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. — tim wood

Apparently, you live in whatever world the art authorities tell you to live in.

You're not being clear about liking and aesthetic experience. Can you elaborate to an extent that what you're trying to say becomes meaningful?

sometimes a letterbox is just a letterbox. — praxis

It's usually a mailbox.

Apparently, you live in whatever world the art authorities tell you to live in. — praxis

How do you get here from there?

You're not being clear about liking and aesthetic experience. Can you elaborate to an extent that what you're trying to say becomes meaningful? — praxis

Either you already know what I mean or you do not. Assuming you're being candid and honest, you do not know what I mean. Which is to say that for you, art is what you like and not what you do not like, thus the two identical. And for me, the two are not identical.

And that's as far as we can go. But your view makes art completely subjective, which leads to someone else calling art what you don't, yet that on the basis of your own criterium you cannot call not-art (after all, they like it). Which in turn leads to absurdities such as art-for-me and art-for-you, but no art.

Nor is there any accounting for your changing your mind. It was art yesterday, but not today. Further, the experience in question is either an experience of liking or an aesthetic experience. For you these must be the same thing. For most, however, they are not and cannot be the same thing.

And "like" itself. Yours an appetitive like. An experience of art can also be called a "like," but that a judgment. Perhaps this, the difference between food that's good for you and food that is not. Both can be said to be liked, but one leaves a sense of well-being (broadly defined), the other a feeling of illness.

Good luck with it. I feel the gulf in our understanding is too wide to bridge.

I will leave you with a link to panpsychism which I mistakenly thought you might be familiar with, and this quote:

"Today in the United States we have somewhere close to four or five thousand data points on every individual ... So we model the personality of every adult across the United States, some 230 million people".
— Alexander Nix, chief executive of Cambridge Analytica, October 2016.[1]

According to Sasha Issenberg, CA indicates that it can tell things about an individual he might not even know about himself.[17][79] - Wikipedia

BTW: The central element of a consciousness is that it is self organizing, and AI is not self organizing, at least not as yet!

:100: Worth several reads. The TPF education-in-a-paragraph.

As, for a simple example, with sonnets. There are - can be - good sonnets and bad, but before there can be good and bad, there has to be the thing itself as form, and it seems to be within the constraint of form that art arises. — tim wood

:up: Thank you. Thank god somebody understands and agrees.
It has been a very lonely thread otherwise. :lol:

Either you already know what I mean or you do not. — tim wood

Hmm, starting with the obvious. So far so good!

Assuming you're being candid and honest, you do not know what I mean. — tim wood

I do tell the truth at times, when the mood strikes me.

Which is to say that for you, art is what you like and not what you do not like, thus the two identical. — tim wood

Let me see if I've got this straight so far. I don't follow your meaning well enough to draw meaning from it, therefore, for me, liking and aesthetic experience are identical? Actually, I've read this several times and it's not clear if you mean that liking for me is identical to aesthetic experience or identical to art. Art and aesthetic experience are not synonymous, clearly, because we can have aesthetic experience in the absence of art.

And that's as far as we can go. — tim wood

Stay here if you must but I'll push on.

But your view makes art completely subjective, which leads to someone else calling art what you don't, yet that on the basis of your own criterium you cannot call not-art (after all, they like it). Which in turn leads to absurdities such as art-for-me and art-for-you, but no art. — tim wood

Art is a social construct and has no objective reality. Like money, without people, the finest ink drawings in the world would just be paper and ink with no value beyond paper and ink. It would have value for bugs, I guess, who could nibble on it. But getting back to sapiens, I don't understand your problem with the absurd. If someone were to offer me a million dollars in fake money for my car I would probably laugh, thinking something like, "Oh, how absurd! this fool offering something with no value for my car." But then if she were to asks me to look more closely at the money and it turned out that it was exquisitely hand-drawn unique bills with beautiful designs. I might recognize the art and realize that it may have more value than my beat-up old car.

Nor is there any accounting for your changing your mind. It was art yesterday, but not today. — tim wood

If someone calls something art I will automatically evaluate it as art, if it's not readily apparent. If it showed no sign of skill or design it could still be seen aesthetically. If the artist decides the next day that what they said was art the day before isn't art today that's fine with me, though I may disagree. If a knowledgeable art critic disagrees with me that's fine too.

Further, the experience in question is either an experience of liking or an aesthetic experience. For you these must be the same thing. — tim wood

You asked, "do you buy the better tool for the job or the one you like?." I like to think that I would buy the best tool for the job, and I usually do, for the most part, but I am influenced by aesthetics. In any case, I think you need to define what the job of art is for this to mean anything. For many art is merely an investment opportunity and its job is to appreciate in value, to make money. It can also be a status symbol and its job is to show higher status. More abstractly, art can promote shared beliefs and values, or demote others. Finally, there can be art for art's sake, and its job is merely to experience the aesthetic.

Perhaps this, the difference between food that's good for you and food that is not. — tim wood

Oh, I see now, the knowledgeable art authority will save us from getting a tummy ache. :lol:

It's true that many want to be treated like children.

I value knowledgeable people in general but when it comes to art I can tell if I like something, and no authority on earth can know what may offer an aesthetic experience, though they may know general principles. I'm the best authority on my own sensibilities. — praxis

I guess we're back to that familiar aphorism - "I don't know much about art, but I know what I like." I personally am comfortable with this even though I recognize there is a universe of contested critical assessment and theory (much of it tedious and doctrinaire) available to us to ponder over. The shorthand 'I know what I like' doesn't mean you need to limit yourself to decorative works that you find pretty. It means that you know when you are having an aesthetic experience that you appreciate - it might be confronting, exciting, shocking, captivating.

:up:

I feel the gulf in our understanding is too wide to bridge. — Pop

Supposedly your "long story" can bridge this gap. Just as I predicted this epic tale has not materialized.

There's the notion of pearls before swine. Do you distinguish yourself from swine?
As to art, I'll add this. At your level - as I understand you - you like it, it's art; it's good. At mine, there's a Wow! involved. That art, as I understand it, has the power to summon in me that which is other to and better than me, to me.

An object can only have value if first defined. An object defined as a ship that sinks on first entering the water can rightly be said to be no good as a ship. The same object defined as a submarine that sinks on first entering the water may rightly be said to be good as a submarine.

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

I think this definition, such as it is, holds for all art. I think most people would understand art is something like this. Of course whether somebody uses it will depend on whether they find it useful. I find it most useful in reviewing a body of work over a lifetime - how the art work reflects a chronological growth in thinking and understanding - this also holds for progress in art historically. The definition's validity is quite certain and scientific, and so can be used to argue what is good art and what is not, even in post modernism, though of course some would disagree - however, no matter how much they disagree, they can not invalidate the definition logically. As well as utility, there is a certain beauty in this, from my perspective anyway. :smile:

I guess we're back to that familiar aphorism - "I don't know much about art, but I know what I like." I personally am comfortable with this even though I recognize there is a universe of contested critical assessment and theory (much of it tedious and doctrinaire) available to us to ponder over. The shorthand 'I know what I like' doesn't mean you need to limit yourself to decorative works that you find pretty. It means that you know when you are having an aesthetic experience that you appreciate - it might be confronting, exciting, shocking, captivating. — Tom Storm

There are things I like and things I know are high quality. Some of the things I like I like because they are high quality. Some of the things I like I like in spite of the fact that I know they are not high quality, e.g. Velveeta, Twizzlers, "I'm Henery the 8th I am" by Herman's Hermits. Some of the things I don't like I don't like in spite of the fact I know they are high quality, e.g. most jazz, most rap.

None of this is an argument against anything you've written. I think I'm trying to fit my own experience into your framework.

Supposedly your "long story" can bridge this gap. Just as I predicted this epic tale has not materialized. — praxis

I gave you a link to panpsychism.

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

It seems, you just misunderstood what was stated. A refresher in panpsychism should fix this.

None of this is an argument against anything you've written. I think I'm trying to fit my own experience into your framework. — T Clark

Yep - I'm not saying I'm correct, just that this seems to work. It's always interesting how discussions of art generally end up in good versus bad. Generally we can't help what we like and anyone who can't happily enjoy 'highbrow' and 'lowbrow' together is probably missing out on being human.

There's the notion of pearls before swine. Do you distinguish yourself from swine? — tim wood

It's from the New Testament. Religious authority distinguishing the in-group from the out-group, essentially, to promote group solidarity and control. This is exactly what I'm talking about. Freethinkers don't usually let themselves be lead like children.

At your level - as I understand you - you like it, it's art; it's good. At mine, there's a Wow! involved. That art, as I understand it, has the power to summon in me that which is other to and better than me, to me. — tim wood

Wow! is not good? The power to summon in you that which is other to and better than you is not good?

Supposedly your "long story" can bridge this gap. Just as I predicted this epic tale has not materialized.
— praxis

I gave you a link to panpsychism. — Pop

You must have your own version because some of your claims don't seem to agree with it. Panpsychism seems to center on 'mind' and you focus on consciousness. There's obviously a difference between being conscious and not being conscious, and you seem to accept this difference. A mind doesn't need to be conscious, does it? Naturally, art is an expression of minds.

Panpsychism seems to center on 'mind' and you focus on consciousness. There's obviously a difference between being conscious and not being conscious, and you seem to accept this difference.A mind doesn't need to be conscious, does it? Naturally, art is an expression of minds. — praxis

How is mind different to 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. — Pop

How is mind different to consciousness? — Pop

Being conscious is being awake and aware. A mind is more than simply being conscious. A mind requires an internal model of its environment and a model of itself itself to navigate its environment. It needs to have motivations or drives, such as the drives to feed and reproduce, or to make art.

Being conscious is being awake and aware. A mind is more than simply being conscious. A mind requires an internal model of its environment and a model of itself itself to navigate its environment. It needs to have motivations or drives, such as the drive to feed or reproduce. — praxis

Are you conscious of your mind, or are you mindful of your consciousness?

I’m conscious of some of my mental activity but not all, and I’m generally aware of how conscious I am, though I could suddenly become unconscious before having a chance to realize it.

“Art is an expression of human consciousness. Art work is information about the artist’s consciousness.” — Pop

Naturally, art is an expression of minds. — praxis

I'm glad we agree. Consciousness is a little more accurate, imo. As it relates to a state of mind. It is a state of mind that is expressed in art, or anywhere.

The Oxford Living Dictionary defines consciousness as "The state of being aware of and responsive to one's surroundings.", "A person's awareness or perception of something." and "The fact of awareness by the "mind" of itself and the world." - wikipedia

Consciousness is a little more accurate, imo. As it relates to a state of mind. — Pop

Right, the state of merely being conscious. In fact, it is less accurate because we know that much of mental activity, and perhaps especially creative work, is subconscious.

It is a state of mind that is expressed in art, or anywhere. — Pop

You mean like this?



The state of being awake depicted in art by Leah Saulnier.

Not sure how this can be expressed anywhere. I guess Saulnier could go on tour.

You are not a bad artist, imo. Your philosophy could use a bit of work though :razz: Misunderstanding is hard to avoid in this setting. My expression needs work also. :sad:

The state of one’s mind at any particular time is one’s consciousness.

Nice work. You have some good ideas that I have seen here and there. I like the way you highlight the idea, rather than develop the aesthetic - the decorative aspect. Well done!

The state of one’s mind at any particular time is one’s consciousness. — Pop

A meaningless statement since it’s only accounting for consciousness or whether a mind is conscious or unconscious. A mind can be in a dream state, for example, in which case the state of one’s mind is unconscious or lacks consciousness. It doesn’t account for motivation, feelings, mental representations, or anything that a mind is comprised of, merely whether or not its conscious.

the aesthetic - the decorative aspect — Pop

:roll:

Yes, it possesses information about that affair, as you put it. It is entirely information about that affair. — Pop

You mean it "informs" which is does. But you are bypassing the point: That thing out there is not nor ever was independent of what is "in here"

Anything deemed to be art is art, end of enquiry. This is because we have a long history of this being the case, and the fact that art was thought to be indefinite. — Pop

Well, if THAT i what you think art is, you are starkly begging the question: what is it that art IS, such that when you call something art you have some property in mind? No property, no predication, then no meaning. Like saying, "Snow is W*&^$&@*." (Keeping in mind that yours is a definition of art, or, the art obejct.)
We have a long history of explaining what good government is, but this by no means tells us us we are finally right because history has been around all these years. It always has to be understood that philosophers are professional thinking people, and, as Hegel said, all propositions carry their own negation. The trick, I believe I mentioned, is to find a grounding for art that is not contingent of language. That is the aesthetic. Philosophers have PUT art in disarray, just as they chase everything around until exhaustion and absurdity rule. They do this because they will not admit foundational talk, and, I have to add, rightly so, because this is the death of free thought, dogmatism; BUT, the vagaries of art's definition do not mean there is no "presence" that is there. (A very interesting issue. Wittgenstein said ethics and aesthetics make impossible claims-- absolute claims! For value is not observable. This is why it is so hard to talk about it, well, meta-art issues. But: there is no mistaking the, call it, the ontologicality of good and bad. In art, imagine music or a painting that is so compelling, so affectively stirring, and the "aesthetic" is unmistakable. Without this, the music would be nothing. The aesthetic makes music, music. The same with all else. Remove this dimension of the experience, and the is no art, just talk

Talk, language, logic and cognition, is not AS SUCH, aesthetic. This is a prima facie resaon to dismiss the statement, Art is information. But then, your argument is that the art OBJECT is information, right? There is a big difference. But I say, the art object cannot be removed fromt he inner experience because this experience is not about something else, as with information, but IS that object, just as you cannot experience inwardly Van Gogh's Boots painting without an explicit reference to the object. This is different from, say, a letter sent INFORMING of something that has nothing at all to do with the medium of information: Good news that you won the lottery has nothing to do with those words on a page.

Art IS informed, transported from one to another through an information medium, most certainly. But the art work itself IS IN that which is informed. So the art object cannot be simply information.

As I have explained a number of times now - we cannot predict what art will be in its form, or what the experiential reaction to this form will be. These things are endlessly variable and open ended, so can not form part of any definition of art.

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

There is a limit to art however, and that limit is the artists thinking - an artist cannot make art about something that they cannot think about. So art is an expression of consciousness, and no more. It is not an expression of something beyond the consciousness of the artist - cannot possibly be. So is information about the consciousness of the artist, including the subconscious. — Pop

Some things here a bit odd: "by virtue of being physical is aesthetic"? But this says the physical is what produces the aesthetic. But if anything is aesthetic, it is not the object, but the subjective response to the object. The object is supposed to be merely "information" about the goings on in consciousness. Are you saying the aesthetic lies in the evocative powers of the object? But evocative brings in a new dimension to information that don't really hold: is what "informs" that which is evocative? This latter is more causative, isn't it? To inform means to possess X and to pass it along. Evoke is to inspire, motivate, cause. If an art work is evocative of something, it is not informing me, but eliciting something else within. Information is a troubling term here throughout. N
Nothing definite about the form? Why, what do you mean by "definite"? You mean, the "what it is" is indeterminate? But all things are this if you look to explanatory affairs exclusively, for you are deep in metaphysics now and are simply denying absolutes, and this is a point of contention. I cannot SAY what being in love ism for language does not speak the world, does not say the ISness about the presences encountered, which leads to the post Heidegger world of postmodern thinking. But in aesthetic and ethics, therein lies true presence. A highly debatable issue. Postmodern thinking is right on the money in much I have read; but when value is brought before it, it falls flat.

I cannot understand this at all:
This is 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!

Frankly, just the opposite is the case. Information is interpretative, for all meanings are indeterminate. It is the aesthetic that remains after all talk is done. Wittgenstein held this, and he was right, only wrong about his strict line of what was allowable in meaningful speech (in the Tractatus, that is).

Finally all this remains blind to the artwork's inextricable presence in experience: the symphony is not a vehicle of aesthetic information, for the artwork IS the experience. See the above.

for Rorty, this world is "made, not discovered" — Constance

Sentient life is not just an observer of the world but is a part of the world

The human observer does not lead an existence separate to the world. The human is an integral part of the world, and has been part of an evolutionary process stretching back at least 3.7 billion years - a synergy between all parts of the physical world, of matter and force, between nature and life.

IE, the human is not an outside observer of the world, but part of the world.

The pragmatist view is only half the story

The pragmatist holds the position that the purpose of our beliefs as expressed in language is not to understand the true nature of reality existing on the other side of our senses, but to succeed in whatever environment we happen to find ourselves. As with Kant's synthetic a priori, we make sense of the world by imposing our a priori concepts onto the world we observe

However, the human observer does not have a separate existence to the reality of any world external to their senses, but is an intrinsic part of reality. The observer is part of the world and the world is part of the observer, they are one and the same.

As the observer is part of reality, then any beliefs the observer has about the reality of logic, aesthetics, ethics, space, time, etc must also be an inherent part of reality itself.

Rather than we make sense of a reality external to our senses by imposing our a priori concepts onto it, part of reality makes sense of itself through a priori concepts.

IE, the pragmatist holds the position that the human observer only has an indirect contact with reality through the senses, whereas in fact, the human observer's knowledge also comes from being in direct contact with reality, being an intimate part of reality.

The question as to whether the aesthetic exists in the object observed the other side of the sense or within the observer disappears, as the reality on the other side of the senses is the very same reality as within the observer, in that there is only one reality. The aesthetic within the world and the aesthetic within the observer are one and the same, as any aesthetic in the sentient life is exactly the same as the aesthetic in the world from which it evolved over billions of years. IE, The word "aesthetic" only exists within human language, which only exists within humans, which exist within the world, meaning that "aesthetics" must exist in a world within which humans exist.

As I see it, the aesthetic is an abstract expression of the human ability to discover pattern in seemingly chaotic situations, to discover uniformity in variety, an invaluable trait in evolutionary survival. As Francis Hutcheson wrote in 1725: “What we call Beautiful in Objects, to speak in the Mathematical Style, seems to be in a compound Ratio of Uniformity and Variety; so that where the Uniformity of Bodys is equal, the Beauty is as the Variety; and where the Variety is equal, the Beauty is as the Uniformity”.

For me, important visual art requires aesthetic form of pictographic representation. As expressed by Hegel, formal quality is the unity or harmony of different elements in which these elements are not just arranged in a regular, symmetrical pattern but are unified organically together with a content of freedom and richness of spirit (though for me not a content of the divine).

Summary

In summary, the pragmatists are making the mistake of not taking into account the fact that because we are in intrinsic part of the world, this world "is also discovered, as well as made".

The state of one’s mind at any particular time is one’s consciousness.
— Pop

A meaningless statement since it’s only accounting for consciousness or whether a mind is conscious or unconscious. — praxis

It means you can not separate mind and consciousness. That consciousness is a state of mind.
The subconscious likewise is always an aspect of consciousness, so is not something separate.

A mind can be in a dream state, for example, in which case the state of one’s mind is unconscious or lacks consciousness. It doesn’t account for motivation, feelings, mental representations, or anything that a mind is comprised of, merely whether or not its conscious. — praxis

I fail to see how this is relevant, since you are not going to be making art in your sleep?
Whilst you are awake, you are conscious. Consciousness represents your current state of mind and this is what you express, no? Yes you have feelings, opinions, etc, and what you express is your current state of mind about these - which is your consciousness. In a fit of rage, you are not going to express something peaceful and serene, are you? Consciousness is not merely whether you are conscious or unconscious - it is the current state of one's mind.

Yes you have feelings, opinions, etc, and what you express is your current state of mind about these - which is your consciousness. — Pop

No, the unconscious may well direct artistic choices and the artist may have little or no capacity to access what the work is expressing. Certainly there are schools of psychology that would hold to this, such as the psychoanalytical school. The artist may have little or no insight into their artwork. I've known enough painters, sculptors and writers to understand that often they are producing works without having the slightest idea why choices are made - it may well be all about their own suppressed childhood or traumas but this may not be known to them or readily obvious in the work.

In a fit of rage, you are not going to express something peaceful and serene, are you? — Pop

Wrong. You may well do just this as a wish fulfillment state. There are angry artists who paint or write mellow and gentle works. I've met them. The opposite can also be true. The idea that a work of art will express the emotional state of an artist is naïve. Often art is an expression of unconscious desires or beliefs or may be deliberate constructions which are attempts to build an alternative reality as a consolation.

I fail to see how this is relevant, since you are not going to be making art in your sleep? — Pop

It's a mental state where consciousness is absent. Also, many artists are inspired by dreams and intuition so you can't say that creative or artistic work is entirely conscious.

The subconscious likewise is always an aspect of consciousness, so is not something separate. — Pop

A dream state is subconscious or a state of mind where consciousness is absent.

Yes you have feelings, opinions, etc, and what you express is your current state of mind about these - which is your consciousness. — Pop

It's not as straightforward as you seem to think it is. To a large extent, the human mind can be seen as little more than a prediction machine, and the conscious mind is a kind of guide or rationalizer for that conditioned machine. We react to things according to our conditioning and the conscious mind rationalizes and develops its narrative after the fact.

Consciousness is not merely whether you are conscious or unconscious - it is the current state of one's mind. — Pop

Which is either conscious or unconscious when referring specifically to consciousness. When a surgeon enters an operating theatre and checks on the status of the patient, does he ask the aesthetician "What's the patient's current state of mind?" or does he ask "Is the patient unconscious?" He asks something like the latter because that's specifically his concern.

Note: you're going to continue endlessly repeating yourself until you sort out, or acquire, ideas (metaphysical?) about consciousness.