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

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?

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

When someone uses art they are always doing something that falls away from the fundamental telos of art. — 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?

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?

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.

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

Kind of like how food is useful for sustaining life, but we don't use it, we eat it?

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

If art is meant for aesthetic experience or aesthetic encounter, then the modulation of one's mood is beside the telos of art. So if someone says, "I need to modulate my mood. I'm fresh out of benzos so I'll try looking at a painting instead," they are not interacting with art in the way that is primarily intended by the artist.

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

You seem to want black and white categories, but I'm afraid its more complicated than that. The act of selling art is not art. An "artist" who just wants to get rich and is only attempting to gratify the desires of the largest demographic is not much of an artist. An artist who wants to create something which has legitimate artistic value and expects remuneration for such a creation is doing art while expecting to be supported financially. But all artists are well aware of the temptation to "sell out," subordinating their art to the bottom line.

Aristotle would point out that the true artist wishes to create something that will be appreciated by the best artists, and they will not be preoccupied with the opinion of those who do not have an eye for artistic excellence. For example, a jazz musician will highly value the opinion of other jazz musicians who they deem to be highly talented, and insofar as their work is meant to be artistic it will be meant to resonate with that caliber of excellence. The excellence of art has to do with that form of appreciation, and money may or may not track that form of excellence. Still, the artist who is primarily striving after excellence is more of an artist than the artist who is primarily striving after money. This is why some of the greatest artists died poor and were never appreciated in their own lifetime.

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

I think you're just being stubborn. Do you have an alternative understanding of art to offer? Or are you just going to criticize my understanding without offering anything of your own? You somehow think that if we admit that 'art' means anything at all then we must be snobs, because if it means something then it doesn't mean other things. If art has to do with aesthetic excellence, then it doesn't have to do with large scale money-making, and this flies in the face of your dogma which holds that art is whatever we want it to be (and that art effectively means nothing at all). Being so averse to elitism that one runs to the opposite extreme does no good. It's not snobbery to hold that art means something. It is unanimously held among artists that art and money-making are not the same thing.

Kind of like how food is useful for sustaining life, but we don't use it, we eat it? — hypericin

"Use" generally implies perdurance, and therefore we do not generally speak about using food because food is consumed and does not perdure afterwards. Thus we will talk about using something like salt, where the stock perdures for a long time.

If you don't believe me then go to a museum and use the verb "use" to describe interaction with art. You will receive a lot of odd looks. Or find a gathering of artists and make the claim that someone who produces art only for the sake of money is no less of an artist than someone who is not primarily concerned with money. You won't be taken seriously. Art is something which is higher than use; higher than need/necessity. It is gratuitous in a way that overlooks those notions. We use a hamburger to satisfy our hunger. Someone who uses art when they are out of benzos doesn't understand what art is. It is not primarily a means of acquisition (or of anything else - to subordinate it as a means is already to have lost it).

The egalitarian dogma says that all art is equal, no one can be excluded from the circle of artists, and that art can mean anything at all, even "money-making." Reality says otherwise.

Egalitarian-relativism is actually somewhat common on TPF. @J often promotes it in the field of epistemology, and recently gave an unanswered argument against it .

So let's revamp @Count Timothy von Icarus' first premise for our new context:

1. Either some human act/creation is more artistic than some other human act/creation, or else no human act/creation is more artistic than any other human act/creation.

This is the same as saying:

• P: "Some human act/creation is more artistic than some other human act/creation."
• 1. P v ~P

So what do you think? Do you prefer P or ~P?


Another way to put it, closer to Count's initial phrasing:

1a. Either some thing is more artistic than some other thing, or else no thing is more artistic than any other thing.

This is the same as saying:

• Q: "Some thing is more artistic than some other thing."
• 1a. Q v ~Q

A similar question: Do you prefer Q or ~Q?

If we accept P and Q does that make us elitist? Note that ~P equates to the idea that every human act/creation is equally artistic, and ~Q equates to the idea that every thing is equally artistic, hence the egalitarian-relativism. I suspect that like @J and @Banno you will object every time someone offers an example of P/Q and yet at the same time you will avoid any explicit embrace of ~P/~Q.*


* In that other thread the pejorative which was applied to anyone who offered an example of P/Q was "authoritarian" rather than "elitist," but the parallel is clear.

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.

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.

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

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.

The Postmodernist artist, as a reaction against Modernism, deliberately creates an object minimising any aesthetic. — RussellA

Minimizing? Is that because it can’t be eliminated? Or is it more accurate to say that all art is aesthetic, regardless of the school or style? The difference lies in how much a viewer cares for or engages with it.

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

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?

A painting is an image thats been appropriated by an artist and ran through an internal gauntlet by means of an invented self expression created from personal style to personal principles that tyrannize over said style, and adhoc additions that are required to bake in the appearance of genuineness from the artist.

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

Good, so we need to consider context. But is your example literally possible? I noted this earlier in the thread, but it's worth repeating: If "someone" does -- or tries to do -- what you're suggesting with the pebble, they would a) probably not get past the security guards, and b) if they succeeded, they would be judged a vandal rather than an artist.

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.

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.

Yes, we're on the same page. And there are probably a number of even further "outside-art" ways to get in the game, which is good, because we don't want the artworld to become calcified into a list of institutions.

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

:grin:

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

We've already covered this. An object curated and put on display by an artist is an invitation to view it aesthetically. Whether you or I appreciate or enjoy this or not is a separate matter.

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

Not sure why these questions have been inserted here, and we were doing so well. Jeff Koons is a postmodern artist. How is his work not an invitation to have an aesthetic experience? I dislike his work, by the way

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.

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

There is definitely a hierarchy of taste and academic opinion. Art criticism and art history is part of an intersubjective community. It's pretty easy to say that a cel from a Bugs Bunny cartoon is less 'important' as art than a Rembrandt. (Although Bugs may well have provided more pleasure.) But what about Rembrandt versus Van Gogh? Or da Vinci versus Michelangelo? Is a play by John Osborne better or worse than a play by Arthur Miller? For the most part, I think attempts to impose hierarchies and criteria of value on art are largely moot, though it does keep academics, critics, and the art market in business. Humans love to rate things.

So what do you think? Do you prefer P or ~P? — Leontiskos

You seem to have ascribed a fair amount of doctrine to me that I have not explicitly set forth.

I prefer P, Q.

Do you have an alternative understanding of art to offer? — Leontiskos

I do, and I've already offered it to you directly. Here is my current formulation:

Art is a human creation (in the loosest, most permissive sense) whose experience is designed to modify the mental state of the experiencer.

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.

The problem with yours is that you, like so many, conflate the question of "what is good art" with "what is art". Much of what you wrote just reads as a list of your opinions on good art. But that may well be what @Moliere is actually asking, and so I might be the one who is ot.

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

Okay, well it is promising that we both at least hold to P and Q. :up:

Art is a human creation (in the loosest, most permissive sense) whose experience is designed to modify the mental state of the experiencer. — hypericin

I worry that this isn't a real attempt at a definition, on account of the possibility that "art" is being presupposed rather than described.

For example, if we offered a description, "A human creation (in the loosest, most permissive sense) the experience of which is designed to modify the mental state of the experiencer," would we arrive at the definiendum "art"?

The first difficulty is semantic. The clause, "whose experience is designed," or, "the experience of which is designed," are both semantically problematic, because both presuppose that experience is itself somehow designed. Probably what you mean is that art is a human creation designed to modify the mental state of the person who experiences it, and that's clear enough.

First I will say that your idea does capture something that I find in many artists I know, so that's promising. But if this is the definition of art then anything designed to modify the mental state of the experiencer is art. Keeping with my example, this would mean that benzodiazepines are art. And if hunger is a mental state then every prepared food is art. This seems unlikely. Do you hold that benzodiazepines are art?

It may be helpful to introduce R beside P and Q, which includes a more specific genus:

• R: "Some art is better (or more artistic) than other art."
• ~R: "No art is better (or more artistic) than any other art."
• 1b. R v ~R

Would you prefer R or ~R? And is this where my understanding becomes "too restrictive"? Because I definitely think that some art is better than other art, at least on any reasonable definition of 'art'.

Do you hold that benzodiazepines are art? — 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".

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.

It may be helpful to introduce R beside P and Q, which includes a more specific genus: — Leontiskos

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.

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

Okay, that's a reasonable answer.

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

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.

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

Okay, fair. But how is one to judge better or worse according to your definition? The only characteristic on your definition is, "designed to modify the mental state of the experiencer." If that is the only characteristic in your definition of art, then it seems like better/worse could only be derived from the degree of modification intended or else achieved.

More concretely, is the frowny face drawing worse than a Rembrandt because it does not modify the mental state of the experiencer as effectively? Given that you used feces, isn't it possible that the frowny face would modify mental state more? On the view that I set out quality can be identified by looking at .

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

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.

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

No, and here you are again conflating identification vs evaluation of art. My definition is only for identification, evaluation is an orthogonal problem.

Consider again the Michelin meal. There are many basic meals (meals only marginally artistic) I would much rather eat than many Michelin meals. Many basic meals are just better, to me. Yet, I easily acknowledge that all the Michelin meals are more artistic than all the basic meals.

There are no doubt many gourmands who would always prefer the Michelin meals. Me and the gourmands are at an impasse, we have no independent way of deciding which is better, and nor should we expect one. Yet, we can both happily accept that the Michelin meals are more artistic.

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

Hmm, okay.

No, and here you are again conflating identification vs evaluation of art. My definition is only for identification, evaluation is an orthogonal problem. — hypericin

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. What else could do the job? Or do we disagree on this?

Yet, I easily acknowledge that all the Michelin meals are more artistic than all the basic meals. — hypericin

To be clear, I think you are saying that the Michelin meal is not necessarily preferable to a basic meal, but it is more artistic.

I have the same question: Why? Why is the Michelin meal more artistic than the basic meal? Why is the Rembrandt better than the frowny face?

(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.)

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?

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

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.

Why is the Michelin meal more artistic than the basic meal? — Leontiskos

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

Why is the Rembrandt better than the frowny face? — Leontiskos

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. .

(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

Yes, we agree here.

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

You are conflating better simpliciter with better qua art. Someone who desires art will hold that what is more artistic is better than what is less artistic. You yourself claimed that, "a frowny face scrawled on printer paper with feces is worse than a Rembrandt." Obviously when I talk about some art being better than some other art I am talking about the idea of better art. I am not talking about, for example, the idea of better caloric content.

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

So you would say that something is more artistic depending on the, "effort, intention, time, resources, and training," that go into it? It would follow that if two people spend the same amount of effort/intention/time/resources/training on two pieces of art, then the two pieces of art must be equally artistic. Do you think that's right? You seem to be reducing the quality or artistic depth of art to the effort put forth by the artist, such that artistic quality is only a measure of the artist's effort.

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

But does it really confuse the question to claim that there is a relation between the quality of art and its status as art? If there is no relation, then how is it possible that, "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"? If that which barely qualifies as art is justifiably more likely to be mistaken for non-art, then it would seem that what is less artistic is less art. It seems to me that your binary notion of art vs. non-art does not track with our experience. Note too that "preference" will become less central when we are talking about Rembrandt. Rembrandt will be recognized as art regardless of preference. The frowny face will not.

Art is a social construct grounded in aesthetic experience, 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. While this experience is commonly triggered by objects that are culturally recognized as art—such as paintings—it can also arise from many other sources and may vary in depth or intensity.

Depending on the individual and the context, an object barely recognizable as art may evoke a profound aesthetic experience, while a Rembrandt masterpiece might, for some reason, be dismissed outright. The experience is what has value and counts as art.

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

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

It does not follow that the feeling can’t be aesthetic, that’s what you’ve been saying about postmodern art. Bear in mind that whether you enjoy or appreciate something is a separate question.

I'm not even sure that non-aesthetic art is possible. Even if an artist adopts an anti-aesthetic position, the work may end up with a contrived negative aesthetic, a deliberate choice that still shapes how we perceive and respond to it, and that perception is itself aesthetic.

What power do you think lies behind an aesthetic experience? Why do you withhold it from certain categories? How do you define an aesthetic experience?

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.

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

This is the kind of definitional approach that interests me. The question then becomes are there instances of some/all of these elements in items not considered 'an experience of art'. If I view a beautiful river I would not call it Art yet the experience has all the hallmarks of what you mention.

The question for me then is if someone literally created a physical representation of a river that could be easily mistaken for a natural river then has that person produced Art? I guess for you you see no disparity other than in the creation (which does not fit into your definition of Art as an object).

So, you literally call the appreciation of natural beauty that moves someone Art but the Art 'is in the eye of the beholder' rather than the beauty?

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

I'm reasonably comfortable with this for pragmatic purposes.

it seems clear that there is also a hierarchy in the aesthetic of an object. — RussellA

As long as we recognise that the hierarchy is man-made, rather than discovering a hierarchy in the aesthetic, we are projecting one onto it, based on shared contingent cultural norms, language, and histories and not intrinsic qualities of the object. This may present problems for those who believe objects themselves possess aesthetic qualities. But since I'm sympathetic to postmodernism and you're not, maybe we won't get passed this.

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

It's not very surprising that a painting based on a well-known story, with narrative power and complexity, would draw a stronger emotional reaction than a line with no clear meaning in itself. More or less the same thing would happen if you compared a straight line to a Pez dispenser. We don’t require Da Vinci...

Additionally, what we take to be a "greater" aesthetic experience with The Last Supper over a straight line isn’t about uncovering some objective depth in the work. It’s the result of shared practices, education, and cultural narratives that shape how we respond. The difference isn’t in the objects themselves, but in the interpretive habits we've inherited. What feels profound is what we’ve learned to see as profound.

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?

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

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

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.