The problem, and why it's so easily dismissed, is there's not really a formal or logical argument to make in favor of the connection between spirituality and art. It's experiential, and not theoretical. And maybe that means the concept really doesn't have a place on the forum, but then the question arises of the whole meta-concept of a "philosophy of art". Can it only be done theoretically? If so, does that meta-concept preclude the very possibility of art having a higher purpose? If so, who's wrong: the theoretical philosopher of art, or the artist making the assertion of art's higher purpose? Again, the problem is that, when you begin theoretically, there's not even a question of the artist being wrong; he is. But that doesn't mean he's in fact wrong. If we're going to do philosophy about art, we have to use art's tools: the intuition, the imagination, the connection to the spiritual. Otherwise it's meaningless, or at best, severely handicapped.

I wholeheartedly agree, this is perhaps a danger with a philosophy of art, or the role of the critic. Often the public, or collectors will follow a particular preference regardless of what commentators on art say.
I think it is important for these commentators to pay attention to the whole experience of an artist who they comment on, and if they are philosophising, or offering a critique they should attempt to convey the philosophy of that artist, or at least not ingnore or devalue it. Or a critique should respect the intention and technique of the artist.

Now that art has, at least in theory, become all encompassing, what can a critic say now? Surely anything they say which isn't praising the work is to diminish it. Likewise, what is the point of a philosophy of art, again it limits art, although it can do the job of cataloging, or creating archives.

Now, at least in theory, the artist is king. The trouble with this is, what does the artist do now? Vernacularise perhaps, what does the art world do, split into a cult of indivualism? Who is it who chooses which artist, or which art work is good and therefore worthy of being elevated to a global exposure? Without the structured art world which was provided by the religious inheritance and the institutions which developed from it. What system, or institution is going to moderate the art scene.

Does it still all depend on patronage?

If so and an artist wishes to attain recognition, or to earn a living from their work again they are beholden to the patrons and who moderates the patrons?

This being the case art is not free, is not all encompassing, unless the artists intention is to ignore what anyone else might think.

(4). It's probably the case that art has always been torn between these two impulses, commercial and aesthetic. Maybe not always commodification, per se - but certainly producing art for social purposes has been there for a long time, probably since the beginning.

There is the phenomena that the artist strives to develop a skill, a style, something which appeals to a number of people, or what is praised by a number of people, at the beginning of their career, or sometimes their whole career, while in obscurity. With the money and commodification starting later on, perhaps after the artist has finished working.

Perhaps this aspiring artist is looking to do something that people like, or they might disregard such considerations completely. An example of this is Edward Degas, he sculpted maquettes of ballet dancers solely for the purpose of helping him to paint 3D figures. He did not intend them to be viewed by the public. Now following his death they are now greatly admired by the public. For me these sculptures are some of the finest sculpture of the human body ever produced.

So if art happens with the artist, there are some works free of commercialisation, although this might be a rarity. The public do seem to have a particular interest in these pieces which were not meant to be viewed.

Perhaps political art is a good place to start, I accept that there are a few pieces of good political art, but most isn't.
What I am saying is bad, is the way art may be compromised by the need to convey a political message. It can become a divisive slogan.

I was suggesting that each artist is a single person art movement. This might be what an art movement of individualism looks like.

I asked who would decide which of these artists are to be elevated to a world stage? I suggest who that turns out to be dictates what the public thinks, because the public does not see the art of the others who have not been elevated, especially if they are not involved in a movement.

Perhaps artists are sick of being controlled by those who are not artists but have the money to say what is currently art.

I'd agree with that, it's not just the money, but also the institutions.

I think what seems like a period of incubation, in terms of art movements, is perhaps an art movement of individualization, as opposed to a group of artists purposely exploring someone else's ideas.

Does this mean we have millions of mini art movements? And who decides which artists, or art work, will be elevated to the national, or world stage?

Usually my stamina is lower, so I can't work as long, but it's the same creative urge. So, that process of the creative emanation exists in and of itself, but it's best served when you are disciplined in the work

I feel as an artist that I am reaching, an artist reaches for that next work which takes him/her further along the road to improvement. I am reaching now for my next work, to decide what subject will act as a good subject for me to achieve this step forward, for three weeks I have been struggling. If I didn't want to reach like this, there would be a myriad of subjects I could start right now. But that would not be the progress I want. I am ruminating, there is a subject I keep hovering around, but it will require a lot of dedication to pull it off and it might not work. It's a bit like spinning plates on poles.

To be clear, this isn't what I'm saying by "higher purpose". I don't have any answers as to what the higher purpose is, I just am of the conviction that there is one, and that the history of art, as it coincides with history at large, demonstrates this.

I am the same, although I reserve judgement on whether the history of art implicitly demonstrates this.

I practice mysticism and the core consideration is that the divine, or higher purpose is entirely unknowable to a human and any interpretation of it( including whether it exists or not) is a human fiction( fiction in a sense that any human interpretation of reality is inaccurate and an expression of the ideas that human, or humanity has)

I see art as a human creation and if it contains a spiritual dimension that is fine, because it is a fiction, whether there is a divine world, or not. If there is a divine world then we will never know how it would be different from a world where there isn't a divine world. Likewise, if there isn't a divine world we will never know how it would be different from a world where there is a divine world.

So there isn't at any point a kind of art, which incorporates anything spiritual, which isn't valid, or is false, or is in any way deluded.

Your post seems to suggest that artists are trying to include some sort of spiritual aspect to their work, regardless of what they believe. That all work contains the divine.

No, I'm saying that the artist is free to choose a spiritual motif, as with any motif. And if an artist chooses a spiritual motif, that is not necessarily evidence that they are religious, or of the opinion that there is a divine art up there. They might just like the religious imagery.

So did you mean if spirituality is not respected by the artist.

No, the viewer, or the critic. Although the artist is a viewer and their own critic during the process as well.

And what does this make the artist?

If one is of the opinion or conviction there there is a divine art up there, then the artist is attempting to depict this through some kind of artistic vision.

Alternatively if one is of the opinion or conviction that there is no divine art up there, then the artist is simply including some spiritual, or divine content in their art, which they have been inspired to do from something they have seen in the human world, in which religious motifs can be found.

I don’t understand this.

I think my wording was a bit clumsy there. I think my analogy of the science fiction writer illustrates it,

"For example,for a science fiction writer, no one would say they weren't allowed to include any kind of spirituality in their work, because it is fiction, not doctrine. It is the same for all art, surely."

Art is fiction, so any kind of spirituality, or mysticism depicted is only fictional and so not the artist saying this is reality, or the truth of existence. It's no more than a decorative aspect of the work. If the viewer interprets this as some kind of divine message, that is their choice and not a sufficient reason for censure.

What exactly is it you mean by “a higher purpose”?

Well I think it boils down to the idea that humanity's purpose in life is to become a follower in the divine plan via the Christ. A situation where there is a divine art, of which human art is a pale derivative.

These were the vision and creation of God, about God’s world on earth. All art reflected God’s vision. Morality existed in beauty, beauty was a set of aesthetics, morality was aesthetics, God set down morals for man to live by. Art had to be created in that sense because it could be nothing else, it could have no purpose.

I see this as a supportive structure, a matrix in which people could dwell and all their psychological and intellectual needs were met and they could be creative within the expression and confines of that world. If and when they were praised they would be elevated higher up the structure in an orchestrated way, adhering the the highest principles set down by the gods.

It was a totally free act and it was all man’s. Now he could create whatever he could imagine. This is a primitive act, driven by primitive impulses.

But without the supportive structure, what will fill that void, the arts institutions? Without it the arts will fragment and vernacularise.

Mysticism is part of it in the fact that it’s a primitive action. But I would not call it mysticism. I think that confuses things, as if art has a higher purpose

Yes it's not mysticism, as that is a precise discipline in the communion between the self and god/s. But "a higher purpose" whether there is actually a higher purpose, or not, is something which must be allowed within art. As Noble Dust says, if spirituality in art is not respected, it implies that where an artist allows some kind of spirituality in art, they are wrong, mistaken, or harking back to a rejected paradigm.

For example,for a science fiction writer, no one would say they weren't allowed to include any kind of spirituality in their work, because it is fiction, not doctrine. It is the same for all art, surely.

I think I just mean whatever seems to be in the way of a pure aesthetic experience.
— csalisbury

So more like theory over direct experience/creativity?
- Noble Dust

I think what he means is that, for example, if you are a philosopher, or a writer of theory, you end up with a whole lot of internal dialogues going round in your head, or positions, opinions, arguments. So when you want to get creative you have to muscle your way past them to find a quiet place in which to explore a creative process.

For a painter, for example, this not usually an issue, as your mind might be quite clear. But it comes from different places in the subconscious instead. For me it is easy to become immersed in a creative process with a pallet knife and some paint, but somewhere along the process, something happens subconsciously which distracts me, leads me down a creative dead end, I get hung up on a technical difficulty in something I wanted to follow, I find myself trying to copy something I saw another artist doing. So I have to stop, contemplate all these things, identify them, use them in a constructive way, or throw them out. Sometimes they are persistent like ear worms.

You might find that in order to simply be creative you have to resolve to just go with it whatever happens, ignore anything which comes into your head. Decide not to want anyone to see it, who might have a critical eye.

It sounds like you're reaching escape velocity( in the information theory and simulated worlds thread at least).

Picasso didn’t have a niche. Which is why I respect him so much. He challenged himself each day. Most artists find a vein and work it. Very few did what Picasso did. It’s possible it may not be a good thing.

I understand why you don't admire Van Gogh, I am the same about Matisse, so I am not critical of what you say about him or his work. I'm responding to the distinction you make between Picasso and other artists and about the way artists work. To be an artist, well the sort of artist we are talking about, requires a total immersion in the process, a fanaticism, an effort to push at boundaries. For each person this manifests in different ways depending on their temperament and personality, even their mental make up. So in each case the way they work and progress is going to be very different. Picasso did seem to chop and change a lot, but when you look at his body of work there is not actually that broad a range of imagery. He had a fiery, restless, domineering personality, he was a showman. But I don't see the collection of artefacts he left behind as that different to many of his peers, at least in their scope. Even more flamboyant, Salvador Dali would orchestrate vast crowds of people in his demonstration of some kind of megalomania, trying to out do many of his peers. But again the body of work he left behind was not that broad in scope, or vision.

Did any of them break the mould, I can't see it myself, they were all painters, or sculptors who developed their own way to do art in association with other members in the group or school they were involved in. I think the way in which they are judged and admired changes with changes in the societies which follow, some artists may be admired for longer than others. Few reach immortal status and the few that do may do so for anachronistic reasons, for example the fascination with the Mona Lisa is not to do with the artists achievement, but rather some ambiguity about the way he painted her mouth.

Van Gough was a flawed personality which resulted in his working in an intense but narrow confined way with a lot of repetition. This resulted in a body of work narrow in scope and variation.

In the current world naivety and vernacular work is more highly prized than accomplished, polished traditionally valued pieces. I see this too in the world of antique furniture which I have dealt in for a number of years. A country made Windsor chair of a particular naive vernacular form is often worth as much as a highly ornate accomplished chair made by a follower of Chippendale. And is certainly more sought after.

In a similar way art produced by flawed or compromised personalities is highly valued for perhaps shining a light on a distorted facet of human life in a unique way, not out of genius, but peculiarity.

He is clearly wrong, because he is considering both life and living to be the same thing, but regarded as two distinct things by the addition of a reification. He is saying that living is a process, or a state of organisms, whereas life is a complex sentient being due to a reification, but implying that it is the same thing as the state of organisms, so the reification is a mistake.
This is wrong, because the state of living and a life are different things, so no need for a reification. Also a mind and a consciousness are different things. I think this sort of confusion is a result of people trying to reduce humans to the equivalent of a unicellular organism( a blob).

In fact I would suggest that he is doing to opposite to a reification to a living organism by suggesting that it is lesser a thing than a human life. Without realising that a human is a colony of individual cells. It's cells which are living and they have a life and a colony of cells is a human.

So the real question we're dealing with here is "what happens to art when the spiritual is removed?". Or, the more important question would be "what happens to humanity when art is removed

I will try to keep mysticism out of my remarks because I find on this forum it turns people away. But this does not mean that I don't recognise that there is a mystical dimension in art and particularly the mysticism of the self, irrespective of whether there is, or isn't a God, or spiritual realm. I will presume there isn't for this discussion.

I agree that for art there is an aesthetic hierarchy like the spiritual hierarchy in religion and that for art over the historical period of civilisations art has been largely controlled and has mirrored this hierarchy. Meaning that we have inherited an aesthetic of high art, which has a pinnacle, a godhead at the top, inhabited by great artists who have the greatest, most noble moral and philosophical considerations at the front and centre of their great work. Leonardo Da Vinci being the archetype. With a hierarchy of prestigious institutions below to whom devotees will flock.

As an alternative to this edifice, with commercialism maybe we will end up with a baby cartoon dragon as the epitome of high Art, with a Disney logo on its bum.

I fear that this ideal I describe is a fragile human creation and that we strike it down to our own detriment.

I had a profound experience a few years ago which illustrates this quite well. I was eating a picnic in a wood with my wife, it was very quiet and suddenly an old man appeared. With a foreign accent he asked where are you heading. Immediately we were transported to a sense of a meeting between fellow pilgrims in a medieval period. As we talked I realised he was a retired Spanish architect. He said we haven't made any progress since the classical period. We weren't sure what he was saying and questioned him in essence what he was saying was the Classical Order was the high point of human civilisation and we had been going downhill ever since. He was referring specifically to architecture, but I took it to mean in all things. To him progress was to build the most solid foundations a human can muster, like the godhead, the Leonardo Da Vinci foundation stone upon which civilisation is built. To him the fact that I knew how to make a square, a tool with a precise 90 degree angle out of a few pieces of wood(straight planed wood) was the highest indication of my knowledge.

An interesting analysis, I see the truth in what you say, but rather than reply now, I will have a think and reply a bit later.

Just one initial thought, it occurred to me that the people look to the establishment figures to define art and direct them in its appreciation. What happens when these establishment figures lose their way, lose their moral compass?

This article asks if there is a current art movement going on. It mentions Neo Dadaism and Absurdist Art. I had noticed this in some galleries I visit, like a combination of a contemporary Dada with surrealism and fantasy Art. I failed to see it as serious art, but rather a subtle form of decoration*.

I increasingly consider Fine Art to have fractured into many splinters, mini movements perhaps. With no over all direction, no where to go. Somehow the great art movements and periods of the twentieth century, which forged ahead broke the mold, are all past and Art is perhaps in a period of incubation, before the next big development.
https://medium.com/predict/the-21st-century-art-movement-what-is-it-a5db9dcc1d97

*I accept that my not finding it serious Art may be my problem and that I'm sure the artists thought it was.

Yes, thanks for that clarification, the artists concerned where trying to express themselves in a genuine way. What I was thinking of was that the whole exercise was a commercial enterprise.

It may not always be apparent how commercial artworks are, and marketers may deliberately attempt to deceive buyers in this regard.

I agree, this is what I was trying to say when I mentioned the Brit Art phenomena in the 1990's, there was a marketing and media circus whipped up which went international. Millions of people visited the shows, myself included, because they thought there was some amazing thing they needed to witness. Once in the gallery there were exhibits like an unmade bed, a cow cut in half in formaldehyde, a rotting cows head in a glass case with thousands of flies and maggots eating it etc. Even confronted with that garbage the viewers were still pretending it was amazing art and something profound was happening.

There was something quite profound happening, mass hysteria generated by some very clever marketing and advertising gurus.

Is art a mirror for reality, or a hammer with which to change it? Bertolt Brecht asked.

Interesting, it made me think of how up until the end of the medieval period art was a hammer with which to control the masses. Then there was a period of a few hundred years when it gradually became freer until recently it had total freedom, and now it is being used as a hammer again to control the masses. But it seems that it is still free, while hammering away and that is ok because that freedom doesn't get in the way of the hammering. Because the people who might use that freedom have been brainwashed by the incessant hammering.

Yes, I don't see it as scathing, but helpful perhaps. Art as we know it? Sounds better to me. When I ask the question I am also thinking of art as others might know it and which I might not be aware of, for example many digital art forms, which I am sure I don't know about, because I am of a certain age and not so wired into those things.

Yes it should include dancing, acting, composing and writing, but my focus will inevitably painting and 2dimensional art works.

Yes, there is a lot of money sloshing around in the establishment art world, with numerous effects, including the commercialisation of art along with the exploitation for corporate, or political reasons. Also, digital media and developments amount the young and via their mobile devices etc.

Is there an art movement I wonder?

Sufficiently I think. I don't think a precise definition is required to answer this question. Perhaps a practical description of the work artists produce. Certainly the mediums they adopt are changing, I wonder if the subjects, or narratives are too?

I have started another thread on this topic.

What exactly are we expecting from art? Anish Kapoor produces his big pieces, or should I say directs the construction of his big pieces, that are really about spectacle and interaction on a larger than life scale. What should we expect from him?

I don't know the answers to these questions and perhaps it's not for me to answer, as I feel I am fading into art as it was in the past.

You seem to feel that he has nothing to do with art, that art is what you and others do, and that groups like communication and media giants should stay away. Because of what? Is their influence any different than the Pope over Michelangelo?

Not that, its rather a sense of sadness that it has come to this. Not that artists like me are fading into souvenir producers, or something like that. You know, like those Red Indian shows that tourists are taken to to give them a taste of what America was like before the white man. But rather what has happened to the art establishment.

What is it exactly that we expect from art?

Perhaps we should rescue it from the clutches of exploitation, an exploitation which devalues art aesthetically.

I will continue this in the new thread.

I think what distinguishes commercial art is that it’s done for purposes other than self expression, like advertising and branding, or producing art for the primary purpose of making money.

In recent times art has become appropriated by and merged with other forms of media and capitalised on by communications and media giants* seeking to control what the masses are exposed to for commercial gain. More recently with the polarisation of communities and countries by populism, media and politics are co opted and exploited in an identity culture. I fully expect the arts to follow suit. Perhaps this is already happening in the rapid developments in animated entertainment and interactive gaming. Digital images.

Perhaps we should be asking what will art be, where will it go, will it even be called art?

*For example the way in which Saatchi and Saatchi both backed and promoted Brit Art in the 90's. By inflating the status of those artists to the global stage, they re-established Britain as an important player in the art world. They were advertising and communication giants using a small group of art students to give the Saatchi organisation and brand a gold plated message of prestige. I was there at the time and saw the art as soulless. Myself as a viewer in the Sensations galleries as being manipulated. We have art superstars like Anish kapoor producing soulless works on a gigantic scale to impress.

Meanwhile while all this is going on in the mainstream, thousands of artists like me work in more traditional ways, in the shadows, ignored by the mainstream and widely considered by the establishment as not producing Art, but some sort of antequated craft producing twee pictures for twee people to hang on their walls.

What is art becoming?

Either you're an American, or you're a ..........

I enjoyed your posts very much and your humility. In my own humility I am also on a journey through art, which is the joy of it. Please don't think that I disagree with anything you have said, or want to change your position, you should cherish it as I do and all artists, with a few exceptions, would.

Just remember that with all the intellectualising which critics and historians do, they are only trying to explain something intangible and difficult to intellectualise. The art itself stands alone and can be seen and known by everyone who has an interest.

So humanity is constrained by consciousness. How odd then that that is what art has always looked at - for all of cultures, and for all of time?

All this analysing of art is a recent development which has sprung out of academia and the interplay of artists striving to find something intangible and critics striving for some kind of explanation of the intangible. It's true it can help someone educate themselves in "the arts" and become cultured and it can be used as a guide on a journey of understanding and appreciation.

But it is not art, art is the result of a physical process, except perhaps conceptual art. This physical process is undergone by a physical body, true the mind and the consciousness is present and plays a role in the controlling the hand, or foot. Some artists are engaged in an endeavour to remove the mind from the process, or even the consciousness, in its various states. And for the artist often these things and issues are more important than what kind of art it is judged to be, if it is art, if it is good art, what box it goes into, or commentary on the mind of the artist by others.

Cezanne is not an Impressionist he’s a Post Impressionist, as is Gauguin.

As is Van Gogh.

So they have been put in boxes, good for the archivists I suppose.

There is an issue with critical interpretation of art in which art is reduced or compartmentalised by commentators, perhaps lecturers through an academic intellectualisation, which I pointed out in my first post in the thread.

I am surprised that you appear to have removed Gauguin from the naive art bracket, his work is clearly naive. Indeed the only way in which Cezanne makes it out of that bracket is by more clearly falling into the impressionist bracket. Once in that bracket the world is your oyster.

I agree that naive art is interesting, indeed is in the ascendant, hence Van Gogh is regarded by many as the greatest painter for quite a while.

I'm not being critical of artists, or looking to restrict their freedom in any way. In my comment which you referenced I was commenting on criticism of art and that if one were to criticise it, one ought to know how the recent movements of modernism and post modernism broke apart the critique of art purely on artistic prowess.

It will be interesting once reality hits with the EU negotiations. I suspect we will hear very little as Johnson's way is to hide from the media and scrutiny. Interesting if they are expecting a change of president in the US. Javid might be tangling us in the US China trade war, over tech and internet commerce etc.

I imagine painting bunnies could be, although a bunny would be an odd choice of subject matter for plein-air painting.

The genre is of local landscapes and scenery, including wildlife and pastoral subjects. The fact that it includes a lot of plein air painting is incidental. Yes, if there is a bunny it is usually a composition, as they run quite fast.

In regard to plein-air painting, of which I done a good amount, I would say that an impressionistic effect is primary rather than a decorative one.

Yes, when it's bunny's it's usually a decorative composition. When I say decorative, that does include decorative impressionist themes and techniques.

On a positive note, in the foreground the photorealism is impressive. :up:

I take it your response here is for me. Thanks for your praise, however the "clumsy" effect was meant to be like that. I use a technique in which I purposefully work in a slapdash way as part of the effect. Also, the hare ( bunny) is done quickly and slightly slapdash. I can work to a higher degree of photo realism, but I am not interested in that kind of precision, it is rather dull.

You see I am working within a genre local to me in which there is a lot of plein air painting done of landscapes and a tradition of painting hares for example. This work is done quickly with the overall decorative effect being primary.

I asked you what lifted it above an amateur in the eyes of the people who had seen it and liked it. They told me that it was the background which made it and particularly the willow twigs which are partially in focus.The ambiguity here gave the immediate sense of depth of view. As such it had merit in the eye of these people. At a guess, about 50 people, so you are outnumber 50 to 1.

Somehow I feel your criticism doesn't take into consideration the artists intent and the culture in which the artist is immersed. Likewise with Van Gogh.

Now it's your turn, can you provide a work and identify what in the work gives it merit?

It is the way I made parts of the picture appear to be out of focus. This was actually very easy to do, but it required a creative vision when conceiving the piece before making it.

So the merit of a work is not necessarily determined by how well it is depicted, but often subtle qualities of the composition, novel techniques, even approaches which seem counterintuitive. Van Gogh has achieved this in a number of ways, which give his work merit. His skill as a painter is irrelevant to this, also as an impressionist, he was not trying to give an accomplished rendition, but rather an impression experienced personally by himself.

Nice post about creativity, I would say that there are artists who choose not to seek recognition for their work because it would become an unwanted pressure on their work, a pressure causing them wanting to please others in how they do their work. The work of these people may be discovered after their death or long after they made them and be regarded to have great creative merit by the art world in their absence.

Also in movements in art, there are groups who work together in some way and push forward as a group effort, such as surrealism and cubism.

I'm not sure of the artistic merit of this thread so far, but touch wood it might shine through at some point.

P.s. You can edit, when you click on the tree dots at the bottom of your post, you will see a pencil, click on that and you can then edit your post.

let's start again and then come back to the issues.

This is a work I did last year, many people have said how they like it. What do you think lifts it above an average rendition of a hare by an amateur?



(A clue, it wasn't how well I depicted the hare.)