Interesting, people who are not immersed in the art world, or who have not followed the developments closely over the last 40 or 50 years, dictating what art is, or what isn't art, this is a laymans definition of art and is not comprehensive enough to be regarded as philosophy of art. Really without understanding the development of art culturally, these questions cannot be answered because art in culture is an evolution and what does, or doesn't constitute art changes with the culture.

This is why I agreed with Brett initially, that art is a mirroring of culture.

Bar tricks is tying him/herself in knots.

Pop, jgill and Qwex do seem to be open minded as to what art is, can be and to what might or might not be an artist. Things which constantly change with the evolution of culture.

No, I don't think there's any good reason to suppose that a bacteria or a tree has a mind.

But they are closely related to us, their cells are virtually identical to ours, why would they not be conscious, is it because they don't apparently have a mind? They do create art by the way.

Not really - I don't engage with threads that have 'consciousness' in the title because right at the outset they invariably conflate consciousness with that which is conscious - that is, they conflate states with the things they are states of.

How do you know this conflation happens if you don't involve yourself in such threads? It does become a subject in those threads, but doesn't make them impotent.

I will get back to you tomorrow, as it's a couple of years since I have been involved in such a thread.

Regarding artificial intelligence, I think you are referring to intelligence. Consciousness is not required for intelligence and visa versa.

So a spider is conscious and has a mind, I agree, does a bacteria, or a tree as well?

It's not left field, are you familiar with the threads on consciousness?

So is a spider conscious? Or a Bower bird?

'conscious' is a state minds can be in.

I feel I should point out that you are not correct about consciousness, there are extensive discussions about what consciousness is in other parts of the forum and there are not many people who claim that consciousness is seated in the mind, except perhaps those who subscribe to idealism. Are you an idealist?

Consciousness is a state, or emergent property, of the body, the brain is involved in it, but the mind as a self consciousness is a construct overlaying, or superimposed on, the consciousness. This gives the person in combination with the consciousness of the body, the self of self conscious awareness which we experience as sentience, or being and our thinking mind is a part of this construct.

It's like - 'I am making a base' - the bird says.

Yes I think you're right, the construction isn't the nest, it is a kind of base, or pitch from where he operates. The females visit numerous bowers to inspect them and decide which matches her taste. This includes a dance by the male.

Greta made a great speech in Davos today, that clown Trump also spoke, it was embarrassing, he is a laughing stock.

I don't have a transcript to hand, but his basic message is that by being optimistic we can deliver unlimited power supplies, unlimited energy is within our grasp. Rather than listening to the doom mongers telling us that the apocalypse is upon us.

"Either you're an American, or you're a Democrat"

Trump will drive a wedge through the country dividing it against itself. What for? To further his ambition.

Surely he's using someone else's art.

I'm working from two photos I took myself and google images of people riding horses on the same beach, Holkham beach, a famous beach for horse riding. There is hours of the experience of walking the beach and watching the riders myself distilled in some way into the work.

Punshhh you are deciding which accidents you keep, and which you correct.

Yes most of them I keep, for example the white wash over the ripples in the sand in the foreground should be at the other side of the ripples, be done in reverse, a big mistake, but I know from experience it doesn't matter, because the viewer would never know and it works anyway.

Here is a painting I finished yesterday, there is more accident in here than you might think, in fact I am mostly taking advantage of happy accidents as I paint. I feel a lot like the Bower Bird.

I wouldn't reduce this activity to instinct alone, although I agree that instinct plays a major role in the art. These birds are conscious, like humans, they are going through a primitive thinking process and the only difference between this and a human artist producing a work for a human viewer, is the extent of intellectual consideration.

Why is the bird an artist?

Because he is using his creative streak to create a refined work for a viewer to critically assess.

Here is the artist working on his next piece.

Here is a female bower bird viewing the art. She is assessing if the male is a good artist, which will depend on her own artistic preferences. This has all been documented and studied.

I'm not attempting to define art, but rather identify it.

So every person is an artist?

Yes, but some artists are better than others.

Why are they artists?

They are artists because they are performing all the processes that human artists and viewers do, short of intellectual introspection and comment, oh and no money changes hand.

Take the bower bird, the male has inherited a highly creative streak, including critical faculties of the materials he uses and how they work together. The female has inherited acute critical faculties about the creative skills and execution of the male. Also she has her own particular style and preferences, along with the male. She knows what constitutes good art and poor art.

I agree with your definition over all the others, it is a cultural phenomenon and plays the role of a mirror. For example, the Punk movement was a well developed social force before the Sex Pistols were formed, they were just the latest development in the trend.

Its brave of you to attempt to define art as you have, I think there is some truth in what you say, but there are numerous counter arguments and I don't think one can restrict art to the contents of critical thinking, or the domain of self consciousness alone.

There is an interesting test for what is art, coined by Grayson Perry, put your art work in a skip and if it has gone by the next day, it is good art, or art, if it stays for a long time, it is poor art, or isn't art at all.

I broadly agree with you, you have made so many comments I can't get into them all now.

I think I've gotten to the point where I don't think art can be defined or fully described philosophically.

I agree with this sentiment.

I agree with your thoughts about Consciousness, and I like your concept of the King but I would extend the definition of consciousness beyond the sensibilities of mind. For example, as Colosseum said, animals are artists, but they don't have conscious minds like humans. Fish, clear a patch of gravel, for a female to like it, or the bower bird creating a beautiful bower for his female, who has a critical eye.

Thank you for your images, art works. They are very inspiring and intriguing.
I would say from the moment they became artistically interesting to you, you became an artist, however you were performing the same creative actions before as you were after you saw them as art. So you were creating art right from the beginning, while not recognising it as art.

As for defining what art is, this cannot easily be pinned down, or should it be pinned down, it is a cultural phenomena. We could go to great lengths to define it and yet that would be a great deal of talking and I doubt it would take us anywhere in particular.

What is more important if one is an artist is the art itself and the enjoyment of creating it and living with it. Also others sharing in that experience.

If the artist means something in it's art, then the correct way to interpret it is by that degree.

However, is it ok to interpret art incorrectly? I think so.

Unless, per se, there is a greater judge, who thinks 'no, it means this in it's best light', then the artist's meaning loses it's credibility. Perhaps, it's a matter of judgement.

I agree that if the artist deems it art then it should be judged in that way, but there is also the audience who have their say, so we have the King.

There is a dynamic between the artist and the King, with culture as the medium?

Thanks for your comprehensive post and welcome to the forum.

is there a correct or incorrect way to interpret art or is it based on a causal origin by the artist?

I think the answer to this question is complicated and is perhaps an evolution within society. The main problem I have with the way art is interpreted is the role of the critic, the critic has traditionally dictated what is good art, what is bad art and what constitutes art. This has the consequence that artists who are creative and skill based people feel they have to try to conform in some way to validate their work.

This still occurs, although modernism and post modernism has challenged this. To some extent the artist has fought back and the critics have stepped back and allowed anything to be good art and Art.

Well that's the argument right there. The first world says to the third world: We've got ours. You can't have yours. In fact you should die or not be born.

Yes, I agree that it is an argument against what Lif3r said about population control. For me though, I don't recall anyone who talks about the climate crisis talking about limiting population. I certainly don't, it was only because it was brought up here that I commented. What is more likely is them talking about what calamity, or disease is likely to reduce population.

As we are here though, let's have a look, the current population of India is approx 1.366 billion, and the rate of increase is not showing any sign of slowing down. Most of these people live a very modest lifestyle compared to people in the west. Following the air pollution crisis in New Delhi a few weeks ago, I think they might have had a wake up call. But I doubt they are going to stem the increase significantly, but rather look to generating solar power, they have a good climate for this and have achieved great things in technological innovation and progress. But if their population keeps increasing at the current rate, the technology won't keep up and the poverty crisis they have will only increase. Unfortunately the size of their country doesn't increase alongside the population. India has three times the population of the states and half the land mass. As I said in my last post, if all these people had the decadent lifestyles we have, they would have more than an air pollution crisis on their hands.

So the issue with population is that as so many of the population lives low impact, in terms of carbon emissions, lifestyles and we have an urgent climate crisis on the horizon. Requiring reductions in global carbon emissions beginning in the next few years. There simply isn't the time, or the opportunity for all these people to level up to our level of emissions. The message being given to countries like India, China and Brazil, is that the crisis is upon us and we need to make the changes now and countries like yours will proportionately feel the impact more than the more affluent countries in cooler northern climates. I would also like the message to include, that we have developed the technology and offer it to them so they can transition away from fossil fuels without economic crisis. It does take a long time to turn a super tanker though, especially one loaded with oil.

What is art is decided by the artist. A group of people who are difficult to pin down.

i noted that many environmentalists are for population control of third worlders. Nobody ever asks the third worlders what they think. Some extreme environmentalists are anti-human; and I oppose that type of environmentalism.

They have, certainly in India. For decades the Indian government has tried initiatives to limit population growth with no success. They overtook China a few years back in the size of the population.

I can be for clean air and water without wanting to deprive the third world of their aspirations to a better life.

The problem is the numbers, the carbon emissions would increase vastly if all those people had air conditioners, white goods, cars etc.

But my response was primarily to your second paragraph. Firstly that the changes will wreck western economies and that it is a small increase in temperature.

You can still acknowledge the magnitude of their crimes against humanity.

Right?

Yes, and I do, but in this case I don't know if the current policy is worse than the alternative, as I have pointed out. On the assumption (I know it is a big one) that this Muslim community is vulnerable to radicalisation (which I presume, the Chinese authorities conclude), then this might be the least disruptive solution.

I did watch a documentary about the camps and it didn't appear that their culture was being extinguished, but rather that education was aimed at integrating them into a Chinese ideology. I accept that the devil might be in the detail and that for the people being forced into this it might be a form of imprisonment with brainwashing.

I need to read into the culture of Uyghur muslims before I can pronounce any more on their susceptibility to radicalisation. Also I don't see why they would require to include any Christians.

I remember back in the day, I was so angry about what China was doing in Tibet that I decided to protest at the Chinese embassy, there were daily protests at that time. But after a couple of minutes I concluded that it was pointless to protest because China was always going to ignore any protests, also they are so big and powerful, which was only going to increase. So I experienced a forlorn sense of resignation about it and filed it under hopeless causes.

This feeling has persisted, so I have a hopeless sense of resignation when I hear of these camps and other policies. I am encouraged occasionally when I see evidence of the benevolence of the Chinese state and that they are trying to do what's best for their people, in one sense of the word. Their foreign policy is a bit of a concern, but I don't feel personally threatened as yet. I do have a mind to avoid ending up in one of those camps myself though.

I remember hearing Danny Baker trying to give an excuse when he was doorstepped the day after he was caught out. He said he was mortified when someone told him Meghan was mixed race (and the interesting bit for me), he had thought of using a picture of the chimp because they were royals and it was a silly jape about their unearned privelidge, or inbred genes or something like that. Of course he would have got away with that, if racism hadn't been implied.

Time to forget about Baker I think and get back to the story about the press treatment of Meghan and Harry.

We may never know. But in my opinion, Baker got what he deserved whether because he was being evil or because he was being stupid.

Agreed, my take on it was that he had a reputation for silly gags like this with racial overtones and got caught out. His excuse was not credible, he claimed that he didn't realise she was mixed race.

On the racist narrative, there is an undertow of endemic racism in the vilification, but a large slice of sexism, because Meghan is a successful celebrity and another slice of wanting to speak out for good causes. It's a heady cocktail of misogenoir and the press can't help themselves in their wallowing in the gutter.

Yes it looks like we're going to get a pincer movement between the EU and the US. No surprise there, but who are the Populists going to blame for that lack of foresight, I wonder.

As for the bongs, it looks like Farage is going to throw the party in Trafalgar Square, I'll be watching for the fisticuffs.

P.s. It's been confirmed that the bung for Stormont is 2 billion.

So you approve of it from a strategic angle if not morally?

I approve of it more than I approve of the action by Assad to deal with Islamic fundamentalism. I have always been uneasy about the methods adopted by China, particularly the way they have treated Tibet, but it does work quite well in preventing violence and civil wars and the like.

The last I heard from a Chinese spokesperson was that the Uygur muslims were free to come and go from the facilities and indeed, they had already left.

But more seriously, I agree that this seems to mirror the re-education camps of the cultural revolution. I am vehemently against such things, but I can't see any other solution for the Chinese administration. If extremist Islam finds its way into these communities, they will probably have a bigger problem which they can't put right without violence.

I'm surprised at this attitude, although it continues to surprise me how little concern there is for climate change in the members of the forum from the US. Is it a partisan stance perhaps, I recollect Trump's insistence that climate change is a Chinese plot, a deception to persuade the west to ruin its economies and competitiveness.

With the status quo, the residents of Gaza will be pummelled into the dust.

Yes, I realise this. But I have heard a summary of what questions will be asked of what witnesses, under oath. It will be difficult for them to deny it. Unfortunately I don't have this information at hand right now.