The real question is this: Is there a foundation for art and ethics that is absolute? — Constance

If you mean a god you can pray to, no, there isn't. That's a fairy tale. If you mean some sort of Neoplatonic divinity, maybe.

To actually reveal his consciousness we would somehow have to be able to be in Clarks mind and experience his consciousness. — praxis

Wait, that can't be right. If it were, that would mean my opinions are art, wouldn't it?

If so, then my problem with you is that you seem to mistake your opinions for something of worth. Your opinions are just noise without substance, you provide no argument whatsoever. — Pop

As I pointed out, my problem isn't with your opinions, although they are clearly wrong. My problem is with the pompous, smug, condescending attitude with which you present and repeat, and repeat, and repeat them without addressing the arguments of those who disagree with you.

Neoplatonic divinity, maybe. — frank

At first, I read napoleanic divinity. Perhaps that could be an absolute foundation of art. Who knows?

It would part chocolate, vanilla, and strawberry, so that would be omnibenevolent.

Again, we can easily imagine a red letterbox out of context. In experience we cannot separate one from its context, — praxis

I agree that I would have difficulty understanding what was going on if I saw an object such as a red letter box out of its normal context in the middle of lake

But I would have no trouble with my subjective experience of the colour red (or aesthetic form) regardless of the object's context - whether at the end of a street or the middle of a lake.

If you mean a god you can pray to, no, there isn't. That's a fairy tale. If you mean some sort of Neoplatonic divinity, maybe. — frank

Both of these are beyond what the question asks. Is there a way to show that in ethics and aesthetics there is an absolute embedded in the essence of what they are? Give analysis to an instance of these and is their something that is "its own presupposition" that defies analysis? What ever this is, it is beyond contingency and would be ontologically just as grand or authoritative as any Biblical narrative or metaphysical construction. It would be part and parcel of the world, just as "factual" as any other fact, but then, ineffably unassailable.

Both of these are beyond what the question asks. Is there a way to show that in ethics and aesthetics there is an absolute embedded in the essence of what they are? Give analysis to an instance of these and is their something that is "its own presupposition" that defies analysis? — Constance

I think morality and amorality are aspects of one's perspective.

You can look at the Holocaust as a mountain of evil, or you can look at it the way a zoologist looks at the behavior of Asian hornets destroying bee hives.

You can flip back and forth between the two if you like. Where does an absolute show up in this situation?

I think morality and amorality are aspects of one's perspective.

You can look at the Holocaust as a mountain of evil, or you can look at it the way a zoologist looks at the behavior of Asian hornets destroying bee hives.

You can flip back and forth between the two if you like. Where does an absolute show up in this situation? — frank

Ethics is analyzable at a level beneath perspective. Not that such perspectives don't exist, and that at a certain level of analysis, this "perspectivalism" doesn't work; it does. But here, one is asked to go deeper, e.g., it is not my perspective that makes medieval torture horrible.

But I would have no trouble with my subjective experience of the colour red (or aesthetic form) regardless of the object's context - whether at the end of a street or the middle of a lake. — RussellA

Agree, and personally I find the idea of a mailbox standing in the middle of a lake rather aesthetically appealing.

Agree, and personally I find the idea of a mailbox standing in the middle of a lake rather aesthetically appealing. — praxis

Then you think irony is art. But irony is cognitive. What can this be about?

I find the idea of a mailbox standing in the middle of a lake rather aesthetically appealing. — praxis

I can see your artwork Mailbox in Lake taking pride of place at the 2022 Venice Biennale. (y)

art theory — Constance

There are different approaches to a definition of art

1) Definitions as universal - @Pop wrote: "Art is an expression of human consciousness" - "consciousness unifies and integrates information, and I postulate - in a creative process. It seems consciousness is creativity" (y)

2) Definitions as abstract - @Constance wrote: "And: in the end, all concepts are open. Art is just among the most intractable. The only way to pin it down is to move into metaphysics. This is not impossible, I claim." (y)

3) Definitions as particular - @RussellA wrote: "the two main approaches to art are modernism and postmodernism. In modernism, the artwork is more important than the artist, the aesthetic is of equal importance to the representation and the representation is pictographic. In postmodernism the idea of the artwork is more important than the physical artwork, any aesthetic has been deliberately removed and any representation is symbolic rather than pictographic. (y)

4) Definitions as unhelpful - @Banno wrote: "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" (n)

5) Definitions as futile - @TheMadFool wrote: "Art has been allowed to explore the world on its own for too long - it's a wild animal now and taming it, which a definition is, is futile." (n)

Definitions are important in understanding modernism

In postmodernism the meaning of art has become meaningless as anything can be art, such as Warhol's Brillo Boxes, so any attempt at an underlying definition becomes pointless.

However, in modernism, it is the case that some objects have artistic value, such as Matisse's Dance 1910, and some don't, such as Warhol's Brillo Boxes. If some objects within modernism have artistic value and some don't, there must be objective and subjective reasons. As modernist artworks have great social, cultural and intellectual value, intellectual curiosity requires an attempt to discover reasons why they hold such important meaning.

IE, definitions, as succinct summaries of complex ideas, are an important aspect in the understanding of modernism.

Definitions can communicate subjective experience

As with Mary in Mary's Room, Mary may know all the objective facts about the colour red, and yet never had the subjective experience of the colour red.

The value of a modernist artwork, its essence, is in its particular subjective experience. The idea that definitions are unhelpful in communicating the nature of art assumes that definitions can only describe objective facts and not subjective experiences. But definitions do more than this. Definitions communicate between people by describing the whole - "aesthetic form is unity of parts within a varied whole" - and naming the parts - "unity", etc. Linguistic communication depends on agreed public names having private subjective meanings.

IE, as definitions are able to communicate the subjective essence of an artwork by naming rather than describing, definitions are invaluable in any discussion about art.

Definitions are not futile

If definitions were futile, then we would be deep in a postmodernist Alice in Wonderland world where any word can mean whatever the speaker wants it to mean. This would result in the breakdown of communication, such that when I talk about my car I mean a small vessel for travelling over water, propelled by oars, sails, or an engine, and when I talk about my boat I mean a four-wheeled road vehicle that is powered by an engine

Definitions are not unhelpful
If definitions about art were unhelpful, the Tate would not write that "Performance Art is artworks that are created through actions performed by the artist or other participants, which may be live or recorded, spontaneous or scripted".

Or why the SEP have a 10,000 word long article on "The Definition of Art" - including Kant's definition as “a kind of representation that is purposive in itself and, though without an end, nevertheless promotes the cultivation of the mental powers for sociable communication”

Or the Minnesota State University's web site linking to Tolstoy's definition of art as "a means of union among men, joining them together in the same feelings, and indispensable for the life and progress toward well‐being of individuals and of humanity."

IE, Even if there is no agreement as to a single definition of art, definitions are helpful in attempting to understand the meaning of art.

Summary

Any underlying definition of art is pointless in postmodernism, as anything can be art, but in modernism, definitions are an important aspect in understanding the great social, cultural and intellectual importance of modernist artworks.

Any underlying definition of art is pointless in postmodernism, as anything can be art, but in modernism, definitions are an important aspect in understanding the great social, cultural and intellectual importance of modernist artworks. — RussellA

I don't buy any of this. The question of art lies with one question: is there anything that is both the essence of art, what makes art, art, and absolute? The reason art theory becomes so diffuse is because this question is considered a lost cause, and foundational talk "nonsense" (Wittgenstein encouraged the damage here).
But I claim art has this foundation: there is an intuitive absolute foundation to art, and that divergence in theory has entirely to do with the intellect's will to diversity. Hegel said that the object stands before the modern mind as an historical fixity with its own negation built into it, and this power of negation has no limit. In other words, anything and everything can be negated, thus, in the effort to affirm, there is instant denial. This, incidentally is also Derrida, or close. Putting aside the whole of Hegel's thought (pls!), he is right about this. Propositions are inherently defeatable. The only recourse in art (I say, though Hegel is over my shoulder) it to look for what is NOT propositional. Art has this, I say. It is called the aesthetic. And the historical movement away from this is simply word play. After all, words all carry their own begation.
Fascinating argument in this, but only if you're interested.

Ethics isanalyzable at a level beneath perspective. Not that such perspectives don't exist, and that at a certain level of analysis, this "perspectivalism" doesn't work; it does. But here, one is asked to go deeper, e.g., it is not my perspective that makes medieval torture horrible. — Constance

So when you say morality is beneath the level of perspective you mean you don't decide what's right and wrong. You want to identify the causal agent here, and its obviously beyond your whims?

I suppose a candidate would be Augustinean Christianity. "Love and do what you will". It's an amoral command, but it serves as a moral guide at the same time. And maybe love is unanalyzable. I'm not sure.

Anyway, you could think of it as where amorality meets it's opposite?

The Gel remark was not aimed at you or anybody specifically, it is just a fact of communication.

But there was an objection in this! The term 'information' fouls up the works, for the painting, say, is not about a state of mind sans the painting. The painting itself cannot be reduced to information about something else, like ones and zeros of a program, because the consciousness that is the seat of art's meaning necessarily includes the painting itself. — Constance

As per the definition, and the OP. Everything can be reduced to information, as otherwise how would you know about it? When you stand in front of a painting, it informs you - literally changes your neural state such that you become aware of it's presence.

Hopefully this establishes that art is information?

Now the question remains - Information about what? An artist is totally free to choose what their art will be. So, what they choose is a direct expression of their self - what they choose is congruous with how they understand themselves and the world that they live in. So it is information about them. It is not information about, say a flower, it is information about a flower as seen through the artist's eyes. This is always the case, in every detail, regardless of subject matter, that it is an interpretation by the artist. So it is an expression of their mind activity, or consciousness. It is always the case, and will necessarily always be the case, that the subject matter will reflect the consciousness of the artist - it does not appear in the artwork on it's own, but is caused to appear there by the artist, so is a reflection of the artist's thinking.

This is always the case, and it is most prominently exemplified in the work of artist's like Van Gogh, Munch, Bacon, Lucian freud, etc. There can be no doubt that it is their consciousness that is being expressed, as it is so different to the consciousness normally seen.

You do not enjoying the vibration of a piano string, you enjoy the arrangement of piano string vibrations, which is different for a Mozart, than it is for a Beethoven. You don't want to listen to some piano string vibrations, you want to listen to some Bach. No?

So, art work is information about the artist's consciousness.

Hopefully this answers your question - yes an art work is information, and it is information about the consciousness of the artist. It exists in some form, and this form by virtue of being something physical is aesthetic, so is always experiential. But there is nothing definite about the form, or any resultant aesthetic, or experience. We can not predict what the form of art will be in a hundred years, or the experience that will result from it, so can not define art in these terms. These terms are variable, they do not always exist in art, and it is unpredictable how they might exist in future. For a definition, we need to focus on the things that always exist in art, and the only thing that always exist in art is that art work is information about the artists consciousness - everything else is variable! That is why this is a definition - such as it is. :grin:

So is Clark revealing his consciousness or his opinions? He’s expressing his opinions, right? To actually reveal his consciousness we would somehow have to be able to be in Clarks mind and experience his consciousness. I can’t imagine how that’s possible, and neither can you, apparently. — praxis

He reveals his consciousness through his vacant opinions, and troll like behavior.

It is not necessary to inhabit a persons consciousness to get a glimpse of it.

As we write these comments, to some extent, what we write is equal to our consciousness. Hence when we write, we express our consciousness. Much the same as with art, only the medium is different.

If so, then my problem with you is that you seem to mistake your opinions for something of worth. Your opinions are just noise without substance, you provide no argument whatsoever.
— Pop

As I pointed out, my problem isn't with your opinions, although they are clearly wrong. My problem is with the pompous, smug, condescending attitude with which you present and repeat, and repeat, and repeat them without addressing the arguments of those who disagree with you. — T Clark

Pathetic, your argument has been so defeated, that now you misrepresent the situation and resort to name calling and an attack on character. It is a corruption of the process of debate, that is obvious to intelligence, but a small minded dim witted consciousness like your own would not be aware of that.
Given you understand so little else, perhaps you will understand this - put up, or shut up!

Mine is not opinion. Is 1+1 opinion? It is logical fact, as opposed to your opinion. — Pop

I can see your artwork Mailbox in Lake taking pride of place at the 2022 Venice Biennale. (y) — RussellA

I doubt it would do well at even the neighborhood swap meet. More evidence that bad art can still be defined as art though. :razz:

So is Clark revealing his consciousness or his opinions? He’s expressing his opinions, right? To actually reveal his consciousness we would somehow have to be able to be in Clarks mind and experience his consciousness. I can’t imagine how that’s possible, and neither can you, apparently.
— praxis

He reveals his consciousness through his vacant opinions, and troll like behavior.

It is not necessary to inhabit a persons consciousness to get a glimpse of it.

As we write these comments, to some extent, what we write is equal to our consciousness. Hence when we write, we express our consciousness. Much the same as with art, only the medium is different. — Pop

Clark's artistic opinions are not his consciousness and it's a big stretch to say that they reflect his consciousness. He may, for some reason, express opinions that are not his own. He can communicate his own opinions with words. Can he communicate his consciousness with words? What does it even mean to communicate one's consciousness? Consciousness is a state of being awake and aware.

Can he communicate his consciousness with words? What does it even mean to communicate one's consciousness? Consciousness is a state of being awake and aware. — praxis

We can not express anything other than our consciousness.

What is consciousness?

According to American philosopher John Searle: “Consciousness is that thing that presents itself as we wake up in the morning and lasts all day until we go back to sleep again at night.” It isn’t simply awareness or knowledge – I believe Carl Jung would agree that to every bit of consciousness is attached 100 bits of the subconscious, interwoven into a mental lattice presenting as a united front. It is fundamental to us. Consciousness is personality in action, yet we are hardly aware of it. Modern science has not been able to pin consciousness down, however panpsychism and eastern philosophy agree that consciousness is a fundamental property of the universe - from this perspective consciousness takes on a much deeper meaning

The singular thing that life is concerned with is to maintain and continue itself, and consciousness facilitates this. It is the one thing we are always expressing. We express it when making art, and it seems art's function is to express our consciousness when we personally cannot - to express it at its best, express it to many, and into the future. — Pop

Since this definition, and due to a wonder about what consciousness is, I came to define consciousness as an evolving process of self organization. But I don't know what the source of self organization is.

**In science, self organization caused life, In systems theory self organization caused order in the universe. That art also expresses consciousness / self organization is quite a big deal - I think anyway.

So when you say morality is beneath the level of perspective you mean you don't decide what's right and wrong. You want to identify the causal agent here, and its obviously beyond your whims?

I suppose a candidate would be Augustinean Christianity. "Love and do what you will". It's an amoral command, but it serves as a moral guide at the same time. And maybe love is unanalyzable. I'm not sure.

Anyway, you could think of it as where amorality meets it's opposite? — frank

If we were talking in a scientific context, and I wanted to give analysis to, say, a rock formation or a symptom of something else, I would be looking causal accounts, yes. But this is more descriptive: I look at a rock formation and ask, what it is. This is classificatory, and in science, of course, it gets into taxonomic terms and features that these designate. In ethics and aesthetics, I observe what is there and ask the same question. Simple analysis: what is it that lies before me that everyone is calling art, that is, what is it that makes it art? The scientist's question is, what do I observe as identifiable features, and what are my classificatory options? The options are two: on the one hand, aesthetic, which have to do with value. This object (music, novel, poem, painting and so forth) is something "cared" for, the aesthetic being that which this caring is all about. On the other, there is cognition: talk about its features, predicative affairs like, the french horn's timbre contrasting against the sharp intrusion of the percussion, and so forth. The cognitive features of the judgment are always there, structuring the judgment, but as cognition, they are not what defines the art/music. The aesthetic does (which is why I like Dewey: the two are existentially one. Cognition is bound to the aesthetic, though, to know is not, as such, aesthetic.

To know about ethics or aesthetics, one has to first identify what it is be discussed. As with regular science, this begins with observation of unproblematic cases.

Again, art is entangled with all else, hence the confusion. Analysis abstracts from the whole to find the essential properties. like Kant did with reason. The assumption here is, cognition qua cognition is not wht art is about. I question, for example, that conceptual art is truly art. It is mostly a thesis.

We can not express anything other than our consciousness. — Pop

Then how is it that I can’t even prove to you that I’m conscious? I could be a series of algorithms or an AI that lacks consciousness. There’s no way you could know and there’s no way that I can prove it to you. You can only know you’re conscious, or as I speculated earlier, somehow actually experience another’s consciousness.

resort to name calling and an attack on character. — Pop

I did not call any names or comment on your character. I wrote about the "pompous, smug, condescending attitude with which you present and repeat, and repeat, and repeat them without addressing the arguments of those who disagree with you."

You, on the other hand, have talked about my "small minded dim witted consciousness."

art — praxis

If I could suggest a description for your next Venice Biennale exhibit : "Located somewhere between a fantastical reality and the political chaos of modern life, praxis' sculptures weave together multiple narrative threads. As a keen observer of complex social dynamics, he subverts conventional codes of representation through the language of narrative sculpture. Magnifying issues of inequality and political uncertainty, the picturesque beauty of his vivid landscape belies a sinister reality in which the collision of sumptuous detail and subtle colour provides an insight into the social mores and political ideologies of the working postman.

In my opinion, equal if not better than Teresa Margolles 2019 Venice Biennale exhibit.

:up:

You, on the other hand, have talked about my "small minded dim witted consciousness." — T Clark

He's got a point though (just kidding).

As per the definition, and the OP. Everything can be reduced to information, as otherwise how would you know about it? When you stand in front of a painting, it informs you - literally changes your neural state such that you become aware of it's presence.

Hopefully this establishes that art is information? — Pop

It is not that art is not information. It is about whether the art object is nothing but information, such that the thesis, "Art is information" holds up as a definition of art, as you say it does.

Everything is information, though I'm not sure you see it like this. You could say the tree standing before me is information: The observation itself is a thing of parts, the cognitive, the familiarity nd the recollection that makes it familiar, the implicit interest of looking at all. this latter is the aesthetic in everyday life. So put explicit information aside, like a newspaper: all I observe is like this; the world is information about myself (kind of what Kant was all about), the structure of thought exhibited in the form of judgment and perception (which leads to further dimensions in phenomenology). Further, the tree and everything about it, one could argue, is nothing BUT a reading of the productive source which is consciousness.
Such a surprisingly interesting issue. Here are a few thoughts, and I think, unless you can convince me otherwise, these have to be taken up to make your position tenable.

Look at what can be called an unproblematic case of information, say, stereo instructions or the daily news. These deliver information, and if there is an issue here, then the matter turns to the ambiguity of the term itself, that is, if the news isn't information, nothing is. Two things: First, it can be claimed that even when I read and am informed, the medium is not discarded as simply a vehicle for delivery. As I consider the "information" I am repeating the medium of delivery: words and their structure. But then, the point of information is to be about something else, the war overseas or the shortage in gasoline, and the words are not the news! I think this idea captures what information is. So when there is information, there is talk of something else entirely, and the medium is the vehicle for this something else.


I am convinced at this point that if something is to reduced to information, as you are doing, the information and its "aboutness" has to exhaust the analysis of the medium. But then the question arises: Is this possible? Can a medium of information be reduced exclusively to the terms of delivery? Words are not events in the news, but events in the news cannot be word-free affairs. Then again, two killed in a car accident is not the news about them being killed. It seems like it depends on what the information itself is. If I say what someone said earlier to inform you, then the saying the second time is the same or similar as the first, making the second information bearing utterance not merely information about the first, but essentially sharing in content. In this case, the utterance is not simply news about an event, but the event itself. And this is my current objection to your position: An art work, once exhaustively analysed as information about what is substantively an inner, consciousness affair, possesses something of that affair itself.

Respond? I mean, it's a genuinely interesting piece of philosophy you raised, but only as good as the such things as the above are given their due. (I'm not a fan of philosophy banter).

(In this is another issue: is conceptual art, really art?)

Second: What your definition lacks is an actual account of what the art IS, in the consciousness that receives it, creates it. I mean, if say X is the definition of art, and the true seat of art lies within and the object is simply that which carries it, deposits it, if you will, then a major part of your thinking should go to what it is that is there, in consciousness that the art work carries and delivers. This, I would think, is central to any definition of art.

My thinking has for while now been that to "discover" the essence of art, one has to do the phenomenological reduction of Husserl. See his Ideas I. An analysis at the level of basic questions, assumptions has to look at experience apophatically: not this, not that.

:lol: You got pro art-speak.

the essence of art — Constance

Language is not part of the essence of a modernist artwork.
I don't want to give the impression that I think that linguistic descriptions are part of the fundamental essence of a modernist artwork. Descriptions and definitions (succinct descriptions) may be helpful in the viewer's understand of the artwork but any such description is external to the artwork.

Though language is important in understanding the artwork
For example, when looking at a Classical Greek sculpture such as Laocoon and his Sons, admired by Hegel for its form and content, a deeper understanding of both the artwork and artist may be gained by knowing that for Hegel formal qualities meant "a unity and harmony of different elements in which these elements are not just arranged in a regular, symmetrical pattern but are unified organically" and content meant "an expression of freedom and richness of spirit".

Language is part of the essence of a postmodernist artwork
Language in postmodernism has a different function to that of language in modernism.
In postmodernism, there has been a blurring of the lines between art and language, where language itself has become a part of the artwork and where through the text the viewer is invited to directly engage with political and social issues within contemporary life. In postmodernism, the artwork is not an end in itself, but is an instrument by which the viewer is directed to political and social concerns held by the artist.

Modernism is more profound than postmodernism
Modernism (whose essence is aesthetic form of pictographic representation) enables a profundity not present in postmodernism because the viewer's interpretation is not restricted by having to comply with any language imposed on the artwork by the artist, as would be the case within a postmodernist artwork (where the aesthetic has been deliberately excluded and whose essence is symbolic representation).

IE, modernism is democratic in allowing the viewer a free interpretation, whereas postmodernism is authoritarian in directing the viewer's interpretation by means of the language imposed by the artist.