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" — Constance

When information informs you, it changes your neural state such that you ultimately have an experience.

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 — Constance

Nobody is saying experience is not part of the equation, what I am saying is that it is indefinite.
Aesthetics and experience is endlessly variable and open ended! So art can not be defined in terms of it.
In any case the term consciousness already encompasses the experiential aspect of mind that it represents.

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. — Constance

Yes an art object IS simply information. This information then informs the viewer, and an experience is had. Information is something far more powerful then it is normally understood to be, a bit much to unload here, but there are other threads open, as previously mentioned.

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. — Pop

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? — Constance

The viewer experiences the art work in a Enactivist fashion, where the consciousness of the viewer and the form of the art work, interact to cause an experience. The experience is not entirely the result of the artwork, nor entirely the result of the viewer, but is an amalgam of the two - experienced by the viewer. In the best of cases, these two gel to cause a pleasant experience, rather than repel, which would be an unpleasant experience, or one that is bypassed altogether.

No, the unconscious may well direct artistic choices — Tom Storm

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. — Pop

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. — Tom Storm

Sure angry people can be mellow and gentle at times, but In a fit of rage, all they will express is a fit of rage. :lol: In any case, what they express is their state of mind - which is their consciousness.

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 artistic work is entirely conscious. — praxis

Do you or anybody you know make art in your sleep? Whilst artists make work about dreams, they do not do so whilst they are asleep. These are conscious thoughts about states of unconsciousness.

Which is either conscious or unconscious when referring specifically to consciousness. — praxis

:roll: You are trolling - surely?

Sure angry people can be mellow and gentle at times, but In a fit of rage, all they will express is a fit of rage. — Pop

Untrue. For years I have worked with prisoners and people with vast anti-social behaviors. A fit of rage may be suppressed. What you say only applies if they are acting out. A person's emotional state need not influence on their work unduly.

n any case, what they express is their state of mind - which is their consciousness. — Pop

You still have not answered why using the word consciousness matters and how this is different to an artist expressing their 'personality'. What does this word consciousness mean for art? Everything we do is consciousness if you want. So by definition taking a shit and painting are both produced by same thing. How does it benefit an understanding of art to use this word? You might as well say all art is life. Because all artists are alive when they work.

A fit of rage may be suppressed. — Tom Storm

So what is expressed - is it not the current state of mind?

You still have not answered why using the word consciousness matters and how this is different to an artist expressing their 'personality'. — Tom Storm

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 — Pop

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. — Tom Storm

I don't think it reflects anything pathological. I'm a really verbal person, not particularly visual. I'm pretty good at explaining my decisions, feelings, imaginings, etc... There are a lot of people who are just not that way. I would imagine that many visual artists and musicians are not very self-aware in a verbal way. Many of them are probably also not good with words. On the other hand, they see and hear things I never do.

Which is either conscious or unconscious when referring specifically to consciousness.
— praxis

:roll: You are trolling - surely? — Pop

When someone asks if you’re awake (conscious) do you tell them your state of mind? No, you answer affirmatively. If someone asks how you’re feeling do you say, “I feel conscious.”?

If someone asks how you’re feeling do you say, “I feel conscious.”? — praxis

From now on I will.

I don't think it reflects anything pathological. — T Clark

You're right. I was just providing trauma as a potential example. But I do think people's life experiences and childhoods (awful or otherwise) play a bigger role in artistic choices than we often think.

Sorry man, it all seems empty of content. Taking a dump/painting = same thing. It adds nothing to our understanding of art.

So what is expressed - is it not the current state of mind? — Pop

Probably the artist's projected will. To say it is their state of mind would be close to meaningless.

When someone asks if you’re awake (conscious) do you tell them your state of mind? — praxis

What else can you possibly do other then express your state of mind. An answer of affirmative = your state of mind!

Consciousness is not simply consciousness or unconsciousness.

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 — Pop

How about reading some of this before you pose another question?

↪Pop Sorry man, it all seems empty of content. Taking a dump/painting = same thing. It adds nothing to our understanding of art. — Tom Storm

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

A definition of art,and I’m not saying my definition is necessarily it, has the potential to shift the power balance in the art world, back into the hands of the intellectuals and the artists. This is my primary goal. It is a long shot indeed! but what is there to loose? it is worth a try, imo.

The definition is useful in these potential ways rather then as something providing clarity about art, or the art world today - whose clarity, and integrity, at present, as you may know, was recently well represented by a banana nailed to the wall. — Pop

A definition of art,and I’m not saying my definition is necessarily it, has the potential to shift the power balance in the art world, back into the hands of the intellectuals and the artists. This is my primary goal. It is a long shot indeed! but what is there to loose? it is worth a try, imo.

The definition is useful in these potential ways rather then as something providing clarity about art, or the art world today - whose clarity, and integrity, at present, as you may know, was recently well represented by a banana nailed to the wall. — Pop

I like the idea of this but I can't yet see how it would work. Sorry.

Can you perhaps, using some brief dot points and a given work, step it out for us so we can see it in action?

Even if the 'art world' accepted the idea that art is consciousness, what difference would it make in practice? They already mostly accept that art is the personality of the artist.

I still can't see the use of this in action.

I like the idea of this but I can't yet see how it would work. Sorry. — Tom Storm

It may not work. In fact it is highly unlikely that it will work. However, what is there to lose?

Can you perhaps, using some brief dot points and a given work, step it out for us so we can see it in action? — Tom Storm

You are seeing it in action now. The logic of the definition prevails, despite widespread disapproval.

When someone asks if you’re awake (conscious) do you tell them your state of mind?
— praxis

What else can you possibly do other then express your state of mind. An answer of affirmative = your state of mind! — Pop

Yay! :party:

It may not work. In fact it is highly unlikely that it will work. However, what is there to lose? — Pop

Ok

... if we had a definition of art, then our understanding of art would self-organize around the definition. — Pop

That's not how labels or signs and meaning work, is it? If I define myself as an astronaut it will be meaningless because I've never trained to be an astronaut and have never been to space. If we change the definition of an astronaut to 'a person who is trained to travel underwater' we'll still need a word for people who are trained to travel in space. Suggesting that the definition of art can be so readily shifted only underscores its nature of being a social construct and subject to the whims of culture and speculative value.

A definition of art, and I’m not saying my definition is necessarily it, has the potential to shift the power balance in the art world, back into the hands of the intellectuals and the artists. This is my primary goal.

What is the basis of the power of those who control the art world today? Wealth and influence basically, right? If I intuit (you don't lay it out explicitly) your plan, you want to somehow imbue art with a kind of pseudo-religious meaning and in that way empower it. Near the OP, which I finally just read, you write:

Panpsychism and Buddhism are the only complete theories of consciousness we have. They both suggest consciousness is a fundamental property of the universe. From this perspective, consciousness takes on a much deeper meaning.

This also explains your curious issue with 'art for art's sake' or art for aesthetic experience. You find aesthetics trivial or mere decoration, apparently. Anyone concerned with power and influence naturally would.

Your definition of art is necessarily ambiguous because the basis of power in a pseudo-religious fantasy art world would be the same as that of religion, faith in the authority, and the authority dictates meaning that they have special access to and which others do not.

When someone asks if you’re awake (conscious) do you tell them your state of mind? No, you answer affirmatively. If someone asks how you’re feeling do you say, “I feel conscious.”? — praxis

Whenever you talk about consciousness, the fact that different people mean different things by the word always gets in the way.

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 — RussellA

And Rorty would agree with you, as long as you are not stepping into metaphysics. His pragmatism, at the level of basic questions, agrees with Heidegger, Wittgenstein and Dewey (and Khun, his favorites for the 20th century). Science is unassailable in the language and pragmatic affairs that make our world work. But just don't think science has some grasp on the things foundationally: Even a LITTLE, don't think this. This is nonsense for him, for all things are, at this level, pragmatic constructions. Evolution, at this level, says nothing, and claims that it does is just bad metaphysics.

Most are not inclined to go this far.

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. — RussellA

But then, when you are pressed to say what world is that you are a part of, you re referred back to the self, same as Kant. The question about all this really lies with metaphysics, good or bad? Bad metaphysics extends theory beyond what can be "witnessed" (challenging here the positivists), but good metaphysics asks, what is there in what is witnessed that gives rise to metaphysics at all? Your "observer is part of the world" goes to this, for to speak of a world of which we are a part is to speak of something not witnessable, like a chair or a pen: the world is not a particular, but nor is it general concept. Life gets a little spooky, or it should, at this point. Most philosophers don't see it this way, holding a reductive view of "the world" to this or that identifiable category. Husserl to Levinas makes sense of this for me.

Anyway, keep in mind that the Tractatus Wittgenstein would throw up red flags to expressions like "part of the world" for world's opposite here cannot even be imagined. Thoughts draw limits, and no limit can be seen. (I have always thought this threshold itself was the nonsense, though. Metaphysics is In the physics, if you will.)

And finally, the whole matter collapses into triviality regarding ethics and aesthetics, if nothing can be affirmed at this level.

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. — RussellA

I agree with this. But I don't think we have the same views on it.

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. — RussellA

That is a sticky wicket you just said. There is a good reason Rorty and others deny that knowledge can in any way align with "reality" at the foundational level. The reason is that it seems impossible to remove from what we know the means of knowing itself. This is why analytic philosophers are so bad at epistemology: Affirming (believing, knowing) P, by S, never gets beyond justification. This means the "aboutness" of P is entirely lost unless you can make that essential "connection" between knower and known. All claims to some "objective" world independent of justification simply falls away. 'Objective' simply becomes part of the whole, as you say below.
But this doesn't mean there is no way to affirm the Real in an absolute sense (my sticky wicket): it is affirmed through value, the interest, caring, affect,desire, enjoying, suffering, and on and on. This is the only dimension of judgment that survives the failure of the terms of justification, because, while it is delivered in language (pragmatically construed, contingent), it has a determinacy that is not a construct of language. This is the issue for metaethics, meta aesthetics, metavalue: the noncontingent Good and the Bad. What IS music's affect?

And this "partial contact with Reality" will not hold water with the likes of Rorty, Dewey, or anyone else. Such a reality is, as with all things, a pragmatic construction, future looking in an anticipated response, the truth being the consummatory conclusion. It is a hard pill to swallow for most, but we live in pragmatic Time, events, and Being/Reality is just a vacuous construction in the matter of ontology. To call something partial implies the whole to make sense. It doesn't.

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”. — RussellA

The "other side" is noumenal impossibility if you're talking about what is left when all experience making faculties leave the room. But then, there is this side, the Cartesian center fomr which all meaning issues. Not observable in the usual sense, but philosophy cares nothing for the usual sense, or shouldn't. Not so much as the cogito as a transcendental locus of intuitive disclosure. Meanings emerge here.

There is no billions of years to measure things at this level of analysis. Evolution, physics, and all empirical science are out the window. This is now phenomenology. But I agree completely that "aesthetics exists in (the) world". Itis simply arbitrary to localize human affairs apart from the whole. But the question then lies with how to determine where the center is to all this. Science is dethroned, and meaning (as Heidegger said) is front and center. A new ontological hierarchy, and Rorty is on board, as am I. Evolution has always been uninformative, anyway, for it could never explain meaning, aesthetic, ethical. Dictionary meanings? Somewhat.

As to Beauty, I don't think, frankly, Hutcheson had a clue, for all that is said to account for beauty, lacks the very element of the beautiful. It is like emergent qualities theory: X emerges from Y, where Y is qualitatively absent of X. Senseless. The aesthetic is "its own presupposition". It is simple, unanalyzable. Value is this, which is why Wittgenstein would never talk about it. Nothing to say. He was wrong on that account.

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". — RussellA

Yes, that part about the divine is important, though. The artwork is a mirror of the spirit, for Hegel, and the aesthetic discovered therein is metaphysical. The meta aesthetic question is the only one there is at the basic level. I think Hegel is right about this (though I won't be winning many friends on this point. People don't think this is intellectually responsible talk. But call them on this, and they can't defend it.)

Suggesting that the definition of art can be so readily shifted only underscores its nature of being a social construct and subject to the whims of culture and speculative value. — praxis

I would agree that the future prospects of the definition are uncertain. It's strength is, I believe, that it identifies in scientific terms something that is a constant feature of art. It is not so much that this is something new that causes a change, but rather is something that highlights the main element of art, which in general has been denied by postmodernism.

Your definition of art is necessarily ambiguous because the basis of power in a pseudo-religious fantasy art world would be the same as that of religion, faith in the authority, and the authority dictates meaning that they have special access to and which others do not. — praxis

I think you misconstrue me entirely. Panpsychism is not religious, and neither is Yogic logic. I used Buddhism as it is generally more recognizable. I only had a superficial understanding of consciousness at the time of writing the definition. I have since spent almost two years gaining a better, more scientific, insight. It turns out information has a lot to do with consciousness - consciousness is a state of integrated information in IIT, and a reinterpretation of information as something fundamental is a current concern in all the disciplines. In respect to art, the only question that remains is - information about what? And what else can it be other then consciousness? Simply put consciousness is a state of mind about how we understand ourselves in the world that we live in. But it is a concept that spans everything, so way outside the scope of this post.

Ideally the definition should be seen as conceptual art. An art piece depicting a scientific and irreducible definition of art. It is logically unassailable, so this makes it interesting. It is a challenge to the status quo, of art for art's sake, so anybody wishing to challenge the status quo can use it if they wish. Will anybody use it? "hard to see the future is" - Yoda. :smile:

It's strength is, I believe, that it identifies in scientific terms something that is a constant feature of art. — Pop

How is claiming that consciousness is a constant feature of art scientific?

I think you misconstrue me entirely. Panpsychism is not religious, and neither is Yogic logic. I used Buddhism as it is generally more recognizable. I only had a superficial understanding of consciousness at the time of writing the definition. I have since spent almost two years gaining a better, more scientific, insight. It turns out information has a lot to do with consciousness - consciousness is a state of integrated information in IIT, and a reinterpretation of information as something fundamental is a current concern in all the disciplines. In respect to art, the only question that remains is - information about what? And what else can it be other then consciousness? Simply put consciousness is a state of mind about how we understand ourselves in the world that we live in. But it is a concept that spans everything, so way outside the scope of this post. — Pop

Well now, you spent two years gaining insight so you must be something of an authority. What did I just say??? This is exactly what I'm talking about. Consciousness woo woo!

It is a challenge to the status quo, of art for art's sake, so anybody wishing to challenge the status quo can use it if they wish. — Pop

Your goofy plan isn't a challenge to anything. You can't even convince some randos on an internet philosophy forum, some of whom might be quite gullible.

Your goofy plan isn't a challenge to anything. You can't even convince some randos on an internet philosophy forum, some of whom might be quite gullible. — praxis

Ideally the definition should be seen as conceptual art. An art piece depicting a scientific and irreducible definition of art. It is logically unassailable, so this makes it interesting. It is a challenge to the status quo, of art for art's sake, so anybody wishing to challenge the status quo can use it if they wish. Will anybody use it? "hard to see the future is" - Yoda. :smile: — Pop

How is claiming that consciousness is a constant feature of art scientific? — praxis

I give up on you. Good luck with it.

How is claiming that consciousness is a constant feature of art scientific?
— praxis

I give up — Pop

Of course you do, “science” is too hard to explain. :razz:

I don't think it reflects anything pathological. I'm a really verbal person, not particularly visual. I'm pretty good at explaining my decisions, feelings, imaginings, etc... There are a lot of people who are just not that way. I would imagine that many visual artists and musicians are not very self-aware in a verbal way. Many of them are probably also not good with words. On the other hand, they see and hear things I never do. — T Clark

I see many art works as actually dealing with philosophical problems, but the artists themselves and their audience often don't see it that way.

In many ways, art is a kind of indirect, intuitive way of addressing philosophical (existential) problems.

Of course, there are artists who are specifically interested in philosophical problems and are able to formulate them in philosophical terms, but they also produce art works on those same themes, given that art works can sometimes allow for a succint handling of a philosophical problem the way a text/syllogism cannot.

But I do think people's life experiences and childhoods (awful or otherwise) play a bigger role in artistic choices than we often think. — Tom Storm

I had a literature teacher who said that a happy person cannot make art.

... if we had a definition of art, then our understanding of art would self-organize around the definition.
— Pop

That's not how labels or signs and meaning work, is it? — praxis

They do work that way, when it comes to things like art, culture, society, religion. These terms don't work the way a term like "table" or "astronaut" do.

I don't think that aesthetic experience is something that you consciously decide to have or not have. Education and knowledge contribute to shaping our own experiences, of course. — praxis

Education can also systematically destroy a person's trust in their own experience.

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

This is what they make a point of beating out of a person in the course of education. Of course, this can also happen subversively in that the person is taught a certain system of values and then made to believe it is their own.

As far as art is concerned, if there is one thing that I have learned best in my course of education is to dismiss my own sense of what would make an aesthetic experience for me.

While I do have certain thoughts and feelings coming up when beholding a work of art, my first impulse after that is insecurity, and the thought "Wait, but what would my betters, the authorities say about this -- do they consider this piece of work good or not, do they consider it art or not?"

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.

Liking helps. It may even be the price of admission. But it's not the thing itself. — tim wood

Indeed. My teachers always frowned upon liking.

Right, the state of merely being conscious. — 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. — Pop

I think Pop means conscious in the sense of "conscious of X".

It's not a commonly used formulation, but a very basic one, so much so that it seems redundant; so mundane that it can easily be overlooked.

Even if the 'art world' accepted the idea that art is consciousness, what difference would it make in practice? They already mostly accept that art is the personality of the artist. — Tom Storm

Art is consciousness of beauty.
Art is consciousness of truth.

Doesn't the art world at least implicitly operate with such notions?

Even if the 'art world' accepted the idea that art is consciousness, what difference would it make in practice? They already mostly accept that art is the personality of the artist. — Tom Storm

Not as far as I know. High art, art proper, has always been about suprapersonal truths, ie. universal truths.

Tying an art work specifically to its author is characteristic of popular art or low art, or a populistic (plebeian) approach to art.

In art proper, one doesn't express oneself, one expresses a higher truth.

I think the cult of the artist as genius and visionary has almost always run alongside highbrow art too - whether you're talking Rembrandt, Wagner or Leonardo.

In art proper, one doesn't express oneself, one expresses a higher truth. — baker

I think the idea is that in a particular work we see personality interacting with the great and universal themes. I am not a great appreciator of the arts, so the issue is moot.