are two very different approaches to the artwork.

Problems arise if Modern artworks are looked at from the perspective of a Postmodernist viewpoint, or Postmodern artworks are looked at from the perspective of a Modernist viewpoint.

In this sense, looking at an artwork "properly" means looking at an artwork as it was intended by the artist. If intended by the artist as a Modernist artwork it should be looked at within the domain of Modernism, and if intended by the artist as a Postmodernist artwork it should be looked at within the domain of Postmodernism.

Is that maybe a sculpture about a painting? Since it incorporates the room space to complete its portrayal? — Fire Ologist

As you are seeing it on your screen, the artwork could be a photograph, which just happens to be of a blue wall.

Pieter Vermeersch’s (Kortrijk, 1973) artistic research of painting expands beyond the confinement of the canvas.
https://www.perrotin.com/artists/Pieter_Vermeersch/142#biography

But for now I'm trying to develop the ideas of aesthetic thinking, with respect to philosophy at least, at all. — Moliere

A simple division is to split paintings into the Modern, artists such as Derain, and the Postmodern, artists such as Cindy Sherman.

Typically, Modern art specifically includes the visual aesthetic and Postmodern art specifically excludes the visual aesthetic.

The philosopher Francis Hutcheson wrote about aesthetics and beauty. For Hutcheson, beauty is not in the object but is in how the object is perceived, and stems from uniformity amidst variety. Diverse elements come together in a way that feels balanced and harmonious, a dynamic process where we sense order within complexity.

If beauty is the sense of order within complexity, this can apply to more than paintings and can apply to any thought about the world, including philosophical thought.

The OP asks "What makes a painting a painting?"

When you say "aesthetic thinking", do you mean either i) philosophical thoughts that may not be aesthetic about aesthetic objects or ii) philosophical thoughts that are aesthetic about objects that may not be aesthetic?

I'm enjoying these various distinctions between drawings, paintings, pictures, and art: wet/dry, High/low, warm-up/real-deal... — Moliere

As the French say "vive la différence", or rather, as Derrida might have said, "vive le différance".

In what way is something that is a painting different to something that is not a painting?

According to Derrida, meaning is not inherent in a sign, but arises from its relationship with other signs, and where the meaning of a sign changes over time as new signs keep appearing and old signs disappear (Wikipedia - Différance)

For example, the word "house" derives its meaning from the way it differs from "shed", "mansion", "hotel", "building" etc.

For example, Derain's painting "Houses of Parliament" derives its meaning from the way it differs to the building the Houses of Parliament.

It is as much about language as it is about the language of art.

Symbols are only useful if they have an opposite. Good only means something if there is bad. Hot only means something if there is cold. Painting only means something if there are things that are not paintings, such as sculptures, photographs, music or happenings.

So what is a painting may be answered by saying that a painting is not a sculpture, not a photograph, not music and not a happening.

Don't you think this may be considered a painting as well? — javi2541997

Certainly. In the same way that Braque's "Le Figaro" includes text within its composition.

They are both paintings because they are both intended as paintings, and not intended as something like a street sign giving directions to drivers.

The same object can be an artwork and not an artwork at the same time.

For example, if the stop sign is intended as a street sign giving directions to drivers then it is not an artwork, but the moment someone says "that stop sign looks like an artwork" then it becomes an artwork.

As the saying goes "beauty is in the eye of the beholder".

Paintings at one point in history a kind of primitive 'Photograph,' but now I think the photograph is more 'primitive' in what it can achieve. — I like sushi

A photograph is a copy of what exists in the world, and therefore depicts what is necessarily true.

A painting is a copy of what could exist in the world, and therefore depicts what is possibly true.

Primitivism is a style of art used by artists in an industrial society that duplicates the style of art used by artists in pre-industrial societies.

Photography as an invention of an industrialised society can only copy the world as it exists in an industrialised society, and therefore cannot depict the primitivism of a pre-industrial society.

Only painting can copy what the world could have been like in a pre-industrial society, and therefore can depict the primitivism of a pre-industrial society. For example, Picasso's "Portrait of Max Jacob".

What is a painting — Moliere

The meaning of "a painting" cannot be put into words, either as a definition or a description. The meaning of "a painting" cannot be said but can only be shown.

The meaning of "a painting" may be understood by looking at the objects that have been named in the following set: {Monet's "Landscape with Factories", Derain's "Houses of Parliament", Klimt "Pine Forest", Leonardo da Vinci "Lady with an Ermine", Giotto "The Betrayal", El Greco "View of Toledo", Albert Bierstadt "The Rocky Mountains", Jolomo "The Light of Argyll"}

Because the elements of the set share family resemblances, Russell's Paradox, resulting from unrestricted comprehension, may be avoided.

As Wittgenstein pointed out, the observer who looks at the objects named in this set will discover a family resemblance between these objects, and this family resemblance will be "a painting".

In order to understand the meaning of "a painting", the set does not need to include every painting ever painted, but only a sample.

As there is no "correct" meaning to any word or expression, there is no "correct" meaning to the expression "a painting". Person A looking at this set will discover a family resemblance that will be different to person B looking at the same set. Person A looking at a set 8 elements will discover a different family resemblance to a set that contains 16 elements. But even, so there will be a family resemblance between different family resemblances.

In answer to the question, what is a painting, a preliminary meaning of "a painting" may be understood by looking at the following 8 objects.

Right, but research indicates that visible features of an organism tend to be sexually selected. So it wouldn't be about patterns in chaos, it would be about sex. — frank

It doesn't seem random that animals are often aesthetically pleasing. Evolution seems to favour aesthetic solutions.

There appears to be a direct analogy between Frances Hutcheson's explanation of aesthetics as "uniformity amidst variety" and life's dependence on an ability to discover patterns in chaos.

It would follow that if life is fundamentally aesthetic, and if philosophy is trying to understand life, then aesthetics in philosophy must be a "thing".

So I guess that is what you mean? "Great artist" = "someone I like a lot". — J

Both Derain and Banksy are artists. But are they equally great?

If greatness is determined by monetary value, they are probably equally great as a Banksy original more than likely sells for as much as a Derain original.

If greatness is determined by popularity amongst the public, then Banksy is probably greater than Derain.

If greatness is determined by the humour in their works, then Banksy is clearly greater than Derain.

If greatness is determined by an aesthetic of form and shape, what Frances Hutcheson called "uniformity amidst variety", then Derain is clearly greater than Banksy.

You are right that my equating greatness as an artist with an aesthetic of form and shape is personal to me. Others may well equate greatness as an artist with monetary value, popularity or being humorous.

I think that indicates that aesthetics is part of evolution. — frank

:100: If Frances Hutcheson is correct, and the appreciation of beauty is innate within humans, and described as "uniformity amidst variety", this clearly shows an evolutionary advantage. Specifically in the human ability to find patterns within the chaos they perceive of the world .

Strangely, mammals became more aesthetically pleasing over time. Why is that? — frank

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I am sure beautiful to another proboscis monkey.

Is an aesthetic judgment objective in the same way that the sting is? Can one of us be right, the other wrong? Or does it simply cash out to "what I like" and "what you like"? — J

Let there be an object in the world. Suppose this object has been named "Derain's Drying the Sails 1905".

There are different styles of painting, including the Classical, Baroque, Rococo, Neo-Classicism, Pre-Modern, Romanticism, etc.

As regards this object, as an example of Post-modernism I don't like it, but as an example of Fauvism I do like it.

Post-modernism is a style associated with scepticism, irony and philosophical critiques of the concepts of universal truths and objective reality and Fauvism is a style associated with strong colours and fierce brushwork (www.tate.org.uk)

So I may like and dislike the same object at the same time, meaning that the liking and disliking is not an objective thing within the object but is a subjective thing within my mind.

I may like this object as an example of Fauvism and you may dislike the same object as an example of Post-modernism. Alternatively, I may dislike this object as an example of Post-modernism and you may like the same object as an example of Fauvism.

IE, our liking our disliking an object is independent of the object itself but is dependent on what happens to be in our particular minds. Objects don't have any intrinsic art value, the mind imposes an art value on the objects in the world.

As regards what is in the mind, I like this particular object as an example of Fauvism, where Fauvism is a style having strong colours and fierce brushwork. In other words, I like this object for its strong colours and fierce brushwork.

But what explains my likes?

I like the colour red, I like Merlot, I like meat and potato pies, I like Sade, I like Mediterranean weather. I also like the elegant, the rational and the clear, as @Moliere said about adjectives often applied to philosophical arguments and thoughts.

When I see the colour red, for example, I don't consciously think "do I like this colour or not". I know instantly without conscious thought that I like it. No judgment is involved. I may judge that my seeing the colour red was caused by a postbox rather than a sunset, but I don't judge whether I like this colour or not.

What I like aesthetically does not depend on any judgment. I make no subjective aesthetic judgements.

As objects don't have any intrinsic art value, my aesthetic likes cannot be objective but only subjective.

You might come to understand it all, and be able to do the analysis on your own. But you might never come to like his music — Patterner

:100: Understanding something is not the same as liking it.

In @Moliere's terms, understanding a philosopher's point of view does not mean liking it.

B) Aesthetic judgments are partially subjective -- they are known subjectively or intuitively, like a sting, but what is known is objective, hence everyone will have more or less the same reaction (again like a sting). — J

I agree that there are two considerations, the subjective and the objective.

The subjective is about what exists in the mind and the objective is about what exists in the world outside the mind.

As regards the subjective, the expression "aesthetic judgment" is a contradiction in terms.

The word "judgement" implies an intellectual thought process. The Merriam Webster defines judgement as "the process of forming an opinion or evaluation by discerning and comparing".

When we see the colour red, we don't judge that we have seen the colour red, we see the colour red. Similarly, when we experience an aesthetic, we don't judge that we have experienced an aesthetic, we have an aesthetic experience.

As regards the objective, the object in the world that causes an aesthetic experience in a person is not in itself aesthetic.

Going back to the wasp sting analogy, it would be like saying that within the wasp's stinger there exists pain which is then transferred from the wasp's stinger into the person being stung.

There is no aesthetic within an object in the world that is then transferred from the object to the person having the aesthetic experience.

But look at the artist example instead of that one -- it's different enough. — Moliere

@Moliere: More acceptably we might subject a student to difficult circumstances in order for them to grow and learn how to cope with failure and pain.............................You learn in the process of the doing -- but having a teacher generally helps to accelerate that process rather than doing it all on your own, so there is something being taught from art teacher to art student, at least.

It is true that if a person is put into a situation new to them, then they will probably gain new knowledge from it. For example, if in holiday in Marrakesh for the first time, the holidaymaker will learn things new things about the food, architecture and culture that they would not have learned if they had stayed at home. As you say "You learn", meaning that although it may be the environment that is doing the teaching, it is "You" that is doing the actual learning.

The corollary is that if someone is unwilling or incapable of learning, then no matter how supportive the environment is to teaching, the individual will never learn. As you say "You learn".

A teacher may present a course in the philosophy of art, which may include aesthetics, but no matter how much information the teacher may present about the aesthetics of art, it remains a logical impossibility for the teacher to be able to explain or describe the subjective aesthetic experience.

Knowing the following tells us nothing about the subjective aesthetic experience. It tells us things "about" aesthetics, but it tells us nothing "of" aesthetics.

The British philosopher and art critic Clive Bell (1881-1964) was a prominent proponent of the formalist approach to aesthetics. In this specific sense, he advocated and significantly developed an aesthetic ethos stemming back to the work of Kant. According to Kant, what we value in a work of art is its formal qualities. In Art (1914), Bell outlined his own radical take on this approach to aesthetics—an approach that served to rationalise emergent modernist practices as exemplified in the work of Post-Impressionists such as Paul Cézanne.

In the philosophy of art, the aesthetics of art is definitely a thing, as it is included in most courses on the philosophy of art. But if the student has no intrinsic inherent aesthetic appreciation then the word aesthetic will remain a just a word, as the word "colour" remains just a word to Mary in her black and white room.

There is a difference between knowledge "about" the word "aesthetic", in that Clive Bell was a prominent proponent of the formalist approach to aesthetics, and knowledge "of" aesthetics, in the same way that Mary has no knowledge "of" "colour".

There is a difference between knowledge about the context of a word and knowledge of the word independent of any context.

It'd be cruel to do intentionally but a teacher can teach knowledge of a wasp sting by having a wasp sting the student. — Moliere

What exactly is teaching knowledge of a wasp sting, the teacher or the wasp sting?

The person learns the feel of a wasp sting from the wasp sting itself, not from anything that preceded the wasp sting, such as a teacher.

If the person has congenital analgesia, no amount of teaching by the teacher will teach the person what a wasp sting feels like (Wikipedia - Congenital insensitivity to pain).

Or, what I'd rather say, is there's a difference between one's preference and one's aesthetic taste. The latter can be "trained" such that preference becomes something which can be judged from a distance — Moliere

There is knowledge "about" something and there is knowledge "of" something.

A sommelier can teach a Mormon "about" Merlot, such that Merlot is a dark blue wine grape variety that is used as both a blending grape and for varietal wines, and the Mormon can learn about Merlot.

But a sommelier cannot teach a Mormon "of" Merlot, the taste of Merlot.

An art teacher can teach an art student "about" Derain's aesthetic, such that until his passing in 1954, André Derain's aesthetic was constant, and along with his investigations into primal art and symbolism, his contributions to Fauvism and Cubism were notable in the formation of early Modern Art.

But an art teacher cannot teach an art student "of" Derain's aesthetic, the visceral beauty of particular shapes and colours.

When stung by a wasp, I feel pain. I don't learn how to feel the pain.

When "stung" by a Derain, I feel an aesthetic, I don't learn how to feel the aesthetic.

If you "know it to be true," regardless of demonstration or argument, enough said. — J

Suppose you are stung by a wasp and say that you feel pain, but I don't believe that you actually feel pain. Is it possible that you can prove to me that you do in fact feel pain?

Are subjective feelings, such as pain, and subjective value judgements, such as beauty, expressible by either demonstration or argument?

I'm not convinced, though you're getting at something important, which is that a description of a tradition or a practice is incomplete without an explanation of how to make value judgments within that tradition — J

It may well be the case that it is logically impossible for any tradition or practice to be complete. By their very nature, any tradition or practice must be incomplete.

Consider the statement "Within the tradition of painting, Derain is a great artist and Banksy is a mediocre artist"

This is a value judgement that I know to be true.

But there are no words that can justify this value judgment, as there are no words that can explain the value judgment that a rose is beautiful or a thunderstorm is sublime.

That I cannot describe my subjective experience when seeing a red postbox does not mean I don't have a subjective experience when seeing a red postbox.

In this sense, it is true that such traditions are of necessity incomplete..

As Godel showed, there are some truths within a system that cannot be proved within that system.

In maths, being an axiomatic system, the axioms cannot be proved true.

In language, Wittgenstein argued that language was built on hinge propositions, which cannot be proved true.

In the 1920's, Alfred Tarski argued that the definition of a true sentence cannot be given in the language itself, but can only be given in another language, a metalanguage.

Similarly, within any tradition, value judgements cannot be proven true within that tradition, but only outside that tradition, within a meta-tradition.