Who is trying to influence now? — Pop

Influence is my art form. :nerd:

But seriously, earlier you wrote:

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’s not clear how this will change anything. Could you enlighten us? Also, those with power and influence will have power and influence regardless of how art is defined. They’ll still be able to influence culture and speculate on the value of art.

IE, "a priori knowledge" is an idiomatic expression and is only a guide to the concept rather than a literal description of it. — RussellA

This post is not relevant to the discussion we are having on this thread. What's up with that?

There is no correct definition of art — RussellA

The reason art cannot be given a definition is that art is affect-entangled, and entanglements are arbitrary, meaning there is nothing in affect that constrains what art can be since there is no thing that cannot be so entangled. Art is IN the fabric of experience, taken up by those with a purpose to do so. Dewey was right, but problem solving's consummatory feature seems an unlikely explanation. Affect is, as Wittgenstein said (reluctantly), mysterious, but it is THE essential feature of art.

The definition "art is a bottle of Guinness" is as correct as any other. Definitions are determined by Institutions and the majority of interested people. — RussellA

Begs the question: But then, I ask, what is it about a bottle of Guinness makes it art?

Various definitions of art

@Constance - "Art has this, I say. It is called the aesthetic"
@Constance - "The question of art lies with one question: is there anything that is both the essence of art, what makes art, art, and absolute?"

My personal definition of visual art is aesthetic form of pictographic representation
— RussellA

And, you mean that which elicits aesthetic rapture? Bell's book ART says this. There is something plausible about this, but then, visual form may elicit the aesthetic, but form as such is not some emerging quality of form, for form itself is not aesthetic. One has to go elsewhere for this.
But it is the formal properties that make or break the affect. Music as well. Literature, narratives, poetry are far too entangled for this, though. These are not "fine" arts, are they. But then poetry is closer, concentrated, if you will. Dewey was right on that account.

Across the board, it is affect that endures as the essence of art. Entanglement makes theory indeterminate, as with ethics; nonetheless, no affect/aesthetic, no art.

I can describe objective facts about the colour red - seen in strawberries, sunsets, etc, has a wavelength of 625 to 700nm. I can also describe objective facts about the aesthetic - unity in variety, observed in a painting by Matisse, a book by Cormac Mccarthy, a song by Sade, etc. But I can never describe the subjective experience of the colour red or the aesthetic to someone who can never experience the colour red or aesthetic. However, I can use language to communicate my subjective experience of the colour red or aesthetic to another person who has also experienced the colour red or aesthetic.

IE, language can communicate general things about subjective experiences but can never communicate the particular subjective experience. — RussellA

Something like that, or not. Too many issues in this. My take is that there is no world, only worlds. Not to say there isn't anything outside of a given world, just that whatever that is, it is not a world. But the interiority of a world, now that is where all meaning is, that Cartesian center: not just a cogito, but an affective-cogito discoverable, it is argued, through apophatic argument.

But this is particular knowledge, in that I am not able to imagine an bitter taste independent of experiencing through my senses an object in the world that gives me the subjective experience of a bitter taste. This a priori knowledge is about the possibility of being able to experience a particular subjective experience, not the subjective experience itself. The point is that this a priori knowledge of the possibility of experiencing a particular subjective experience exists in the brain prior to any observation of the world through the senses. — RussellA

Take a look here: Ours senses deliver experiences to us. Predication is not apriori, but empirically discursive, as when we say the the sky is blue, this has to be affirmed with a reference to the empirical event in which the sky appears, and is blue. Apriority is a reference to what is discovered In this experience but is not delivered through predication, but is true by virtue of the experience's givenness. Reason, thought Kant, is apriori because, while it is discovered in judgment and thought, the empirical conditions of its affirmation do not deliver this. It is rather in the form of a judgment. When you talk about the apriority of color, taste and so on, you are then saying that there is something in the delivery of color, say, AS color that is not discursive, but simply given.

Calling an eclair sweet is certainly not apriori, for one has to taste the eclair, recognize the sweetness, associate the eclair with the sweetness, then make the judgment. You are saying the taste in its givennes is not determined by experience. Givenness is not determined empirically because it is not a determination based on experience, it IS experience. It is not about the brain at all. It is a phenomenological matter, looking exclusively to the givenness, and not to extraneous discursions.
One trouble thinking like this comes from Derrida and postmodern thinking on direct apprehensions in the "immediacy" of the given. But I am not interested in that here. I follow Husserl and his epoche as it is developed in post post modern thinking (Jean luc Marion and others). And it is here I will leave off making any references to who said what, for my thinking is in a simple (certainly related, though) argument:

I think art is to grounded in the aesthetic, and the aesthetic is to be grounded in affect. Beyond this, something may HAVE an "art" to it, as in the art of winning friends or basket weaving, or the culinary "arts" but to the extent a thing is appreciated for its utility or its cognitive "properties" (definitions, predications of other things or within its own parts, say), or it "informational" properties (the OP here) it is not art. The "art of such and such" certainly does possess affect, but then, everything possesses affect, which is why "everything is art" seems to hold up. Art requires taking a thing AS art, and this AS looks to its affective dimension.

This brings the issue to Wittgenstein, and why he refused to talk about ethics and aesthetics. The Good and the Bad here are not contingent, but absolute, and he would talk about such things because they are simply givens, and discussion cannot be useful. In fact, conversation is nonsense on matters like this. He goes too far, I think, in denying that sense can be made here (in the Tractatus. Language games? Not so sure).

The reason I say a definition of art is qualifiedly possible is because art's aesthetic is given, and givens, I claim, are absolutes. I can argue this pretty well I believe, but that would be up to you and your interests.

Yes information needs to be redefined, or perhaps better put - it's original meaning needs to be reinstated - which is to inForm - literally change the shape of, including changing the shape of mind.

Information and consciousness are related and enormous topics in information philosophy which is the way of the future, imo. I think we are near enough in our understanding. I will do more information threads in the future, so perhaps we can discuss in more detail later. This relates to your previous post. — Pop

Not my post. No matter. So you're saying the art object (not art) is reducible to a transcendental information bearing medium. This turns the object into pure potential. And information? IF information is defined as being free of information, as this definition tells us it is, for the object is divested of all observable qualities (hence, transcendental) and all that remains is dispositional "qualities" whatever that could be, then this is also true of newspapers, and everything else.....; then this would be a real stretch from the way we think of information, and you would have to be an idealist of sorts.

Well, I am an idealist of sorts. So my only gripe is that you have defined information by the limits of its meaning.

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.
— baker

If the artists and audience don't see it, maybe it comes from you. That's not a criticism. The experience of art includes how it fits in with the rest of our experience. — T Clark

One can also think of cooking as a matter of physics and chemistry.
Explicit knowledge of physics and chemistry are not needed in order to cook.

The metalevel knowledge is not always necessary, but it is possible.

then this would be a real stretch from the way we think of information, and you would have to be an idealist of sorts.

Well, I am an idealist of sorts. So my only gripe is that you have defined information by the limits of its meaning. — Constance

I was an idealist, but am now an enactivist. It is a slightly better understanding, imo.

Yes, it is a different understanding of information, compared to what generally prevails. It fits the following theories: Integrated Information Theory tells us that consciousness exists as moments of integrated information. Systems Theory tells us that interaction is information, and nothing exists outside of interaction. Enactivism tells us that we are enacted / interacted in the world informationally, and Constructivism tells us that it is a body of integrated information that becomes knowledge, in an evolving and idiosyncratic fashion and what we are is a product of this.

It’s not clear how this will change anything. Could you enlighten us? Also, those with power and influence will have power and influence regardless of how art is defined. They’ll still be able to influence culture and speculate on the value of art. — praxis

I did say it was a long shot - Indeed! Flat earthers can believe that the Earth is flat despite all the evidence against it, but not with credibility in the eyes of most people. One can ignore this definition, but not with credibility, imo. It is a thorn in the side of those who think art is for art's sake, as it proves art is an expression of consciousness - regardless of the art's form.

(a priori knowledge).. .....This post is not relevant to the discussion — T Clark

Since at least the Lascaux cave paintings 17,000 years ago, beauty and aesthetics have been considered part of the essence of the meaning of art, part of the "definition of art".

Sentient life is born with certain innate "a priori" abilities. We are able to know the subjective experience of the colour red, a bitter taste, an acrid smell, the pain of a headache, as well as aesthetic form. These subjective experiences don't need to be taught in school.

In Western philosophy since the time of Immanuel Kant, such knowledge, acquired independently of any particular experience, has been known as "a priori knowledge".

IE, any discussion of art needs an understanding of aesthetics, which in its turn needs an understanding of "a priori knowledge".

E, any discussion of art needs an understanding of aesthetics, which in its turn needs an understanding of "a priori knowledge". — RussellA

Can you identify a critic or writer who embodies this view?

Can you identify a critic or writer who embodies this view — Tom Storm

In particular - Professor Denis Dutton.

In general - "Evolutionary Aesthetics".

Professor Dutton talks about "The Art Instinct" at www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-Di86RqDL4

Art devoid of Truth is merely imagination without will.

Beauty is truth
truth beauty
that is all ye know on earth
and all ye need to know

I was an idealist, but am now an enactivist. It is a slightly better understanding, imo.

Yes, it is a different understanding of information, compared to what generally prevails. It fits the following theories: Integrated Information Theory tells us that consciousness exists as moments of integrated information. Systems Theory tells us that interaction is information, and nothing exists outside of interaction. Enactivism tells us that we are enacted / interacted in the world informationally, and Constructivism tells us that it is a body of integrated information that becomes knowledge, in an evolving and idiosyncratic fashion and what we are is a product of this. — Pop

But the reductive direction of this for a human being is appalling. Surely you see that, even while you want to allow consciousness its breadth and depth of experience, by generalizing to information, you lean toward this term to do your explaining. Keep in mind the way behaviorists dealt with human meanings in their reductive tendencies.
Idealism? Better, phenomenology: this term makes MEANING front and center, a meaning is broad enough a term to be inclusive if information (say, dictionary or encyclopedic knowledge) as well as affective experiences.
Of course, to give this the benefit of the doubt, consider that an art object is a system of signs, and we are the interpreters. Just as I see a cup AS a cup, I see an artwork AS an artwork. This would be as close as I can imagine the idea of information being plausible. But then, the aesthetic of art, which I claim is essential, indeed, the most essential, defining, dimension of art, is subordinated to information, hence, the trouble with the direction of this reduction, and it is the same as calling food information or a sprained ankle information: such a reductive tendency leads to a foolish loss of MEANING. Meaning must be front and center, and information is just a dimension of meaning.

Art devoid of Truth is merely imagination without will. — PseudoB

What can this mean????????? Not that it is wrong, but it requires some explanation as to truth, will. I mean, where does will enter into it?

As I see it, there is Truth and there is Perspective. Which understanding presents one with a Choice in which to allow to cause action or word.... No action or word occurs without will. One does not get up from the couch without willing something in the fridge, for example. Some will run wild with this without understanding, and thus produce nothing to affect change, thus solidifying the lies they believe and using such momentum's to force upon unsuspecting minds.

It is a thorn in the side of those who think art is for art's sake, as it proves art is an expression of consciousness - regardless of the art's form. — Pop

Claiming that art is an expression of consciousness in no way contradicts aestheticism. It’s as though you’re saying that defining art as an expression of consciousness somehow proves that art is inherently didactic. That makes no sense whatsoever.

It seems to me that you’re problem isn’t with aestheticism but simply a general lack of art appreciation in society, assuming the concern were honest. Defining art as an expression of consciousness doesn’t help, and I don’t think it’s designed to help. It’s designed to exploit the lack of art appreciation in order to influence.

Since at least the Lascaux cave paintings 17,000 years ago, beauty and aesthetics have been considered part of the essence of the meaning of art, part of the "definition of art". — RussellA

I'm guessing that Oog Eep in the cave wasn't thinking much about aesthetics. Maybe she was. Being so sure about what she was thinking is a presumptuous.

Sentient life is born with certain innate "a priori" abilities. — RussellA

"A priori" is defined as "Relating to or denoting reasoning or knowledge which proceeds from theoretical deduction rather than from observation or experience." You wrote me an irrelevant post about my misuse of the phrase and now you're trying to change the meaning.

We are able to know the subjective experience of the colour red, a bitter taste, an acrid smell, the pain of a headache, as well as aesthetic form. These subjective experiences don't need to be taught in school. — RussellA

You made your original argument about a priori knowledge. I responded with very concrete reasons why I thought your argument was not accurate. Now you've just repeated the same argument without responding to my comments.

In Western philosophy since the time of Immanuel Kant, such knowledge, acquired independently of any particular experience, has been known as "a priori knowledge". — RussellA

In the 200 or so years since Kant died, people have done a lot of work studying human cognition, perception, and child development. Kant was not a cognitive scientist.

Art devoid of Truth is merely imagination without will. — PseudoB

Interesting. I have never associated truth with art. I'm not even sure how they would relate.

In particular - Professor Denis Dutton. — RussellA

Thanks. I remember Dutton's work establishing Arts Letters Daily and I enjoyed his criticism of pretentious and meaningless academic language which is sometimes evident on this site - especially in discussing aesthetics.

clearly the Artists of old mixed art and truth, as Fulcanelli reveals in the Mystery of the Cathedrals.

I think these are the kinds of statements you can only make if you hold a series of assumptions. I think Cathedrals can probably be reimagined as monuments to metanarratives now defunct.

“defunct”?? From a lesser Perspective maybe, but clearly even modern scientists at CERN even find the mixture of art and truth an effective expression of said truth.

From a lesser Perspective maybe, but clearly even modern scientists at CERN even find the mixture of art and truth an effective expression of said truth. — PseudoB

I wasn't ware that Truth had finally been found.

Perhaps you could start by explaining what truth is when it comes to art. A few dot points will do so we can see where you're heading with this.

Well, without being too open, I will try to point at it. Reason being because one must invest into the equation, to have a personal experience with the Truth, else one is just taking another’s experience as Gospel, with no personal evidence.

The scientific mind is indeed the closest to the Truth in these days, but on needs to see the relationship between where we came from and how the four Elements function. The relationship of the Elements, in practice, presents as a fire heated seven times hotter than normal.

This furnace is depicted in every Cathedral, and the hints in concrete and metal artwork throughout history. The Key allows for the greening and growing of Splendor Solis, that is also in every business building’s artwork, whether in stone or art.

Once one can see this unspoken Cabala all throughout every aspect of society, as a constant reminder of the renewing of the mind needed to accomplish the Worke.

Many have said there is more Truth in the first ten scriptures of Genesis than in all the libraries of the world. To answer the question, “what is Truth”, I can only answer: what has no opposition, and is always, regardless of Experience. Truth accounts for all experience of solidity, where all came from a Water.

I hope I have not overstepped.

But the reductive direction of this for a human being is appalling — Constance

Ha, ha, You mean this is far different to the ingratiating and romantic philosophy of the likes of Dewey and co. Yes it is. The thing to remember is that this is just the barebones underlying logic. It still need to be interpreted in terms of daily life and aspirations, and so on. So there is plenty of room to romanticize it if that is what you wish, and any sensible philosopher wishing to be popular would be wise to do this to some extent. :grin:

But then, the aesthetic of art, which I claim is essential, indeed, the most essential, defining, dimension of art, is subordinated to information, hence, the trouble with the direction of this reduction, and it is the same as calling food information or a sprained ankle information: such a reductive tendency leads to a foolish loss of MEANING. Meaning must be front and center, and information is just a dimension of meaning. — Constance

I'm afraid you misunderstand, and I can not see a simple way to redirect you. I will be doing a few more information threads in the near future, so If you are interested perhaps take it up then.

Instead I'll say: Meaning only exists as integrated information - when information is unified and integrated it becomes meaningful, and not before.

And: In an experience you are inFormed, and you have an experience in relation to how you are informed. So information is the fundamental observable - the fundamental interaction that gives rise to experience, in all situations, including art.

Claiming that art is an expression of consciousness in no way contradicts aestheticism. — praxis

I don't wish to say that art is not aesthetic, plainly it is. However all experience is aesthetic, so to focus on aesthetics as the defining feature that separates art from everything else is an error. Before something can be an experience, we first need information about it ( see my reply to Constance above ) So firstly art is information, and it can only be information about the artist's state of mind whilst making it. So art is information about the artist's consciousness ( hopefully you understand consciousness a little more broadly by now ). This is definitely the case for all art for all time, and there is nothing more that is definite that can be said about art - for all art, for all time. Yes art is aesthetic, but there is nothing definite that can be said about its aesthetic quality - what is beautiful to one person, can be ugly to another. You can not, and you have not put forward any arguments or propositions that define art in terms of aesthetics - don't forget we are talking about all art for all time across all cultures, no matter it's form, including unpredictable art of the future.

It seems to me that you’re problem isn’t with aestheticism but simply a general lack of art appreciation in society, assuming the concern were honest. Defining art as an expression of consciousness doesn’t help, and I don’t think it’s designed to help. It’s designed to exploit the lack of art appreciation in order to influence. — praxis

It doesn't really matter what you or I personally think. Our intentions are entirely irrelevant. What matters is that art can be defined - to this extent and no further. If this is the case, then this is the central, and most pertinent element of all art - that it is information about consciousness. This makes all art meaningful, as an expression of consciousness, regardless of anybody's personal preferences or motives, or understanding.

I have never associated truth with art. I'm not even sure how they would relate. — Tom Storm

I always think of Keat's "Ode on a Grecian Urn."

Beauty is truth, truth beauty,' - that is all ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.

Sounds good, but I don't know what it means either.

So art is information about the artist's consciousness ( hopefully you understand consciousness a little more broadly by now ). — Pop

This is so pompous, pretentious. Where did you learn that bolding something makes it a better argument. It makes you look like a putz.

So art is information about the artist's consciousness — Pop

I wonder how many times you've written this in this discussion. I was going to count but I'm too lazy. It's still bullshit, not matter how many times you say it. It's meaningless. My definition is scientific and falsifiable...What the fuck does that even mean. It's embarrassing.

I promised myself I would stay out of this, but the Force tells me I have to intervene. Just end it, would you please.

But the reductive direction of this for a human being is appalling
— Constance

Ha, ha, You mean this is far different to the ingratiating and romantic philosophy of the likes of Dewey and co. Yes it is. The thing to remember is that this is just the barebones underlying logic. It still need to be interpreted in terms of daily life and aspirations, and so on. So there is plenty of room to romanticize it if that is what you wish, and any sensible philosopher wishing to be popular would be wise to do this to some extent. :grin:

But then, the aesthetic of art, which I claim is essential, indeed, the most essential, defining, dimension of art, is subordinated to information, hence, the trouble with the direction of this reduction, and it is the same as calling food information or a sprained ankle information: such a reductive tendency leads to a foolish loss of MEANING. Meaning must be front and center, and information is just a dimension of meaning.
— Constance

I'm afraid you misunderstand, and I can not see a simple way to redirect you. I will be doing a few more information threads in the near future, so If you are interested perhaps take it up then.

Instead I'll say: Meaning only exists as integrated information - when information is unified and integrated it becomes meaningful, and not before.

And: In an experience you are inFormed, and you have an experience in relation to how you are informed. So information is the fundamental observable - the fundamental interaction that gives rise to experience, in all situations, including art. — Pop

No worries Pop. I think you're qualifiedly wrong here, wrong in spades there, but you hold the fort pretty well. Looking forward to future posts, but frankly, you'll have a very hard time winning me over to this line of thought. Consider: I vigorously defend precisely the opposite of your views. Integrated information's meaning is meaningless without value. All things have their foundational grounding in the aesthetic dimension of our existence, for as Hume said of reason, the same holds for information: in itself, it is empty. This is why Dewey had the right approach, just the wrong ideas. The aesthetic is not wrought out of pragmatic consummatory experiences; rather, the aesthetic is discovered in these.
Wittgenstein opened my eyes to this, in his Tracatus and his Lecture on Ethics. But the issues here have nothing to do with contemporary theory and its infatuation with information.

The aesthetic is not wrought out of pragmatic consummatory experiences; rather, the aesthetic is discovered in these.

So the basis of the scientific method being used to validate Experience, would only ensure the solidifying of a grand circular idea??