sunsets, landscapes, people's faces... No, let's not have a discussion as to whether or not those should be considered art. — T Clark

I would suggest that those images naturally trigger "pleasant" feelings. And while you referenced them to illustrate that pleasant feeling do not necessarily make something art, I think what you have referenced has a direct relationship with art.

The feelings which sunsets or faces, throw in morning song birds, elicit in us organically, can be "triggered" by a Fictional represention to any or any combination of the senses. Same effect, different triggers. You can have such a scenario by coincidence (a heart attack a car accident causd a death). This is not a coincidence. Rather, the triggering of those precise feelings through a fictional representation is the "function" of art. It's why art (continues to) exists.

Thus Ahab rages against what is "behind" the whale, existence itself that produces whales, and black holes, and fence posts, and everything! This is a big move. There is a name for this everything, which is Being. Being itself. It has no features for it is not A being, so all that can be talked about and predicated about using the copula "is" as in it IS a rainy day and the flower IS red, and so on, is the incidental expression of the Being of the whale, the tiger and the tax audit that puts you in jail. — Constance

Very nice


...aside from that, I guess you're viewing the tax audit as, though projected "out of" Being, nonetheless Being. And, why not? You say. Correct?

Assuming I understand you correctly, without giving details, it surprises me. Although, it shouldn't. It appears to be a shared view.

For me, unthinkable though it would seem, the tax audit is a "fiction" as is perceiving the day as rainy, and the flower as red (though in Being it may be raining and the flower is sensed as that color--I will trust that you're following). These are happening and are not some illusion or dream; but unlike being which is necessarily happening, these things, the audit, a flower, red, rainy day, are projections which only happen to hunan mind(s). These are part of the broad interpretation of "imposition thinking" you referenced in the OP in relation to Nietzsche, and I ran with.

My point is that your eloquent placement of Being in Moby-Dick for me, properly captures that it is all Being, Nature, the whale, Ahab, the Ocean, and the wood constructing his ship, as is the movement of these manifestations of Being.

But as for the manifestations of one manifestation of Being, tge human being, and its projections, these are constructed out of fleeting and empty representations stored in the organisms memory. They have created amazing and horrible things with real effect upon Being, but they, in themselves are empty images that come and go in shapes and forms, moved by desire, building meaning in Narrative forms.

These, taxes and the flower, perceived as "flower", are imposition thinking and have "removed" us from the reality we naturally share with tge earth and other creatures.

And because philosophy too is imposition thinking, religion, in essence, is a means to return, if ever so intermittently and briefly, to tge reality of Being. That is, the essence of religion is to awaken from the fiction in pursuit of the truth.

I meant define it with precision. Having said that, I agree with

creative people produce objects and performances that move or inspire or enrage or enthrall other people. — Vera Mont

And likely it should simply be that.

Any more is too much. Let the rest of the debate be about "good" and "bad" art, classifications, categories, messages and impacts.

We pay attention to art...
— ENOAH

We pay attention to porn and horse racing. — Tom Storm

You're right. And rather than responding to each of your points because you're right on all of them, I liked this one the most.

Really, why do we ask or care about what is art? Probably because we habitually engage in these kinds of--ultimately--pointless exercises. I believe autonomously. But I won't get into that.

The thing is, asking and following up--not just re art--may be ultimately pointless. But also great things emerge out of these seemingly pointless pursuits. The simplest way to illustrate what I mean is that these exercise provide the (for my laziness to find the apt word) "theoretical" ground work for Culture’s "concrete" manifestations.

I'm not saying, necessarily we, on this forum, obviously. But all of humanity, in autonomous pursuit of meaning, manifesting as our "things". For better or worse.

I'd be interested to understand from you why the term art matters so much to some people. Seems to me that some seem to want to reserve the word as a magic charm which can only be waved over certain approved phenomena. — Tom Storm

I too prefer some freedom when it comes to words. Particularly when the objects addressed are necessarily vague and broad.

I think for some--perhaps, the same who wish to tighten the definition s of words--art belongs only to the visual arts like sculptors, painters, etc. and some variations thereof.

I'm not so sure the intention of the "creator" should play so potent a role either.

I have an "idea" of what classifies as art; and, it is broad and vague, yet seems impossible to properly articulate with words. Watch me try:

art is any creation (no, not any, it has to be a certain kind, and it is not really the creation, but how the creation is "looked at", for e.g. a urinal does not qualify, yet, if looked at in a certain way,...oh, see? Intent may play a role......etc) which,
when presented to one or more of the senses, triggers profound (doesn't have to be "profound" just beyond "normal", but, then, what is normal?.. ..etc) inner feeling or drive to act (and not because it has any mechanism for doing so beyond the "message" or "signifier" that it is).

It seems to me, impossible to define art. So impossible, that one could make a case for art being anything which is presented to the senses and triggers feelings beyond the mundane response to mundane things, as mundane things.

And in that case, a banal talent show can be art.

Why do we care?
We take steps to preserve art; urinals, we send to the dump;
We pay more for art;
We fund art; we don't fund game shows;
We study art and consciously allow it to influence history;
We pay attention to art...
Etc.

De Kooning applied paint to canvas--quickly, it appears — BC

De Koining's is medium-bodied with a bouquet reminiscent of lemongrass and hints of parsnips and rhubarb.

I know of no plausible alternate source for feelings. — Vera Mont

Ok.

What you have there is an assortment of performances within the framework of a commercial production. — Vera Mont

I liked your categories which immediately preceded the above. But are you saying in the final analysis Idol doesn't fit into any category even of "the arts" but is rather, an assortment etc. ?

Faith in God must occur in the struggle to understand, not in the complacency of dogma , nor in the recklessness of rage. — Constance

Yes! If you don't mind me saying.

If there is God.

And, if not, why not faith in truth? That there is a truth which we already are, and in being (that truth), freedom from the distracted thinking, and even the givenness of the world.

Thank you

It's not the show that would experience emotions but the artist, perhaps the producers or writers, — T Clark

Of course. I was lazily noting that since it is a "production", the producers and writers may just be performing tasks no differently than an accountant or nurse does in a days work. Hence, the "show"
makes Idol not qualify as art, emotions wise.

Interesting. And is Collingwood the convention in Aesthetics? Or is he fringe? Or just one among a few?

Didn't mean nothing by it. — Outlander

Maybe you misunderstood me. I was quoting the doc with respect to Duchamp's urinal. I get why people might be annoyed, yet isn't his message, that snobbery is overtaking art appreciation (I would assert, at the organic level); isn't that message art? It is to me.

And if a urinal can be art...

Yes, my mistake for abbreviating that way. Nevertheless, your last comment applying Collingwood's definition applies to both "AIs." Except for the individual singers, the overall "show" does not seem to be "experiencing" emotions in the production, which it wishes to express.

But...in my haste to clarify that I recognize the manipulative, the kitschy, the commercial drive etc behind Idol, I may be capitulation too easily.

Take the Sex Pistols, that 1970s British Punk Band. Just because they may have been the creation of Malcolm MacLaren(sp), designed to manipulate audiences, sell a product riding on the tail of the Ramones, relative to someone like Pink Floyd, cheap or kitschy, does not mean their album "Never Mind the Bullocks," shouldn't classify as art.

Or perhaps people think pop music period is not art. But I would say I have drawn more aesthetic value (and certainly more "feelings") from blues, jazz, rock, r & b, rap, than I have from sculptures and paintings in my life time.

was hoping someone would mention Duchamp!

For anyone interested, especially the OP, as it seems rather relevant: — Outlander

Yes, "designed to mock the world of art, and the snobberies that go with it."

clarify the litigiousness of which societies — Shawn

I am suggesting (without any data or research) tgat it seems the U.S. and other common law societies like the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, are prone to litigate their disagreements in court, and are accordingly less inclined to settle for "hand shake" agreements/settlements.

we are, in the west at least, a super litigious society. It is difficult to be convinced in bona fides as a mechanism of trust.

yes, good points.

The irreality of reality tv is interesting to me, where people begin to behave in accordance with rules they think are 'dramatic', derived from fiction, while portraying a version of themselves - the drama often deliberately whipped up behind the scenes, or before the cameras roll. This to me is mostly spectacle, entertainment that does not aspire to art, even though an individual artist might appear there. — mcdoodle

You have understood the "appeal" to me; and yet, perhaps you are correct, and notwithstanding the unique mix of drama and reality, it is still just a spectacle

If it is art, then it can be criticized as art. Is American Idol "good art"? — BC

Excellent point. Objectively, likely not. But that doesn't prohibit one from "seeing" it as "good."
Yes, once could apply that objective vs subjective to many human projections.

Perhaps one might easily argue that in the case of math, or perhaps eve architecture, there is an objective which "ought" to override the subjective. Should the same apply to art?

the source is part of the experience — Baden

Right. Am Idol's source is enough to prohibit a conclusion that it is art as aesthetically understood.

Art is closely linked to our existential questions and philosophy, so if profit and earning money has too much of a focus when creating, it fundamentally becomes a version of "selling your soul". — Christoffer

I agree

You have unwittingly touched back onto my original quandary. By AI I meant the show. But true, if AI produced a beautiful poem, is it not art? If it affects me to heightened states of that unknowable feeling that great art can elicit, is it prohibited because of its creator?

a case of degenerating myself, — Ciceronianus

It can be...if one is not careful to step over the obstacles to get to the cracks letting in some light.
Fact is, I can readily admit I am simply trying to justify a degenerative habit. Whew. Thank God its over.

It's an evolving world. If Plato had his way...and yet, look at us now.

I agree no need to "correct" AI/Dance, same show.

They are alternative standards. — T Clark

Ok, then in my estimation, AI meets the criterion which asks if it elicits strong feeling, no?

may make sense to think of individual performances that way. — T Clark

It may be I'm confusing the trees for the forest.

What you have there is an assortment of performances within the framework of a commercial production. — Vera Mont

Strong argument, yes.

I appreciate that, even in order to be entertaining, any media has to be involving emotionally and there is an art to achieving that — Baden

Understood your response. Does "content" like AI produce that "Sublime.?"

Maybe you are right, if the feelings are manipulated out of me by architects of manipulation, it is not art. Like Nazi propaganda ought not to be viewed as art.

it makes a clear line drawn in which we can define "art" better through a definition that values "creation" over profit. — Christoffer

Perhaps that needs to be a criterion; if tge intention is solely commercial, let's agree it is not art.

This would be a superimposed deterrent, I think, designed to keep art "clean."

But in my heart, I might find a McDonalds commercial artistic. What then?

Part of me wants to consider AI a hybrid artistic competition and documentary, similar to how if instead of singing it was painting. The subject matter would be art, but the TV show would remain exactly that, a TV show — Outlander

I think you are likely in the conventional majority.

But thank you for seeing my struggle.

As for singing being a talent as opposed to creative, I beg to differ. The creative interpretations by these presumably novices, is one of the things which moved me physically.

Nice criteria. So it is art if the creator intended it to be; and, if it elicits a level emotion tantamount to that experienced by its creator. American Idol on the face of it is not art.

But not necessarily because it is entertainment. Take something like SNL. The writers of the skits arguably intend to present their work as comedic art; the art elicits a similar level of laughter in the viewers as it would have the writers.

You cannot say the same for AI.

Sincerely, I agree that your explanations are sound.

I ask this for clarification, not argumentively, do you think addressing feelings as their neurological processes are the only correct way? Do you think that the representations generated by our brains are no less real than the neurons which generate them?

Does that make it art? — T Clark

That's what I'm saying. Are we tacking on quasi-elitist conditions?

terms "displacing projections/imposition" you refer to the way language "displaces" non linguistic intuitions — Constance

Yes. Exactly that. Add, nonlinguistic could just as easily be called pre-linguistic.

Colon Conners speak about Henry: we have turned away from life, — Constance

Without knowing enough yet about Henry, I cannot say I am on board, but with that statement, I am completely.

The epoche asks the philosopher to suspend the most common thinking that we naturally settle into in daily living, and reduce the world to its pure phenomena. This term "pure" is of course at issue here. can one actually have a "pure" perceptual encounter with the world such that what is there is received perceptually as it is. The analytics would add to this "as it is independently of the contribution of the perceiver, and this obviously creates a problem in epistemology, for S know P is nonsense if there is no essential "knowing" — Constance

This is intriguingly on point. Both the problem of "pure" and of the epistemological problem of "perceiver" "knower" are addressed by what I thought you were referring to in the OP re "essence of religion ".

1. "Pure" "perception", is not perception at all. It is sensation. And similarly, perception is not pure, it is mediated by imposition construction/projection. Sensation, the direct aware-ing of the human animal, pre-construction, is "pure"

2. And said "pure" sensation cannot be "known". Knowing is of the construction projection. Being the organism sensing is the only access we have to "pure". Hence no epistemological problem.

"What's the point?" Asks the imposition construction projections, "if there is no meaning to the sensation?"

And that's why religion, in its essence, "saves" us, affording us a glimpse into being without the imposition displacing it with knowing.

A bit windy on that. Sorry. — Constance

No, you were clear. I do understand the "paradox" and the "problem" of is-ness (I prefer is-ing). But I am currently settled here and am discovering a bounty of parallels

one has to be rational to know since knowing is the affirmation, the denial, the conditional, the conjunction and so on. — Constance

Yes, I recognize that in the world of knowing, cause and effect, linear time/narrative form, difference, dialectic, reason, logic, meaning and so on,
necessarily function.

I hold that they do not function in nature, or the world of being. It does not imply dualism. There is only the world of being. Knowing is fleeting and empty.

THIS is what possesses one such that one cannot understand the "truth" as you have been describing it. One is busy, entangled and fascinated IN the totality. — Constance

Yes. Exactly. I have found that History is constructed and projected and moves as one Mind. Too much to describe here. The point is, we are truly ensnared in History because my mind is your mind is History.

But religion provides, in essence, a peek into the truth that we are not History.

nothing physicalist in any of this. — Constance

I've taken up enough of your time, and appreciate it. I'd say quickly this. Those desires, Icecream, a walk in the deer park, love even, are "spiritual" because they are constructed (mind).

What is real is not desire but drive, not Icecream and gluttony (trust me, Im a glutton) but hunger and satisfaction; not love but bonding and mutual concern.

Seems like entirely different subject matter. — Vera Mont

Might not strike you the same way. I am amazed that art, which is a representation of representation, can so profoundly affect the body to feel, without having to have recourse to any immediate constructions. The directness, and the potency of art's affect on reality (I.e., us) moves me.

And as for American Idol, of course I know it barely qualifies as art. Yet, I must unashamedly confess, at moments, it profoundly moved me, before any of my words could move in and construct meaning.

You must accept my premises to really appreciate it in the way I'm trying to describe. However, I respect that it is difficult to accept.

Elon Musk seems to have sublimated most of his anxiety and worries better than anyone else. — Shawn

Good for him, if that's true. But I imagine it is not black and white. There are likely more layers to what surfaces as sublimation than even experts can address. But for one, is it really sublimation taking place? Or is it a "healthy" denial or turning away? Are the hypothetical anxieties transfigured into "x"? Or are they set aside, always clamoring against success, to surface? That's one layer. For Musk, another is his seeming financial security. Has he sublimated his anxieties? Or does he have the means to many distractions? And so on.

I understand and appreciate the question, but think it is complex.

I guess, as an afterthought, you may be after a simple point, and a simple point can be made, which is, Musk has applied all of the contents of his experience and achieved success, despite his anxieties. Notwithstanding the potential for relapse, or whether it's just marketing himself as a resilient brand, is that not healthy sublimation?

Sorry, I didn't get much beyond the OP question. It didn't seem relevant. — Vera Mont

No worries. Thank you for your perspective. Strictly speaking, American Idol certainly doesn't match the definition you quoted.

Artists like Tom Waits or Leonard Cohen would never make it because they would be too interesting and unorthodox. — Tom Storm

So true! Try Bob Dylan. You make an excellent point.

Something doesn’t have to be good to be called art — Tom Storm

True enough.

Idol is also kitsch — Tom Storm

...or "inferior" art. Maybe it will be in its "kitschiness" that future generations will find an appeal.
Kitsch can make us feel in not readily identifiable ways too.

:up:

I understand the OP question — 180 Proof

Ok, from that perspective, I have no issues. Of course the fear of death at the root of myth and ritual.

Sorry I went off (likely willfully blinded) on my own tangent.

Michel Henry — Astrophel

I watched the video. Very interesting. I'd like to read his trilogy even as art.

My obviously hasty and prejudiced take is 1. he was aware of the crisis of (Kant ff) phenomenology, 2. He was aware that the resolution could be (may only be) in a turn to religion, 3. But fell in love with the art of it and got carried away, just like all of metaphysics since Plato spoke of the cave and proceeded to bury himself and all of us in it.