The way it seems to me is philosophy of art is in the business of, ultimately, constraining art by defining it; a definition although good to have - we can know with 100% certainty what is and is not art, paving the way for deeper philosophical study of the subject - is, if one gives it some thought, a straitjacket - restricts/constrains/limits/ the artist by having to conform to the definition whatever that is. — TheMadFool
Without a definition anybody can just BS about art as they please. — Pop
This definition doesn't restrict the artist in any way, other than in the understanding that art is not simply art about art — Pop
I haven't paid this thread much attention, because definitions are not all that helpful, but further, any definition of art will immediately encourage any sensible artist to produce something that does not meet that definition. — Banno
Without a definition anybody can just BS about art as they please. — Pop
Yes by pointing out that even BS about art is an expression of consciousness. — Pop
There you go. Are you now going to desist from trying to define art? — TheMadFool
Why would I do that? — Pop
Why restrict the artist or, more accurately, why would the artist give a damn about your definition? — TheMadFool
It does not restrict anybody. There are no artist's lining up outside my door in order to give a damn about the definition. :lol: However, the definition IS scientific, irreducible, and falsifiable. — Pop
The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.
Consciousness requires the story arc which inevitably contains grief, rage, disappointment, etc. If the production and consumption of art is about experience, then it necessarily centers around evil.
Nietzsche didn't think we could overcome this. He thought we need to learn to embrace it, I think. — frank
Embrace it, or sublimate it, make it yield to our needs. I never found Nietzsche interesting enough to study. He is the post modern hero because he denies the primacy of "truth" and embraces the irrational features of our existence. His claim that human existence is a constructed enterprise is an existential defining notion (essence precedes existence, e.g.) but I find Kierkegaard more challenging — Constance
There is such a thing as authentic metaphysics. — Constance
would prefer, simply, trouble, for "evil" is connotatively thick and I don't want to make matters unduly weird. — Constance
At the most basic level, the trouble an inquiring mind faces is religio-philosophical. The final trouble, problem to solve. It needs to be looked at as a problem to solve, not as empty metaphysics. — Constance
Without a definition anybody can just BS about art as they please. — Pop
Art is an expression of consciousness. At it's simplest, consciousness is mind activity. Although art is not exclusively an expression of mind activity, this is the singular thing we find in works of art - always. Every work of art ever made has to be an expression of mind activity, agreed? — Pop
Mind activity is experiential. Phenomenology elucidates mind activity very well. It elucidates how human consciousness self organizes. How cognition is a disturbance in a state, how an emotion is felt due to the implications of the disturbance, and how the state reintegrates. it outlines how a self realigns itself due to this process, and so is a product of this process, agreed? — Pop
So, art is an expression of mind activity, and mind activity is experiential, agreed? — Pop
The experiential mind activity that creates consciousness is endlessly variable and open ended - we can see this in the art it creates - how it is always evolving- with no end in sight. Agreed? So it is not possible to define anything in terms of this, as it is endlessly variable, and open ended! And will continue to evolve into things we cannot possibly imagine. — Pop
So we are left with only mind activity to define art with. Agreed? — Pop
Hence art work is information about the artist's consciousness - This is all we can say that is. This information is present in every work of art. We cannot reduce this any further, and we can not add to it. Anything we add to this expression is not a constant of art. Only this expression is constant in art. So it is the only way to define art. Art can be defined to this extent and no further,. — Pop
So you’re saying that there’s genocidal glee, just the concept of glee, and your mind can separate glee from any actual instance of glee, such as Hitler’s alleged genocidal glee.
If I’m following what you’ve said correctly, you’ve separated the concept of glee from what you’re now referring to as an illustrative example (glee in context) of glee in order to perform an analysis of some kind.
That’s about all the sense I can make out of what you’ve written. It not clear if this somehow relates to your claim that “the aesthetic is an integral part of experience itself.”
Perhaps your analysis has revealed that you have the capacity to consider the concept of aesthetic out of context, or that having this capacity, you can apply this concept any which way that your imagination can manage. — praxis
you seem to have made up your own meaning of aesthetic. I’ll wager that you can’t explain what this is supposed to mean. — praxis
I think Nietzsche is like several truckloads of feces into which a few diamonds and sapphires have been scattered. My connection to Nietzsche deep, like in the direction of dreams. But weren't Nietzsche and K saying something similar? regarding accepting evil? — frank
Could you say more about that? — frank
What's the final trouble? — frank
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.