Postmodernism
It only becomes an artwork if the human responds to the object as a metaphor for social concerns — RussellA
When someone uses art they are always doing something that falls away from the fundamental telos of art. — Leontiskos
And if hypericin wonders what verb is properly applied to art rather than 'use', then I would recommend 'appreciate' or 'enjoy'. In the case of a painting we might say 'gaze' or 'contemplate'. It would be strange to walk up to someone viewing a painting at a museum and ask if they are done using the piece.) — Leontiskos
Some of the uses of art I have in mind: mental stimulation. modulating mood. Experiencing intense emotions safely. Education. Passing the time. Having novel experiences.
Which of these is in accord with "the fundamental telos of art", and which is not? — hypericin
When craftsmen create art for money, when painting was funded by patronage, when novelists and musicians aim to earn a living and even get rich, when entire industries are oriented around the production of art.. telos, or not the telos? — hypericin
What are the stakes of abiding the telos, or of violating it? Where is the telos, who has defined it? Could it be... you?
You talk about intention as if there were only one of them, and we all agree on it. Art has one intention, to be appreciated for itself. Sex has one intention, pleasure. Why imagine this? It bears no resemblance to reality I can see. — hypericin
Kind of like how food is useful for sustaining life, but we don't use it, we eat it? — hypericin
I rate conceptual art as aesthetic, like any other art, because it engages our senses, and invites emotional and/or intellectual responses. — Tom Storm
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
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
(I think this question applies to conceptual art as well -- not sure what you're including with "post-modern") — J
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.
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. — RussellA
The Postmodernist artist, as a reaction against Modernism, deliberately creates an object minimising any aesthetic. — RussellA
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
Sounds like you have a hierarchy of what counts as art, or maybe just what counts as good art? — Tom Storm
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. — RussellA
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
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. — RussellA
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. — RussellA
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? — RussellA
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 — RussellA
So what do you think? Do you prefer P or ~P? — Leontiskos
Do you have an alternative understanding of art to offer? — Leontiskos
You will no doubt feel that mine is vastly too permissive, just as yours is vastly too restrictive to me. Yet we both believe P, Q. — hypericin
Art is a human creation (in the loosest, most permissive sense) whose experience is designed to modify the mental state of the experiencer. — hypericin
Do you hold that benzodiazepines are art? — Leontiskos
It may be helpful to introduce R beside P and Q, which includes a more specific genus: — Leontiskos
No. By "experience" I mean, experience by the five senses. The effect of a benzo is not in the taste, but requires absorption into the blood stream. Drugs are human creations designed to alter physical state (and this alteration in turn, may or may not alter mental state). I exclude this, the alteration must arise from the experience of the purported art, in the above sense of "experience". — hypericin
Similar for food. Food allays hunger by altering physical state. But, most food is also designed to alter mental state by the experience of it's taste, appearance, and smell, and so most (prepared) food is also art. — hypericin
Why is this helpful to the question of "what is art"? To be sure, I think a frowny face scrawled on printer paper with feces is worse than a Rembrandt, by any reasonable definition of "worse" here, so I also believe R. — hypericin
Would it then follow that if we have a prepared food that is not art, and then someone adds salt to make it taste better, it has become art? I am not convinced that such a thing is correctly identified as art. — Leontiskos
If that is the only characteristic in your definition of art, then it seems like better/worse could only be attributed to the degree of modification intended or else achieved. — Leontiskos
I think it would be art. The addition of salt, and the quantity added, is an aesthetic choice designed to modify mental state, in this case taste perception. Our "artist" may have chosen pepper instead, or, to really go all out, both.
But note, I agree with P and Q, and so I acknowledge that some art is more artistic than others. This meal would be a minimal example of art, barely belonging to the category at all, probably not enough to identify as art in an everyday context. Compare with a 5 star Michelin meal, much more artistic (but not better) , and which most everyone would call art. — hypericin
No, and here you are again conflating identification vs evaluation of art. My definition is only for identification, evaluation is an orthogonal problem. — hypericin
Yet, I easily acknowledge that all the Michelin meals are more artistic than all the basic meals. — hypericin
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
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
But isn't it curious that in R I said "better (or more artistic)," and in your own posts you recognize that some art is more artistic? Usually if something is more artistic then we would say that it is better qualified to be art, so I don't see how you can so neatly separate identification vs. evaluation. Usually the definition of art is going to determine what is more or less artistic — Leontiskos
Why is the Michelin meal more artistic than the basic meal? — Leontiskos
Why is the Rembrandt better than the frowny face? — Leontiskos
(A notable point of agreement here may be this: That which barely qualifies as art at all is much more likely to be mistaken for non-art than something which readily qualifies as art, and the person who makes a mistake with regard to the former is much less mistaken than the person who makes a mistake with regard to the latter.) — Leontiskos
By saying "better (or more artistic)" you are conflating evaluation and identification. We identify art by whether it is artistic or not. If A is more qualified as art than B, A is more artistic than B. But this does NOT mean A is better than B. This is demonstrated by the meal example. Every 5 star Michelin meal is more artistic than salted oatmeal. But there are many 5 star Michelin meals I would rather eat oatmeal than them. — hypericin
Much more effort, intention, time, resources, and training was devoted to the Michelin meal, all to create an object very carefully honed to modify the mental state of the consumer of the meal in a very specific way — hypericin
We identify art by whether it is artistic or not.
...
I do not have a grip on the better question, and doubt there can be an account independent of preference. To be sure, the Rembrandt is also vastly more artistic than A Foul Frown, which seriously confuses the question here.
...
Yes, we agree here. — hypericin
You seem to be saying that all our feelings are aesthetic experiences. — RussellA
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. — RussellA
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
How do you define an aesthetic experience? — Tom Storm
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.
which is characterized by heightened perceptual awareness, emotional engagement, a non-utilitarian or nonjudgmental stance, a diminished sense of self, and often a sense of emerging meaning or form. — praxis
Every object can be thought of as art and having an aesthetic, though some objects are more artistic or more aesthetic than other objects. — RussellA
it seems clear that there is also a hierarchy in the aesthetic of an object. — RussellA
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. — RussellA
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
But since I'm sympathetic to postmodernism and you're not, maybe we won't get passed this. — Tom Storm
I guess that's why we have critics... But I'd imagine the statement is part of the artwork. — Tom Storm
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.