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. — Pop
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
This is nonsensical. You cannot have an out-of-context experience. — praxis
The aesthetic is affect, though this is not to say if one screams in contempt she is making art. It is to say that when one takes up an object AS art, the screaming in contempt can be art. — Constance
I am going to take issue with this. What you cannot define is emotion, affect. This is a given, irreducible. — Constance
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. — Pop
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. — Tom Storm
A dozen people could do the same kit and all the resulting paintings would be rather indistinguishable. — praxis
Original artwork can express a lot about a person, including their skill at expressing themselves. — praxis
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. — praxis
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. — Pop
But mind activity is nonspecific — Constance
I think this point will make more sense to people who are into conceptual art. "Art" has different meanings depending on context of use, right? — frank
This is nonsensical. You cannot have an out-of-context experience.
— praxis
No. The context is taking up a thing apart from others. Kant did this with reason. It is not that Kant thought reason could be conceived independently of context, but that putting selected contexts at bay in order to give analysis to one feature is what analysis is all about. — Constance
But what is it you are fine with? I mean, what is it about art that makes it art such that a pile of bricks can be art? — Constance
What the fuck? Self-organization! What does that even mean in this context. — T Clark
Context of use would be the context of considering the object AS art. — Constance
IE, in discussions about art, as with philosophy in general, communication can break down when different contributors attach different meanings to the same words. — RussellA
The aesthetic form of an object is independent of the object's context, as an object's aesthetic is the formal arrangement of the parts within the object, not any external context. — RussellA
It is specifically self organization - mind activity is always self organization. Consciousness is an evolving process of self organization. But the next question will be - what is self organization? This I don't know exactly, but it is the thing that causes the self assembly of everything in the universe. Ultimately this is what art is expressing. — Pop
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.
Yes, he talk like that, I read. I have always thought N had to spend his life struggling, literally. Nothing but miserable health, and he had to overcome these to even write at all. Thus, we get overcoming as a principle theme. He had to "make" himself where others could relax.I meant the context of the use of the word, "art".
For Nietzsche, we ourselves are the work of art, the challenge being to become conscious of this.
What was it for Heidegger? A fusion of purpose and matter?
I read once that philosophers usually write simplified synopses of their ideas when they talk about art. I wonder why? — frank
For starters, I don't think it's a good way to start an analysis by assuming something that is unverifiable. How could anyone really know how Hiter felt during the holocaust, much less 80 years after it occurred. You even go so far as to say that your claim about his feelings is indisputable.
You say that by itself his genocidal glee is good. This is your evaluation and can only mean that you think genocidal glee is good. You value genocide to a degree that it inspires delight in you.
You go on to say that genocidal glee is bad in context. This seems to mean that you value the feeling of delight that the idea of genocide inspires in you but in practice (any actual context) would be bad. This can only mean that you know that genocide is immoral and that it would be bad to practice because it's immoral or because society (other minds) consider it unacceptable and do not delight in the idea or practice of it. — praxis
Yes, he talk like that, I read. I have always thought N had to spend his life struggling, literally. Nothing but miserable health, and he had to overcome these to even write at all. Thus, we get overcoming as a principle theme. He had to "make" himself where others could relax. — Constance
'm reading Karsten Harries Art Matters that focuses on Heidegger's Origin. WIsh I could send it to you to talk about it. — Constance
Modern" art loses its spiritual dimension. Talking here about Renaissance art, genre painting and the absence of religious themes. Heidegger is not religious but does see modern art (here, early 20th century. Very erratic, scattered) as having lost something, just as he thinks WE, human dasein, gets lost in its own trivialities. — Constance
He thinks this is pragmatics, what you might call self processing information, and I don't disagree. But then he makes the critical move toward the aesthetic IN experience. You are not willing to this, it seems. — Constance
Consciousness is also about awareness. The difference between good art and bad art is the awareness of the artist. Great art displays an unusual - far from usual awareness of it's subject matter. Great art exceeds the normal expectation of art through the artists awareness of an extra dimension to the subject matter, that normal art does not see. This way great art can result in a shift in paradigm, about it's subject matter. We can not predict what the subject matter will be, but we can predict great art will have a mastery of it, and will provide avenues to go beyond it. — Pop
Great art displays an unusual - far from usual awareness of it's subject matter. — Pop
It seems to me there are people actually defining art as: Everything, or anything — Santiago
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.