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. — praxis
An art work, once exhaustively analysed as information about what is substantively an inner, consciousness affair, possesses something of that affair itself. — Constance
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). — Constance
(In this is another issue: is conceptual art, really art?) — Constance
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. — Constance
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: — Pop
Exactly - that is why the art work is information about what is occurring in the artist's mind, or in other words consciousness. Likewise this art object representing the artist's consciousness, then interacts with the consciousness of the viewer, to become something in their mind. So it is a communication of consciousness to consciousness and what is exchanged is information. — 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.
— praxis
You are arguing that you are AI, and thus unconscious? :chin: — Pop
Maybe it's not so different than Pop consciousness, or Frank consciousness. Maybe it's very different. Does anyone really know? — praxis
No argument is required. I'm merely pointing out that you can only assume that I'm conscious, you can't know that I'm conscious, so I could not be expressing something that you cannot know even exists.The words and ideas that I express, on the other hand, are evident. — praxis
… you appear to place a great deal of confidence in your communication with the world through sense and reason. So for all practical purposes you're a realist. — frank
Even if you were an Ai, you would still be expressing a consciousness, but this time the consciousness of your programmer — Pop
In panpsychism, consciousness is fundamental, and is the only thing anything ever expresses through it's form. Long story. So I know that if anything should ever be expressed, that it will be consciousness. — Pop
There is a theoretical basis for my assertions — Pop
I can only express my consciousness - there is nothing I can do other than express my own consciousness. — Pop
It is not necessary for me to know your consciousness in it's entirety, since through expression you provide me with glimpses of it. — Pop
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. — RussellA
In case you haven’t noticed, mailboxes don’t usually stand in the middle of lakes, and yet you attempt to categorize me as a realist. — praxis
is there anything that is both the essence of art, what makes art, art, and absolute?......But I claim art has this foundation......Art has this, I say. It is called the aesthetic......Propositions are inherently defeatable........ words all carry their own begation... — Constance
your erect mailbox is ready to destroy somebody else’s “car” in the neighborhood. — praxis
:100: Worth several reads. The TPF education-in-a-paragraph.It matters a huge deal. When art is undefined it fragments into many things, such as what has happened in post modernism. When it was defined to some extent, during modernism, there was a vague central agreement as to what constituted good art. So art integrated somewhat around this understanding, and the best examples of this understanding, was good art. The owners of this understanding were artists and intellectuals, so progress in art was driven by the people central to it, and there was a largely united world vision of what constitutes good art.
Without this world wide central agreement art has fragmented into fiefdoms of art, where what constitutes good art is the domain of the most powerful, rather then the most knowledgeable, imo. — Pop
When art is undefined it fragments — Pop
The problem is, how can the idea that "the essence of art is as an aesthetic" be expressed but not in propositional form, if as you say that "propositions are inherently defeatable" and "words all carry their own negation" ? — RussellA
With postmodernism, where anything can be art, then there cannot be good art or bad art. Then the well-known artwork A mail box in a lake is equal to the most prominent postmodernist works in the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art (badly named, however)
But in modernism, where art has been defined (albeit in more than one way), there can be good and bad art. Then a child's crayon sketch of a dog can never be the equal of a Rembrandt or Matisse. — RussellA
Would you agree with me that's some is?! Seeming implied, but for being implied, as well being!but in aesthetics and ethics, there is value. — Constance
I couldn't care less about what... the knowledgeable consider... because I can think for myself and I'm not a mindless herd animal.
— praxis
:vomit:
Yessir! That knowledge sir! Tried it once; didn't like it! — tim wood
Yes. You know what you like - that was apparent and no one questions it. But as with tools, do you buy the better tool for the job or the one you like? And does not education and knowledge inform that decision?but when it comes to art I can tell if I like something, — praxis
But as with tools, do you buy the better tool for the job or the one you like? — tim wood
And does not education and knowledge inform that decision? — tim wood
And don't confuse the offer of an experience with the experiencing of it. — tim wood
Sweet Jesus, no! If you think "liking" is the sine qua non of aesthetic experience, then you're living one (or two)-dimensionally in a multi-dimensional world.in art, liking (aesthetic experience) is the job — praxis
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.