Hey, Marco, get lost.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is like saying that all people are sexy and some are just sexier than others. The fact of the matter is that we don’t always view others in terms of sexuality. When you’re in the presence of your mother are you always appreciating her sexuality, for example?

Also, you say the aesthetic value of some artworks is higher than others, but also say “the aesthetic experience is subjective rather than objective” and “there may be general agreement between different observer's as to the aesthetic value of a particular object.” I think this indicates a few important points:

• Failure to have an aesthetic experience rests entirely on the individual.
• Individual aesthetic experience is constrained by culture.
• Some individuals are more constrained by their culture/society than others.

Why the fuck would anyone want to constrain their aesthetic experience? In a word, because they’re insecure.

aesthetic value — praxis

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

I haven't been keeping up to date with this thread because I was gone for the weekend. Reading through the posts now, I see you've been doing a good job standing up for a down-to-earth understanding of art. My opinions match yours pretty well, but I don't know if I could have spoken for them as well as you have.

How is a "self" different to one's consciousness? If art is an expression of consciousness, then art is also an expression of self. Art work is information about the artist's "self".

In systems theory, a self is an artefact of the self organizing process. All natural systems are self organizing, and the result of this organization is the production of a self. A self can be an individual, a group of people like a family, a collective of people - like the characters of this forum - when considered as a whole interactive community, or a really complex system like a an economy. All self organizing systems integrate information much like a black hole, where the information that defines a system becomes more and more dense, such as to distinguish a self.

In information theory ( my personal interpretation ) a "self" is information about the way information has organized itself.

In phenomenology, a self evolves with the experiential process, where cognition disturbs the state of a system, a corresponding emotion is felt, and the system reintegrates. A self aligns itself to meet the consequences of the experience - so is the result of this process, in an endlessly evolving fashion. — Pop

First, this sounds like some kind of information take on Hegelian phenomenology. Disturbance? Is this meant to be the negation, while reintegration is the synthesis? This is not, of course, at all what Hegel had in mind.
But really, this about the self is just a marginal point. The real point is your lack of a clear idea of what art is when your whole intention is give a definition of art. You can't say you are aligned with Dewey if you don't think the aesthetic is a concept that figures significantly into this since Dewey's consummatory experience is inherently aesthetic (as it is cognitive. But this is not to say of art that analysis does not have the aesthetic feature as its definitional aspect. Analysis talks like this because its job is to examine the whole and find its parts. Even if it is assumed that the parts as analytically considered are abstractions from the original whole. Dewey holds the aesthetic to be the essence of art. It is the consummatory affect of problem solved, which is taken up and amplified by the artist.

I'm not sure if aesthetics is a very important to the arts. Sometimes it is, sometimes not. Artificial and art can be closely related. Is a bridge art? Is it art when a dam is made by beavers? Is a dam artificial, arty? Antisjock? Why not. Plastic is artificial. Graphene is too. Are these artificial materials art? Ars longa vitae brevis. Is that why we make art? No, for christsake! Of course it follows but don't we like to share as well as we want to absorb the other's art? We experience inner worlds and outer worlds. We are in the middle. We wanna express our visions. Like the native Australian expresses the dreamworld the western physicist expressez the standard model and beyond. The beyondness being the most interesting.

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

This is a very poor simile because temperature is a physical fact and in that way objective. Under the same conditions, anyone can measure the temperature of an object and it will be the same, though we may subjectively experience the temperature of the object differently relative to our own temperature.

So it's like you're saying that all things have a factually objective aesthetic value in the same way that an object has a factually objective temperature. If that's what you believe, do you also believe that all things have a factually objective moral value?

I would guess that our aesthetic sense is determined by natural aesthetic intuition, culture, and our own individual development.

What may induce an aesthetic experience in one individual may inexplicably cause a panic attack in another. If you've ever had a panic attack you would know just how unaesthetic an experience it can be.

None of that explains how “the aesthetic is an integral part of experience itself.” In the etymology of the word aesthetic, it at first only meant perception. Maybe you mean it like that? Perception is an integral part experience. — praxis

Well, as with all things, if you want to get to an understanding at the level of basic questions, you have to ask, what is it that is there, in our midst that gives rise to whatever there is that wants examining? The solid basis of the thing that people are theorizing about. In art, what is it that a thing has that without it, it would no longer be art? We find that an examination of physical features will not do; it's not like asking what a violin is, say, which is easy because the observable features are so clear (though ambiguity can arise when these features are distorted, extended, whatever). All observable things and their features can be art.
Then it has to be something universal if all things can be that, and universality looks not to the particular object, but what is in being an object as such. Kant did this with reason, looking not at this example or that, but judgment itself, and this goes to the structure of experience itself. Here, it is the same: art is not some special feature, or assembly of features, but something we bring into the object as an object, Something, already there, in the structure of experience itself.

See Dewey. But Dewey fails to understand the aesthetic. This is what is underdetermined, because the aesthetic is as rich and varied as objects can be rich and varied.

This is a very poor simile because temperature is a physical fact and in that way objective — praxis

Physical facts are subjective in the sense that we consider them as facts. All physical phenomena unfold in an objective arena and this arena is constructed by our consciousness.

From a Deweyan viewpoint, aesthetic experience, then, has roughly the following structure. The experience is set off by some factors, such as opening a book, directing a first glance at a painting, beginning to listen to a piece of music, entering a natural environment or a building, or beginning a meal or a conversation. As aesthetic experience is temporal, the material of the experience does not remain unchanged, but the elements initiating the experience, like reading the first lines of a book or hearing the first chord of a symphony, merge into new ones as the experience proceeds and complex relationships are formed between its past and newer phases. When these different parts form a distinctive kind of orderly developing unity that stands out from the general experiential stream of our lives, the experience in question is aesthetic.

What this describes is the consummatory experience, a "real" experience as opposed to some routine, which is the enemy of the aesthetic. Here it say the developing unity stands out from the general experiential stream of our lives, the distinctive kind has to do with the way the aesthetic naturally occurs in experience in the most fundamental structural feature of pragmatism: problem solving. You have to read Art As Experience for this: see his description of the organism encountering an obstacle, bringing resources to bear, finally solving the issue (whew!), then incorporating the new affair's events into existing resources for future ordeals. This "whew" is the foundation of the aesthetic, as it is of cognition and any and all understanding.
Look especially at the temporal nature of the aesthetic experience: pragmatics is a forward looking theory, and the outcome is the meaning yielded. What is nitroglycerin? It is: IF it is thrown at such and such a velocity and impacts with such and such force, THEN there will be a release of energy on impact, etc. etc. That is what nitro IS. There IS of a thing is bound up with the event, and the successful execution both gives us cognitive meaning, what the understanding really understands is the result, as well as the aesthetic, the ????????? For the aesthetic's "what IS it" is also bound up with the event, and events do not tell us what such things are, like affect, or taste, touch and the rest. They only tell us what will happen under certain conditions.
Dewey has been criticized: when a boxer smashes his fist into his opponent's face, is THIS aesthetic? But then, this may be the real strength of this theory, because art is, after all, everything, or IN everything, for all things are events. One has to put aside the impossible ontology of presence, just like Heidegger said.
So anyway, take reading the first lines of a book: what is there? anticipation with possibilities. The writer strives for the aesthetic of literature, and as with all art, the aesthetic is "wrought out" of the work done. Here, it would be constructing a narrative of human affairs with tensions, ambiguities, and ironies and so forth, which would all play out and resolve in, you guessed it, the consummatory denouement!
Note how narratives that don't have this, but keep the reader in unresolved conflict, are inherently unsettling, the anti-aesthetic: IS THIS art? Dewey would call it anti art, I would think. Interesting to consider.

... art is not some special feature, or assembly of features, but something we bring into the object as an object, Something, already there, in the structure of experience itself. — Constance

You're making the same fundamental assumption as RussellA, that inherent value exists in all things, which I suppose is some form of idealism.

All observable things and their features can be art. — Constance

All observable things and their features can be seen as good, or be seen as bad. It depends on what our motivation or purpose is, amongst other factors. Guns can protect us, so they're good. :up: Guns can harm us, so they're bad. :down: There's no "already there" structure in the universe that makes guns only good or only bad.

... art is not some special feature, or assembly of features, but something we bring into the object as an object, Something, already there, in the structure of experience itself.
— Constance

You're making the same fundamental assumption as RussellA, that inherent value exists in all things, which I suppose is some form of idealism.

All observable things and their features can be art.
— Constance

All observable things and their features can be seen as good, or be seen as bad. It depends on what our motivation or purpose is, amongst other factors. Guns can protect us, so they're good. :up: Guns can harm us so they're bad. :down: There's no "already there" structure in the universe that makes guns only good or only bad. — praxis

So first, see what I wrote just above this posting. I pretty well know Dewey, though he is not the be all and end all for me at all.
Idealism? Is Dewey an idealist? Tricky question. Is Wittgenstein? Another.
The "already there" part of this is rather strong for art. It is Dewey exactly, and I mean it is THE central thesis in his Art As Experience. And it works well because art, the aesthetic are entirely open questions, and they are open because experience itself is open. If the aesthetic is what issues from consummatory experiences, then what it is is going lie in an analysis of this experience, and this is a very entangled affair. Art is difficult to define because of this entanglement, and this is an issue that parallels ethics.

There's no "already there" structure in the universe that makes guns only good or only bad. — praxis

The good and the bad is not about guns, but about the bad or good that is embedded in experience. Before guns get our attention as being good or bad, there has to be an experiential foundation of this for the discussion to make any sense. THIS is where phenomenology finds it place, at the foundation fo the given of the world that is always, already there prior to any specifics coming under review.

:up:

The good and the bad is not about guns, but about the bad or good that is embedded in experience. — Constance

Right, you appear to be claiming that aesthetic experience or art is embedded in experience, which is like saying that 'good' is embedded in experience. It's like saying that everything from gummy bears to guns IS inherently good, and it's just that in some circumstances we don't realize that they're good.

People who make claims like this are motivated by a desire to control the views of others, so that they can be perceived as an authority. Creepy as fuck but all too common.

Right, you appear to be claiming that aesthetic experience or art is embedded in experience, which is like saying that 'good' is embedded in experience. It's like saying that everything from gummy bears to guns IS inherently good, and it's just that in some circumstances we don't realize that they're good. — praxis

Look at this phenomenologically. Take a simply matter: the gummy bears. How can gummy bears be taken up ethically at all? There has to be some original value that is at stake. Someone must want them, love them, or hate them, is revolted by them. If something of this kind is not there, then no ethical problem can possibly arise. Such "value" makes ethics possible. It is the entanglements in nonvaluative affairs, i.e., factual affairs, that make ethics problematic in ordinary experiences.Value is art is exactly the same. Art's value lies in this foundational, phenomenological "presence" the many yums and ughs of the world. Phenomenologically: take the glee Hitler experienced as he gassed Jews. His glee is as a value experience is unassailable. It is simply a fact that he experienced this glee, say, and by itself, phenomenologically, that is, it is Good. What makes it bad is the context.
One cannot deny the phenomenologically given and its manifest properties, and it is here, at this primordial presentation that we find the essence of ethics and aesthetics. This essential concrete goodness and badness is in experience itself, and it is what is in play when judgments are made. Again, judgment is a very, very entangled business, not one denies this. But to go to art's and ethics' essence is reductive to the phenomenon.

It is simply a fact that he experienced this glee, say, and by itself, phenomenologically, that is, it is Good. What makes it bad is the context. — Constance

This is nonsensical. You cannot have an out-of-context experience.

The real point is your lack of a clear idea of what art is when your whole intention is give a definition of art. — Constance

I define it to the extent that it can be defined, in the terms that can define it. It is not possible to define art in terms of aesthetics as they are endlessly variable and open ended- aesthetics will continue to evolve in line with human consciousness.

Also as @RussellA has pointed out aesthetics do not reside in the art work itself, but in the interaction
of art work and observer - they are the result of this experience. You can not define this experience - ever. True it always exists, but it does nor exist in any constant way. Hence art that is beautiful to one person, can be ugly to the next. What is a urinal in one era, is great art in the next.

The thing that everybody is missing is that a definition of art requires the identification of an attribute that is constantly present in art. There is only one thing constantly present in art, and everything else is variable, and optionally present. The constant is the mind activity expressed in the form of the art.
That is it! that is all that is constantly present. As we analyze this mind activity, we find it is to do with self organization - the artist makes art in the course of life, and the art reveals their attitude to life in it's form, broadly speaking.

The artist is free to make anything into art, but makes a choice in the context of a larger scene evolving around them, this choice reveals their consciousness. In the midst of a war, if I paint flowers, such a choice says something about me. It reveals where my head is at. A similar such situation always exists, and an artist makes choices about art within this larger evolving context. The choices they make reveals where their heads are at, what is their consciousness, and how they self organize.

Dewey holds the aesthetic to be the essence of art. — Constance

"Art is not the possession of the few who are recognized writers, painters, musicians; it is the authentic expression of any and all individuality. Those who have the gift of creative expression in unusually large measure disclose the meaning of the individuality of others to those others. In participating in the work of art, they become artists in their activity. They learn to know and honor individuality in whatever form it appears. The fountains of creative activity are discovered and released. The free individuality which is the source of art is also the final source of creative development in time." Time and Individuality — Tom Storm

Seems to me Dewey is saying "Free individuality" is the essence of art, which aligns with my view that it is consciousness, and more specifically self organization.

Seems to me Dewey is saying "Free individuality" is the essence of art, which aligns with my view that it is consciousness, and more specifically self organization. — Pop

I didn't really understand what Dewey meant but I thought it was an interesting perspective given your angle.

You seem to keep shoehorning consciousness into anything before you.

You still haven't explained (as far as I can tell) why consciousness matters here? If art is consciousness and self-organization, then what? Isn't everything? Taking a shit is consciousness and self-organization and so is Rembrandt's The Night Watch - reconcile the two for us? How does this possibly assist us in gaining any clarity about art?

The constant is the mind activity expressed in the form of the art. — Pop

Mind activity is expressed in everything we do, so you must mean a specific kind of activity. Let's call it 'neural art activity' or NAA for convenience. Now if I were to buy a paint-by-numbers kit and I followed it to the letter, would the resulting painting be an artwork? To others, it could certainly be regarded as artwork because it looks like artwork.

You might say that the NAA came from the people who designed the paint-by-numbers kit, but they might have simply used a photograph and a computer algorithm to produce it, and their efforts were solely for the purpose of producing paint-by-number kits and making a profit.

You need a theory that can distinguish things like fine art, commercial art, design, decoration, etc.

You still haven't explained (as far as I can tell) why consciousness matters here? If art is consciousness and self-organization, then what? Isn't everything? Taking a shit is consciousness and self-organization and so is Rembrandt's The Night Watch - reconcile the two for us? How does this possibly assist us in gaining any clarity about art? — Tom Storm

The thing that everybody is missing is that a definition of art requires the identification of an attribute that is constantly present in art. There is only one thing constantly present in art, and everything else is variable, and optionally present. The constant is the mind activity expressed in the form of the art.
That is it! that is all that is constantly present. As we analyze this mind activity, we find it is to do with self organization - the artist makes art in the course of life, and the art reveals their attitude to life in it's form, broadly speaking. — Pop

It doesn't

You still haven't explained (as far as I can tell) why consciousness matters here? If art is consciousness and self-organization, then what? Isn't everything? Taking a shit is consciousness and self-organization and so is Rembrandt's The Night Watch - reconcile the two for us? How does this possibly assist us in gaining any clarity about art — Tom Storm

To answer your question: it doesn't. It merely translates art into a (alleged or proposed) universal language of self-organisation, consciousnesses (which are just people) and their "interaction".

Mind activity is expressed in everything we do, so you must mean a specific kind of activity. Let's call it 'neural art activity' or NAA for convenience. Now if I were to buy a paint-by-numbers kit and I followed it to the letter, would the resulting painting be an artwork? To others, it could certainly be regarded as artwork because it looks like artwork — praxis

An artist is free to choose the form of their art, including paint by numbers ( which I think has been done ) but the choice they make reveals their person - it reveals where their heads are at, so expresses their consciousness. It expresses how they think, what they have been influenced by, their attitudes to life - it expresses how information they have been shaped by has formed them - they in turn re-present this information in the form of their art.

You might say that the NAA came from the people who designed the paint-by-numbers kit, but they might have simply used a photograph and a computer algorithm to produce it, and their efforts were solely for the purpose of producing paint-by-number kits and making a profit. — praxis

Understanding the background - the context that the art is made in is important to understanding the art. In the instance you bring up, you understand the artist needs to make a buck, and so the work should be viewed in this light. The art is still information about the artists self organization?

You need a theory that can distinguish things like fine art, commercial art, design, decoration, etc. — praxis

Can consciousness and self-organization rightly be called a theory? It seems a bit slender to me.

Can consciousness and self-organization rightly be called a theory? It seems a bit slender to me. — Tom Storm

It is. Offers ziltch to the discussion about art.

An artist is free to choose the form of their art, including paint by numbers (which I think has been done) but the choice they make reveals their person - it reveals where their heads are at, so expresses their consciousness. It expresses how they think, what they have been influenced by, their attitudes to life - it expresses how information they have been shaped by has formed them - they in turn re-present this information in the form of their art. — Pop

Obviously, a painting done yourself reveals a lot more about a person than a painting done from a paint-by-numbers kit. A dozen people could do the same kit and all the resulting paintings would be rather indistinguishable. And yet any of those dozen could hang their picture on the wall and call it art, and it is art, merely because they've presented it as such. If anyone disagrees and can't see it that way it is their own failing, their own refusal or inability to accept the invitation to an aesthetic experience.

Original artwork can express a lot about a person, including their skill at expressing themselves.

Understanding the background - the context that the art is made in is important to understanding the art. In the instance you bring up, you understand the artist needs to make a buck, and so the work should be viewed in this light. The art is still information about the artists self organization? — Pop

Not necessarily, no. In commercial art, the intention is to express the values of the client in a way that will resonate with a particular audience, for the purpose of making money.

If I shit I'm conscious of the big self-organized saucage coming from my but. A true piece of art proudly made by yours truly. Everything that self-organizes and of which we are conscious is art like this. But it isn't.

You still haven't explained (as far as I can tell) why consciousness matters here? If art is consciousness and self-organization, then what? Isn't everything? Taking a shit is consciousness and self-organization and so is Rembrandt's The Night Watch - reconcile the two for us? — Tom Storm

But then, and your example is especially telling because it sets itself apart from anything we want to cll art; I mean, shitting and Bach, together in the same category?
But this is why Dewey's thinking is strong here: Art is no longer "the beautiful" in the modern thinking. Now,maybe it should be, but the art world has a different take. It allows shit to be art, literally. It allows the artist's prestige to drive the value of an artwork. So, part of the the trouble lies in the promiscuous inclusion, and here it is just people and the concept of art in the artworld, and "art" is simply tossed around arbitrarily, giving us this intractable idea of art and trying to endlessly redefine it. Maybe we should tell the the artworld to F*** off, and just because it was Picasso who rearranged a bicycle wheel and handle bars to look like a bull does not establish a new paradigm of what art can be, Duchamp notwithstanding.
Maybe Dewey is closer to being right than the artworld's aimless mission to make money through the critic's valorations of bullsh*t. Because Dewey believes in the aesthetic as something concrete, produced IN experience and grounded in something substantive.

But then, and your example is especially telling because it sets itself apart from anything we want to cll art; I mean, shitting and Bach, together in the same category? — Constance

Cool. Yep - both are examples of consciousness and self-organization - which is why I said these criteria are close to meaningless.

Art is no longer "the beautiful" — Constance

Unless one is a slave to idealism notions of 'the beautiful' are not central to art.

Maybe we should tell the the artworld to F*** off, and just because it was Picasso who rearranged a bicycle wheel and handle bars to look like a bull does not establish a new paradigm of what art can be, Duchamp notwithstanding. — Constance

We tend to conflate what is art with what is good art. I am fine with piles of bricks, unmade beds and urinals... it is art if it is put on display as such. But it may not be good art, which is a separate matter entirely.

Maybe Dewey is closer to being right than the artworld's aimless mission to make money through the critic's valorations of bullsh*t. — Constance

The problem is the market. If making money is involved the process is often diverted/corrupted. I don't think there is an artworld as such. There are artworlds and some of them are dominated by insincere money grubbers and have more dominance - 'Twas always thus.

Agree with much of your sentiment.