Your only defence is that the populism and egotistical property tycoon antics employed by the President to play the crowd are not contravening the law. And yet you imply that he is squeaky clean and respects his office. Where is your criticism of his disrespect of office?

Yes, I agree, people have their own taste in art like with music. Some connoisseurs and critics develop an educated overview of art, like music, which tries to asses the work objectively. Not always with much success.

Yes, financial services is going to be disastrous for the negotiations, when it comes to the fore. Yesterday Michael Gove gave a speech laying out the governments policy to abandon any efforts to maintain frictionless trade. They are starting plans to have customs checks on all imports into the country from the EU. I expect they had already abandoned any hopes that there wouldn't be customs checks for goods leaving UK bound for the EU. Just in time supply chains are going to be difficult to protect now and manufacturers who rely on such supply chains are going to be planning to move their factories to the EU now.

All this was vehemently denied by the Leave campaign (government), indeed up to a few weeks, or days, ago Johnson swore blind that we will secure frictionless trade.

More evidence of the dishonesty and duplicity of the PM and his government.

My other thought, as I mentioned, is the modern consciousness. Is it real? If so then does it need new ways of regarding itself?

I think that as our consciousness has speeded up with the increased use of IT etc, we have become exposed to and accustomed to aesthetic narratives and these have become part of the nature of our consciousness. I think that if one looks to examine these issues philosophically this phenomena should be understood, for what it is and the aesthetic narratives identified. A knowledge of previous aesthetics would also be appropriate.

I feel that people go on their own individual aesthetic journey, either like what I have just described, or not thinking about it, but being spoon fed by the electronic gadgets etc.

I think that for artists, there is a similar spectrum of consciousness, genres act as a good framework through which to develop ways to convey experiences, but this would probably require a social group of viewers, who are familiar with the narrative.

Edit: a person could sit on the beach and write down on paper every word that comes to mind over a 60 minute period then hang it in a gallery. Is that any less than a painting

Yes, I think that poetry, or writing could convey the beach experience, as it is something which can be evoked, reminding the viewer, or listener of when they personally had the experience.

I know what you mean about the beach on a perfect day, something very difficult to convey.
These are a couple of paintings I have done in contemplation of the sea on one of those days. (Lighting is difficult when photographing these paintings, they look so different with different lighting). The first is inside lighting and the second is outside lighting.




This painting by someone else has a quality I like

Oh right, yes I have practiced meditation a lot in the past. Up until I reached the point of not needing to meditate any longer because I felt I was doing so all the time already.

The problem we have though is mass cooperation, something which will be required to pull through the difficult time ahead. It does feel like we are going backwards at the moment.

I suggest you consider meditation, I say this because it can facilitate ones ability to capture in creative ways the experience of the experience of consciousness.

When it comes to cooperation, it can be done and has been many times in human history. But always decends into decadence and conflict eventually. Fingers crossed that we can survive the next few hundred years of turmoil.

So what seems to be happening in the forum is the reality of one consciousness conflicts with the reality of another consciousness.There is no getting over this impasse except for an individual to let go.

This is a result of the format of forums. Unfortunately they work on disagreement and argument. This is not necessary, provided contributors agree to agree on things and work constructively together.

Only an enlightened person could do this, and would an enlightened person be on the forum at all?

Yes, they might be, being enlightened does not change the need, or desire for debate. Also many cases of enlightenment as described in the religious accounts do not entail great intelligence or understanding, but rather an exhalted state. I have met gurus who are purported to be enlightened and they are no more intelligent than anyone else, though they do tend to be wise in some way.

Perhaps a human attempt at expression is a better way of putting it. The acknowledgement of human frailty accepts the limits of artifice.

I accept your comments on the futility of conveying experience in an profound, or adequate way. But it does not allow for a creativity in the appreciation of art. Or the power in formulaic art, such as in religious iconography, or artefacts.

For me there are works of art which have an experiential effect on me which is equally profound as any beautiful human experience. Some artefacts can become invested with such meaning that simply to think of them can induce an experience of joy, or profound understanding.

So perhaps what I am saying is that beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

This is an interesting subject. For me I often refer to photographs I find online for how to draw a horse for example, or a sunset. I don't think that making a painting based on a photograph infringes any copyright, because the copyright refers to the photo and a copy would have to be a facsimile of a photographic image. Not the subject captured in the photograph. So such a sunset can't be copyrighted, even if it can be established that the position of the clouds, or features in the foreground, which confirm that it was copied from a particular photograph. It is not a facsimile, but a painted expression of a scene in the mind of the artist.

I would think that this also applies to other mediums, that any copyright is primarily referring to a work in a specified medium.

I think the problem you identify regarding music copyright is often an injustice. I have heard examples which don't sound like the original, or only have a tenuous link. I see this as a problem with the legal profession.

This is the curse of the artist, most works fail to convey what was intended. They fall short in the execution and result. Also the experiences we wish to convey in an artistic medium are so full of experience and sensation that all attempts to convey it are doomed to failure.

However it's not all bad because often when the artist is dissatisfied, the viewer is not. Or the work inadvertently conveys something successfully but chance, or happenstance. Very occasionally the work does capture what was intended, which is a very rewarding experience for the artist. Or the artist discovers a successful technique.

The journey of the artist is an exploration, along the way the artist becomes a creative person, learning more artistic techniques, developing insight into nature and the ways things are observed and may learn rewarding creative processes, exploring and sharing these insights. Some artists break through a threshold, or ceiling of limitation and find creating successful pieces effortless, like Picasso for example.

That was intentional ;)

Noble Dust, Praxis and Brett, nice work.

This is a plein air I did about 5years ago, a slight nod to Van Gogh.

That's all nonsense, what has happened is some stagnation and austerity following the sub-prime mortgage crash, coming on top of the economic consequences of globalisation. People feeling the pain of the stagnation, are vulnerable to the false promises of opportunists and populists, to restore life to how it was before. It's happening all around the world, but the promises are hollow.

Its like the Brexiters over here. They are basically going Grrh ahh Grrh ahh sovereignty, Grrh ahh Grrh ahh reclaim our borders. Anyone who questions it is some sort of traitor to our great nation, or can't bare to loose, remoners.

It's happening everywhere, there is a great documentary on the BBC at the moment, where Ed Balls, a well respected politician, travels around Europe talking to populists. In every country the message is the same. The established party's have taken their eye off the ball and large parts of the population feel left behind. So a populist party comes along and promises to put right their grievances. To make their country great again. Millions of people then vote for them, not thinking about what is really going on. That an opportunist, or an extreme right, or left party is saying whatever is required to win their vote, simply to get into power. Once they get into power, the promises are discarded and they follow their own agenda. Usually they will throw some scraps of short term prosperity to the masses by cutting taxes, or protectionism. Or fuel nationalism by blaming someone over there for their troubles, or divide the nation against itself, to create chaos, or blind partisanship.

In every case it results in political and national division making the world a more unstable and dangerous place.

And when the shit hits the fan, whose fault is it? It's them over there, those corrupt politicians, or those people who don't love their country.

These populist leaders should show more respect for the people and their nations and rule with responsibility, integrity, seeking cohesion between groups, rather than division. Their irresponsibility could cause a fall of civilisation and mass suffering.

And what is really to blame, bankers playing Russian ruollete with sub prime mortgages. Maybe the populists should be putting the bankers in jail.

While at Trump's victory rally today he shouts,

I'm Spartacus

Interestingly as the COP26 climate change summit which will be held in Scotland in November is being arranged there is a stand off between the government and the SNP. Apparently the government is trying to exclude Nicola Sturgeon from the event. Johnson is terrified of appearing on stage with her, just as he was during the election campaign.

He is the best asset of the SNP, everything he does hastens indyref2.

Its satire, in the film, everyone who was on the same side as him stood up and claimed to be Spartacus in the expectation of certain death, to save him. Is this what the republicans senators are doing?

Somehow it doesn't have the same gravitas. How Ironic that Spartacus dies the same day that the senate falls from grace.

I'm Spartacus!

Only my cartoons have been surrealist in that way. For more serious art, I followed a course somewhere between abstract expressionism and abstract art. I never found myself wanting to try proper surrealism, because I see it as a technique which requires a lot of commitment and a certain disposition, in which surrealism comes naturally. For myself, I am quite surrealist in my character and humour, but when it comes to art, I am more interested in aesthetic and painting techniques.
Dali developed what he called the Paranoiac-critical method, which is a psychological language which informed his work and through which the viewer can interpret the imagery. So his work is like an exploration of his subconscious mind.

This is a cartoon I did during the Iraq war, it is of a Dream I imagined Tony Blair having in which everything goes wrong and he finds himself decending into hell. Blair is the green fellow, the guy with the cross is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, Bush and saddam Hussain are the other skeletons.

Now that the negotiations with the EU has started. Johnson and Gove are jibering about not having any alignment with the EU because we need unfettered freedom to stride the world. They have both just said that we don't need a trade deal with the EU, implying that they will just have to accept whatever we offer them.
Yesterday the government told some journalists from certain media establishments they were not allowed into Downing St because the officials inside are now going to decide which favoured journalists they let in. At this point all the journalists walked out and it's now a news story.

Also today it has emerged that Ryan Air is starting a recruitment drive and the applicatants must have full unrestricted right to live and work in any of the EU countries which they fly to. So does that exclude all UK nationals from applying?

Yes, I entirely agree, well said.

Shakespeare is full of stuff like this. He is the Quentin Tarrantino of his time. He writes great dialogue but the stories are garbage, even seemingly nonexistent at times

Your criticism of Sheakspeare's work is divorced from reality and it's focus on plot is naive. You should appreciate the context in which it was written and performed.

I realise now that my definition of modern art is more narrow than the academic definition. For me it was the 1950-60's, with abstract expressionism and conceptual art, I suppose this was the epicentre. With pop art emerging from it with Warhol. I agree with your experience, although I didn't get it in the way you mean, I don't think. For me it was an intellectual understanding, or realisation of what they were saying, but I didn't like it and saw it as largely pointless. I do accept that it needed saying and that they went about it in the right way in order to do that, but it wasn't for me. I was more interested in artists like Dali, Klee, Picasso, Kandinsky. I grew up with a print of Dali's Metamorphosis of Narcissus on my wall, my mum had bought when we went to Barcelona when I was I think 6 years old, I don't remember the Dali museum, but I remember the reverence for the work and contemplated the painting many times as I was growing up.

For me I saw the modern art movement through the prism of this painting and subsequently through Dali's other work.

There is a quality of transformation in the minds eye from one thing to another, or the appearance, or hallucination of something else, things not being as they seem, or seeming to be something else. An interesting take on the world of art.

You implied it. Have you purchased some art?

(To save time)
If you have purchased art, then you have done this, " I will decide what art is".

If all the artists disappeared you could still buy something and call it art, by your criteria. You couldn't though buy an Andy Warhol, or a Picasso. Also if Andy Warhol didn't disappear, you would only be able to buy an Andy Warhol which he chose to create, not any of the works he conceived of, but decided not to take any further.

In the other art thread I described what Modernism brought us, that anything may be art and anything can be art. So this includes you saying something is art, but you may find you become an artist by default, by saying it.

Interesting juxtaposition. Do you find one more arresting over the other? I'm not well versed in political cartoon-ism.

I find the original Che Gavara poster the best piece of political art ever produced. It's status as a work of art left the political cause behind and stands in its own right. The second piece is for me hilarious and a clever example of how political satire works. It hasn't though become an art work in its own right and has disappeared from the artistic world.

I would say that political cartoons are an important and sophisticated genre of art.
Here is a piece I produced about 15 years ago prior to the G8 summit while there was a lot of discussion about climate change. As a skull and cross bones, harkening the death of the planet( death of habitability).

if I am going to purchase art, then I will decide what art is.

I don't want to be argumentative in what I say, rather simply try to identify who decides what art is.

Take the artist out of the equation, i.e. pretend all the artists and their work suddenly disappears. What are you going to purchase?

But the universe is expanding. What is it expanding into if there's a limit?

Apparently there isn't a limit, from the inside it just keeps on expanding at the speed of light. But like a face painted on the surface of a ballon, which gets bigger when you blow it up, it never leaves the surface of the ballon. Just imagine a ballon which expands for ever. A ballon is dome shaped.

By the way this isn't my philosophy, this is astrophysicists and folk like that.

P.s. If you like Max Richter, you might like Flatlands by Roger Eno, composed in contemplation of the Norfolk landscape where I live.

Actually there's a really profound point behind this observation. The pre-Copernican cosmology really did believe in the crystal spheres, that heaven was the literal abode of the angels, the changeless eternal realm. All of that came crashing down with the Galilean/Copernican revolution,

I don't recall being taught how much of a shock this was, as it surely must have been. Somehow I think they were in denial lead by the church.

However my point was that we are now back with a dome, well a sphere at least. All the space and time curve round before infinity is reached. There is no before the universe, there is no beyond because you always come back round in circles. This is rather prosaic and imprecise, but I think it captures the jist of it.

Likewise the soul was taken away by the materialists, leaving us with a meaningless chaotic universe. But now the soul is making a come back.

We will soon have turned full circle and find ourselves back where the ancients were. Not literally I hope.

↪frank I agree with you. Art helps us find out what Comes next. Not the other way round.

So art helps itself to find out what it is, or will be?

Yes if "art" means an art movement, or something that a number of artists coalesce around. But life might not be like that any more. It might for example all be dictated by the media. Also where canart go after modernism? That said it all, surely.

I was driving along listening to Never Goodbye from Max Richter's Hostiles. A scene of the sort the Hubble telescope makes came to mind and I realized that this is what ancient people wanted to know about heaven. They thought the sky was a dome, but we know it goes on and on.

Max Richter, one of my favourite composers/musicians.

I think you'll find the astrophysicists say it is a dome*, the ancient people might be the ones laughing at us,... if they were here.

* you know what they say when they say there wasn't a time before the Big Bang because time and space curve around. It all curves around if you go far enough.

I will rejoin you when Scotland rejoins the EU. Fingers crossed.

Yes, I agree that political art is not art, but rather a sleight of hand to convey or prompt, to reaffirm the political message.
I always think of this piece which is probably the most successful piece of political art ever produced. It lmortalised the subject Che Gavara.


I am a political cartoonist at times and I think this is where art and politics collide in a more meaningful, artist and politically relevant way. This is one of my favourites (not by me). It was made during a brief period when Prince Charles sounded a bit Marxist.

I notice you didn't mention what Modernism said. It seems to me that it said anything is art and anything can be art.

So what does the next movement say? It can't say anything that hasn't been said before, in theory, by implication of what modernism said.

If we look at what happened after modernism, I can't think of anything in art which has regained that level of meaning.

I expect that the next movement might be digital and related to digital gaming themes. Themes which seem to be determined by fantasy, science fiction, cartoon imagery. When it comes to high Art, I expect it will emerge from Artificial Intelligence via digital imagery. Such a source might produce things we can't come up with any other way.

It feels like a con from here, Johnson still has to square at least two enormous circles to pull this off. In fact when I think about it there are more circles to square, a lot more. Certainly a lot more than any tangible benefits of leaving the EU.

Johnson talks squircles like they actually exist, with that petulant Trump grin on his face.

What I was thinking is what is the next movement in the progression? We've had Impressionism, Cubism, Surrealism, Modernism, Post Modernism, Post Post Modernism. What's next?

I ask because I can't see where art can go now, because it's already been everywhere and we've past the realisation that everything can be art, or art can be anything. So is that it now? Do we just repeat something?

Is this what you mean by half-assed.

Does art now divide into before modernism and after modernism and never the twain shall meet?

For me (drawing/poetry/short stories) I'm wildly blocked up creatively, and I'm lucky if I can go a minute without getting distracted, and trapped in thought. Sometimes, it's theory/philosophy stuff which pulls me out of it; more often, I imagine this person or that person and I either criticize myself through their eyes, or, in this weird mechanical way, I start to try to mold whatever I'm doing to something I think they (or my mental construct of who they are) would approve of. It's pretty hard to shake.

I think all creative people have their cross to bare, because the creative process requires one to develop inventive patterns of thought beyond what is normal in human psychology. This includes contemplation, focussing on undefinable, or ambiguous concepts. In some this extends to brainstorming, forcing, straining the mind to push forward. I am doing this at the moment and have been having intense dreams where I am struggling mentally to achieve something. Last night In my dream I was sitting with a pencil and paper straining my mind to breaking point to come to a design which cracked some Gordian knot, it felt like trying to square the circle. Unusually it was productive and I woke up with a concept which was rather like twisting a slinky spring in on itself like an Escher drawing. And a vision for how I can use it to finish off a painting which went wrong a couple of months ago.

You might not be surprised that I would advise a little gentle meditation training, and or mindfulness. I found these very beneficial in the past, I think I ought to do a bit more at the moment as I am getting distracted to easily.

Do you think it is appropriate to accuse of 'psuedophilosophy' someone who has expressed and robustly defended views all of which are defended in the literature?

The problem is that you come along with an unusual philosophy and then argue with people as though they are wrong you you are right. This also extends to accusing them of being mistaken when they are defending a well established view.

It would be fine if you exhibited some politeness and humility until you had presented your position at least. It would then be ok to argue the case, because your interlocutor would know what you are talking about.

Agree all you like, I discussed philosophy with people I agreed with for years before I came to forums. Forums require some disagreement to work, which I found awkward to begin with.

but what I think makes the majority of political art "bad" is that it has a concrete, direct, and specific message it's trying to communicate, and not only that, but it has a telos: to convert, to change the audiences mind.

Yes, it presents you with what might be a good work of art and claims that a political position is good because it is associated with the good work of art. Also it can become sloganistic and be used as a tool for populism. This process can devalue the art, or a genre of art and the artist, or artists in the genre. A good example is Nazi Art Deco art, it also extends to a lot of Art Deco art as well, which is a shame because there was some good art which has largely been erased from history.

What makes this "bad" is that most political/religiously apologetic art ends up just preaching to the choir,

Yes, for the choir it becomes a mantra and for others it is a slogan being forced on them.

I guess at best maybe the work inspired the audience to be more politically active?

That is ok until the process and the message become divisive, or deceitful. As in the Brexit debate for example. "just get it done"

The only exception from that experience was Pussy Riot; their show kicked ass because it was loud, fearless, profane and brimming with passion.

Yes, I was very impressed with their performance, I was surprised the authorities tolerated it.