You won't get any argument from me( tongue in cheek).

I was referring to the piece above and the Einojuhani Rautavaara piece.
Thanks again.

I will respond to your posts later as I am out at the moment. But have you had a few drinks or something? You keep asking people to restate what they stated in the previous post, or the one before that.

I feel your pain.

P.s. thanks for bringing me to some great pieces of music.

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

I agree, the immersion in the art world as an artist and a viewer is what is fulfilling for me.

Are you put off by the level of debate, or is it the lack of discussion of music?

The art world moved on from such naive interpretation a long time ago.
— Punshhh

Brett,
What's naive about it?

The developments in art during the 20th Century broke the critical perspectives in art in which art could not be appreciated unless the artist was displaying traditionally accepted artist prowess. This allowed naive artists to be appreciated and artists exploring other and novel approaches.

Presumably you would be educated in such developments before criticising Van Gogh on a platform like this. I don't wish to sensure you, but you should expect commentators who have many years of understanding and contemplation on all these issues to be found here and it will be pointed out.

Which is?

I did write this in reply to you yesterday.

"There is within the world of the critic and the connoisseur of art a narrative about this, which does include the international art market. Which does rate artists to a degree and in terms of 19th and 20th Century art Van Gogh is possibly in the lead currently, or perhaps head to head with Picasso"

'It's currently under debate whether Gauguin should be celebrated/displayed anywhere, because (contrary to the Lolita example) he was actually erotically displaying underage girls that he apparently molested/raped in real life....

It probably says more about the level of sensure in the country in which the gallery considering this is to be found. In the UK, I think the repulsion of sensure would not allow someone like Gauguin to be sensured. Whereas artists clearly breaking the law in this way at home in the recent past are vilified, for example Garry Glitter, Michael Jackson, Jimmy Saville.

some of his works I do find moving and deeply meaningful.
— Punshhh

Brett
What exactly does this mean?

You know your favourite piece of music, an emotionally evocative piece. Well it's like that in relation to a painting.

That’s because it is pedestrian. Mid year high school kids paint like that, which is Van Gogh’s level, everything so literal, so clumsy and flat footed.

Edit: just an interesting note. Are we allowed to say Van Gogh’s no good?

Of course you're allowed to not like his work, but if you claim he's no good and say why on a Philosophy of art forum, you are going to get shot down. Principally because you are implying that either the world of art appreciation (which I described a couple of posts back) is wrong, or that their position is in line with your personal opinion.

You say his work is "pedestrian, everything is literal, so clumsy and flat footed". These aspects of his work are irrelevant for those who appreciate his work. Have you not taken on board the hard won freedoms in artistic expression won by the modernists and post modernists? The art world moved on from such naive interpretation a long time ago.

I’ve always loved his work and think it’s brilliant. It’s just that we should probably acknowledge that the value we place on art is often fictional, like money or rare gems (that aren’t actually so rare]

Yes, I agree, Van Gogh is popular at the moment, that will change. In my reply to Brett, I qualified my comments about Van Gogh, by saying that in the end it comes down to personal likes and dislikes. It took me a long time to get Van Gogh's work, like many other artists. But my approach is that I am on a journey and at no point do I dismiss any work and always go back and reassess artists and their work. I adopt a position of humility and give the artist the benefit of the doubt. I have always struggled with Matisse, I continually fail to see any merit in his work, but perhaps one day I will see the light.

I don't prefer Picasso over Van Gogh, although I see him as a close second. I was talking of who was preferred by the public, or art world. Personally, I am not a big fan of Cubism, although I do like Picasso's interpretation of Cubism and some of his works I do find moving and deeply meaningful. For me Van Gogh equals this, with an unparalleled vibrancy and immediacy as well. I think he achieves something which many artists struggle with, imparting the vibrancy and depth of light and intensity of colour which we all experience in the world. I struggle with this in my work and it is devilishly difficult to achieve. He literally invented his own method of painting, which is unique and achieved this without falling into the various traps in which artists fail, or over compensate for this in paintings.

Here is one of my favourites, I haven't seen another painting of a sunset with so much depth.

I have to agree with you about Van Gogh, unparalleled, except possibly by Picasso.

I think you'll find that Van Gogh is head and shoulders above Cezanne and Gaugan amongst connoisseurs of art. I can explain why tomorrow. More importantly and in line with this discussion, you know how it is not so easy to define art, or establish its meaning as we have found in this thread. Well it is equally so when it comes to establishing who is better an artist than someone else. The best we can do is say who we prefer. There is within the world of the critic and the connoisseur of art a narrative about this, which does include the international art market. Which does rate artists to a degree and in terms of 19th and 20th Century art Van Gogh is possibly in the lead currently, or perhaps head to head with Picasso. Cezanne, would be in the following group, which is hotly debated. Personally Degas, Dali, Toulouse Lautrec, are ahead of Cezanne for me, having established that Van Gogh and Picasso are way out in the lead.

is a bacteria conscious?
— Punshhh

You have already asked me that - no, I don't see any good evidence that bacteria are conscious.

You didn't answer it, you said bacteria don't have minds. But now it seems that a mind is something associated with a brain and bacteria don't appear to have a brain( although you don't think a mind requires neurons), therefore a bacteria can't be conscious by definition.

As scientists admit that they don't know what consciousness is, or how, or where it is produced, we can't therefore assume that organisms like bacteria aren't conscious.

So what is required for a thing to have a mind?

You keep bringing up the conflation thing and you also did in another context with Brett, I don't see the relevance and am not confused about it, I am well aware of the difference between states and objects, or things.

Pop,
Why did Van Gogh paint as he did?

Brett,
Because he couldn’t paint and had no idea what he was doing.


pop,
How could they be popularly perceived as ugly when no one knew about them?

Van Gogh, could paint, but he was trying to develop his own unique style and he was so successful that his works hold some of the highest values in the art market.

Thanks, I don't see what Greta has for her to be optimistic about. I thought she was calling them out for inaction.

Well, my only slight alteration would be that the artist can't just point and call something art. S/he has to engage in some act of creation.

Surely the act of saying something is art is the alteration.

I am not disagreeing with you, I am largely in agreement, there is only a nuance of difference, I think.

Yes I view the whole word aesthetically. It is rather like a realisation I had years ago, I have a very broad sense of humour, in fact I reached a point where everything became funny, at that moment I started laughing, it wasn't quite uncontrollable, but I did have to control it, or I would have got cramp in my cheek muscles. An equivalent thing happened with seeing everything as art.

Ok, if that's the definition you're using it makes more sense.

So the definition of a mind, is that which hosts a conscious state. This confirms what I was suggesting, that you appear to be calling mind consciousness and consciousness mind. Are you saying a mind has consciousness by definition. And consciousness only occurs in minds by definition?

Just a few more questions to clarify, is a bacteria conscious? Does a mind require neurons? What do you call the self aware consciousness found in a human?

I'm open to other intelligent beings creating art and kinds of proto-art. But we should be clear that being "artistic" as in, having art-like qualities, is different from, though overlapping category with "art."

Yes, perhaps these are two categories which can be considered when defining art. I have often thought of the artistry in a spider's web. Or the lack of artistry in many pieces produced in the Brit Art movement.

Movements like Brit Art were pushing the boundaries of art, but in an art world in which in theory, anything was art provided an artist said it was Art. I put artist in italics because in that world 'artist' meant a person who had gone to certain colleges and been adopted by certain patrons.

So anything could be art, but only certain people could be artists.

However, this is just too much to go along with. If everything is art then there is no art.

You are free to find this to much to go along with, I am further along the spectrum than this, the end where far more can be considered for artistic merit. My opinion on this is that organisms by their nature can perform actions equating to the actions of intelligent artists, like the Bower bird, or a spider spinning a web.

Edit: and the discussion has to be about more than opinion, don’t you think?

I don't think it can be answered in a definitive way other than by reference to the idea that it is a phenomena of humans activity emergent from human culture. But this is a vague definition and doesn't answer many questions about art.

When I was a student I went to great lengths to find out and understand the meaning of art. I came away with little more than that it came down to personal opinion and preference. I then followed the path of exploring my own journey in art, which included becoming one myself.

I would point out, as I did in my first post on this thread that the art movements of modernism, post modernism and post post modernism, exploded the theory of art and what art is

Sorry, I didn’t mean you personally. I was a bit casual about wording my post.

No worries, my response came out more as a rebuttal than was intended.

Edit: what I meant was that if someone’s perception of art is from a mystical point of view then there’s nowhere to go after that, because it can’t be proved or disproved.

You will only find me raising mystical viewpoints when I am specifically discussing metaphysics. It does'nt apply here.

Either you're an American or you're a Democrat, oh well you might be a profit of doom, I suppose.

No, it is because they don't have a brain and minds seem to be associated with brains, not mere cells. For example there seems to be precisely one mind - my mind - associated with this body - my body. Yet my body is composed of many, many cells. It has one brain, but lots and lots of cells. And doing things to my brain clearly affects what goes on in my mind. Thus the evidence is fairly overwhelming that minds are associated with brains. Trees and bacteria do not possess these things, and thus it is unreasonable to attribute minds to them.

And they don't produce art, do they?

I didn't attribute minds to trees and bacteria. I said they may be conscious and that they produce art.

The reason I asked you these questions about animals and plants was to determine what you mean by the word mind. You seem to be saying that mind is some kind of self awareness and includes all the nervous activity in the brain associated with the functioning of the body and intellect. That is a very broad use of the word and explains the confusion.

You are attributing mind to certain states and functions in the body which are not normally associated with the human mind. States of what I would describe as consciousness. The problem with this definition is that it sets an arbritary definition of what organisms are conscious by conflating consciousness with mind and claiming that organisms which don't have a brain, or something equating to a brain cannot be conscious, I would suggest this is rather naive. Surely a tree is conscious of its environment in some way, because it reacts is subtle and sophisticated ways to its environment as a responsive living organism, indeed in ways which are very artistic. I have a slice across the trunk of a tree highly polished hanging on my wall, in my opinion, it is equally as artistic as the Picasso on the wall next to it.

If your position is that it can’t be understood, then that’s fine, but it means you have nothing to offer.

I have by definition offered something relevant, or meaningful to the discussion, I have pasted a work I produced only a couple of days ago. So if my intellectual contribution turns out to be meaningless, or irrelevant to the discussion, is now irrelevant. I along with Qwex have produced the most real, concrete contribution to the thread, a work of art.

Is that your position, that what defines an artist changes over time? That someone like Michelangelo is no artist because we no longer regard him as an artist?

Yes, but it's more complicated than that because there is a spectrum of opinion within the culture as to what constitutes art. So whether a person regards Michelangelo as an artist depends on who you ask along that spectrum, as well as where the evolution of art is at that moment within the culture.

They are part of the universal mind, 'spirits' probably use trees.

I agree, art is what is produced by things with 'spirits', 'consciousness', things which are alive and this includes the entire biosphere.

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.