Hence the image above. They apparently did.

Art about art.

The nemesis of your definition? — Banno

Nah, that is totally captured. It is not possible to make art without expressing your consciousness.
Something I keep repeating every few posts, but not many seem to get it. :sad:

I haven't paid this thread much attention, because definitions are not all that helpful, but further, any definition of art will immediately encourage any sensible artist to produce something that does not meet that definition. — Banno

:up: Yes they would if they could!!

This definition is itself an artwork - in the form of a scientific, irreducible, and falsifiable definition of art. :smile:

The way it seems to me is philosophy of art is in the business of, ultimately, constraining art by defining it; a definition although good to have - we can know with 100% certainty what is and is not art, paving the way for deeper philosophical study of the subject - is, if one gives it some thought, a straitjacket - restricts/constrains/limits/ the artist by having to conform to the definition whatever that is. — TheMadFool

This definition doesn't restrict the artist in any way, other than in the understanding that art is not simply art about art - that it is always inherently meaningful. This has always been the case.

Without a definition anybody can just BS about art as they please. With a definition like this one, art becomes something substantial again.

It seems to me there are people actually defining art as: Everything, or anything — Santiago

A definition requires a constant. Strictly speaking art can be anything deemed to be art, but to do this would be an expression of consciousness. Of course everything is an expression of consciousness, so it is also a constant in art - this allows a definition of art in terms of consciousness. When we examine what consciousness is, we find we are expressing self organization. Of course, what else could we possibly be expressing?

People can accept that everything can be art. And they can accept that everything is an expression of consciousness. But many cannot accept that therefore: art is an expression of consciousness.

That's because they are used to constructing invisible metaphysical "structures" that are an essential part of their personal reality. — Gnomon

I would say, these all have their physical manifestation as the neural patterning of our brain. The main advantage of this is that it allows a regular treatment of everything, in a monistic manner. This allows one to push through the problem of mind and continue a theory of informational bodies.

Whilst you are free to believe what you wish, an immaterial mind has no information, so it is a dead end theoretically. Note, only physical things that have form have information - there are no distinctions in immateriality. You need those distinctions for information.

but it also allows scientists and mathematicians to manipulate things, such as Dark Matter, that have no sensible material substance, — Gnomon

We can not know anything about dark matter because it has no form, as yet. It is effectively immaterial, apart from the neural patterning that gives rise to the dark matter concept.

BTW. I heard an interesting description of reality recently: Information and energy are two different aspects of reality, which when integrated create matter. It made me think, what if information existed in the mind, and external to mind exists an energetic scaffolding, when in Enactivist fashion the two are integrated, material reality is created. It would beg the question - is matter real? :lol:

The outcome is informational realism, the view that the world is the totality of informational objects dynamically interacting with each other. — Gnomon

:up: This is the new reality.

Ad Enactivist view: This means, the perception of the structure of an object and the resulting information for the subject causes in some way the structure of the perceived object? — Mersi

Yes. It is quite different to naive realism. It would mean such things as light waves and vibrations interacting with established neural information to create what we normally understand to be matter.

I fear this requires a logic which is either so complicated (full of exceptions) that it is useless in everyday life, or so trivial that it is useless too. — Mersi

Not sure what you mean? I would say the information philosopher's definition of old fashioned information - to inform - to literally change the shape or form of something, is the obvious definition of information. The information philosophy that then results from this, is pretty complicated, but that is always the case when learning something new.

He thinks this is pragmatics, what you might call self processing information, and I don't disagree. But then he makes the critical move toward the aesthetic IN experience. You are not willing to this, it seems. — Constance

Art is an expression of consciousness. At it's simplest, consciousness is mind activity. Although art is not exclusively an expression of mind activity, this is the singular thing we find in works of art - always. Every work of art ever made has to be an expression of mind activity, agreed?

Mind activity is experiential. Phenomenology elucidates mind activity very well. It elucidates how human consciousness self organizes. How cognition is a disturbance in a state, how an emotion is felt due to the implications of the disturbance, and how the state reintegrates. it outlines how a self realigns itself due to this process, and so is a product of this process, agreed?

So, art is an expression of mind activity, and mind activity is experiential, agreed?

The term consciousness already encompasses the experiential mind activity that composes it.

The experiential mind activity that creates consciousness is endlessly variable and open ended - we can see this in the art it creates - how it is always evolving- with no end in sight. Agreed? So it is not possible to define anything in terms of this, as it is endlessly variable, and open ended! And will continue to evolve into things we cannot possibly imagine.

So we are left with only mind activity to define art with. Agreed?

Hence art work is information about the artist's consciousness - This is all we can say that is. This information is present in every work of art. We cannot reduce this any further, and we can not add to it. Anything we add to this expression is not a constant of art. Only this expression is constant in art. So it is the only way to define art. Art can be defined to this extent and no further,.

Good Art - Bad Art

Consciousness is also about awareness. The difference between good art and bad art is the awareness of the artist. Great art displays an unusual - far from usual awareness of it's subject matter. Great art exceeds the normal expectation of art through the artists awareness of an extra dimension to the subject matter, that normal art does not see. This way great art can result in a shift in paradigm, about it's subject matter. We can not predict what the subject matter will be, but we can predict great art will have a mastery of it, and will provide avenues to go beyond the norm. So it is an expansion of consciousness about a subject matter. Human consciousness exists in a paradigm, and great art is enlightened compared to the norm, and can be a shift in paradigm. This is the story of art historically. This is how art progressed historically, and then post modernism put a spanner in the works :sad: but nevertheless art continues to progress in this way as it is a function of human consciousness, and this is what human consciousness does - it evolves and progresses. How can art not be information about this?

I agree. — Mark Nyquist

If brain state is a physical patterning however, then information is a change to this physical patterning, then a brain is a body of past information, just like everything else is, and this leads to a theory of everything as evolving bodies of information. — Pop

We can be certain that everything exists as a body of information, as that is how it must exist in the physical patterning of our brains. This is not to suggest solipsism, but to suggest that everything physical in the universe exists in the same way - as an evolving body of information, as I see it anyway.

I agree. The example is just to show how someone could hold this view but in fact it would be held as a physical state...brain state. — Mark Nyquist

Oh, I see. Cool, we can continue to speculate then! :smile:

I like the definition of brain state is information. It could be the case that brain function is so advanced that most people just think everything is information. — Mark Nyquist

BRAIN(I have an immaterial mind) = BRAIN(mental content) = brain state = specific information — Mark Nyquist

Brain state as immaterial mind, is pretty much the end of the road theoretically. Once information becomes something immaterial we can not say much else about it.

If brain state is a physical patterning however, then information is a change to this physical patterning, then a brain is a body of past information, just like everything else is, and this leads to a theory of everything as evolving bodies of information.

My opinion, is this doesn't involve information but is an entirely physical process. — Mark Nyquist

Turing was such a brilliant mind. He really deserved to be celebrated like Einstein, not treated the way he was.

I'm starting to see information as an entirely physical process. It seems to be physical everywhere else as the interaction of systems - causing a change in them. But I have some work ahead of me if I am going to convince immaterial minds. :smile:

But mind activity is nonspecific — Constance

It is specifically self organization - mind activity is always self organization. Consciousness is an evolving process of self organization. But the next question will be - what is self organization? This I don't know exactly, but it is the thing that causes the self assembly of everything in the universe. Ultimately this is what art is expressing.

A dozen people could do the same kit and all the resulting paintings would be rather indistinguishable. — praxis

Original artwork can express a lot about a person, including their skill at expressing themselves. — praxis

But wouldn't this situation be an expression of their consciousness rather then aesthetics?

Not necessarily, no. In commercial art, the intention is to express the values of the client in a way that will resonate with a particular audience, for the purpose of making money. — praxis

Commercial art is still an expression of consciousness, but this time in respect to achieving the aims of the client. It is still an expression of your self organization, in that this is how you have chosen to organize your life

The aesthetic is affect, though this is not to say if one screams in contempt she is making art. It is to say that when one takes up an object AS art, the screaming in contempt can be art. — Constance

I am going to take issue with this. What you cannot define is emotion, affect. This is a given, irreducible. — Constance

The thing that everybody is missing is that a definition of art requires the identification of an attribute that is constantly present in art. There is only one thing constantly present in art, and everything else is variable, and optionally present. The constant is the mind activity expressed in the form of the art. — Pop

**The form of the artist's consciousness, creates the form of the art, which effects the form of the observers consciousness, on, and on.
This is how information works - it changes the form of the system it interacts with.

Information in the sense that it informs? What's the driving force of the sellf organizing structures? How do the patterns on insects or tigers, or giraffes come about? What makes them different? How do the wings of a butterfly and the figures on it come about? Is it a coincidence that some patterns have skull shapes? How does the body of the chameleon change color? — Platoon

Turing patterns are fascinating. What is the source of self organization - that is the 64billion dollar question - now billions due to inflation. :lol:

Mind activity is expressed in everything we do, so you must mean a specific kind of activity. Let's call it 'neural art activity' or NAA for convenience. Now if I were to buy a paint-by-numbers kit and I followed it to the letter, would the resulting painting be an artwork? To others, it could certainly be regarded as artwork because it looks like artwork — praxis

An artist is free to choose the form of their art, including paint by numbers ( which I think has been done ) but the choice they make reveals their person - it reveals where their heads are at, so expresses their consciousness. It expresses how they think, what they have been influenced by, their attitudes to life - it expresses how information they have been shaped by has formed them - they in turn re-present this information in the form of their art.

You might say that the NAA came from the people who designed the paint-by-numbers kit, but they might have simply used a photograph and a computer algorithm to produce it, and their efforts were solely for the purpose of producing paint-by-number kits and making a profit. — praxis

Understanding the background - the context that the art is made in is important to understanding the art. In the instance you bring up, you understand the artist needs to make a buck, and so the work should be viewed in this light. The art is still information about the artists self organization?

You still haven't explained (as far as I can tell) why consciousness matters here? If art is consciousness and self-organization, then what? Isn't everything? Taking a shit is consciousness and self-organization and so is Rembrandt's The Night Watch - reconcile the two for us? How does this possibly assist us in gaining any clarity about art? — Tom Storm

The thing that everybody is missing is that a definition of art requires the identification of an attribute that is constantly present in art. There is only one thing constantly present in art, and everything else is variable, and optionally present. The constant is the mind activity expressed in the form of the art.
That is it! that is all that is constantly present. As we analyze this mind activity, we find it is to do with self organization - the artist makes art in the course of life, and the art reveals their attitude to life in it's form, broadly speaking. — Pop

What I have not understood yet: Do you believe that we influence (In what way ever) the structure of an object when we perceive it and process this perception as information in the way mentioned above? — Mersi

Yes, imo. This is the Enactivist view: that information from the world acts on us, and we in turn act on the world, and what is resolved is an amalgam of the two. We get a sense of this by understanding that colour does not exist in the external world, according to science.

Yes. At the early stages of the Information Age and Computer Era, Cybernetics was a novel concept, which took a holistic approach to all processes. — Gnomon

Yes, after some research, it was a very broad interdisciplinary approach - that swarmed around the control of systems, which seems to have led to the concept of holism, self organization, and then later to the Enactivist view of subject / object, amongst many other things.

As I study information in the sense that it informs ( shapes ) its potential power is growing in my mind.

The real point is your lack of a clear idea of what art is when your whole intention is give a definition of art. — Constance

I define it to the extent that it can be defined, in the terms that can define it. It is not possible to define art in terms of aesthetics as they are endlessly variable and open ended- aesthetics will continue to evolve in line with human consciousness.

Also as @RussellA has pointed out aesthetics do not reside in the art work itself, but in the interaction
of art work and observer - they are the result of this experience. You can not define this experience - ever. True it always exists, but it does nor exist in any constant way. Hence art that is beautiful to one person, can be ugly to the next. What is a urinal in one era, is great art in the next.

The thing that everybody is missing is that a definition of art requires the identification of an attribute that is constantly present in art. There is only one thing constantly present in art, and everything else is variable, and optionally present. The constant is the mind activity expressed in the form of the art.
That is it! that is all that is constantly present. As we analyze this mind activity, we find it is to do with self organization - the artist makes art in the course of life, and the art reveals their attitude to life in it's form, broadly speaking.

The artist is free to make anything into art, but makes a choice in the context of a larger scene evolving around them, this choice reveals their consciousness. In the midst of a war, if I paint flowers, such a choice says something about me. It reveals where my head is at. A similar such situation always exists, and an artist makes choices about art within this larger evolving context. The choices they make reveals where their heads are at, what is their consciousness, and how they self organize.

Dewey holds the aesthetic to be the essence of art. — Constance

"Art is not the possession of the few who are recognized writers, painters, musicians; it is the authentic expression of any and all individuality. Those who have the gift of creative expression in unusually large measure disclose the meaning of the individuality of others to those others. In participating in the work of art, they become artists in their activity. They learn to know and honor individuality in whatever form it appears. The fountains of creative activity are discovered and released. The free individuality which is the source of art is also the final source of creative development in time." Time and Individuality — Tom Storm

Seems to me Dewey is saying "Free individuality" is the essence of art, which aligns with my view that it is consciousness, and more specifically self organization.

Example of symmetrical action: Two clones lay on tables equally apart from each other. The entire room is symmetrical. No matter what any of the two are looking at, they get the same perspective of experience in environment. — ExistenceofSelf

Nevertheless they each have their own space and time, according to relativity. So their total information is not identical.

I think it's important to emphasize that, in it's meaningful form, Information is immaterial. — Gnomon

I wanted to emphasize that information is physical in the sense that it causes our brain patterning to change. I respect your interpretation, although I do not agree with it myself, but I don't think we are people who would let a little disagreement like that stand between us. :smile:

:up: Yeah the pattern really illustrates how something might become distinct.

Do you know much about Cybernetics? It seemed to start with a bang, but then fizzled out, any idea why?

Besides that I don't like it, it is factually wrong. — ArisTootelEs

:roll: How?

Yep. So in the end we're back to that old fashioned notion of personal taste. — Tom Storm

But now we know what that means?

Like you define it, art becomes empty and meaningless. Just some vague idea about information, self-organising structures, and "consciencenesses" (why don't you say "people"?) is introduced. I'm sorry to say but your definition is inhuman. — ArisTootelEs

I think art is confused and often meaningless in its current state, and was recently well symbolized by a banana nailed to a wall. Whether you like the definition or not, it is what is always present in art, so is the only way to define art. Art can be defined, but only to this extent, and not to everybody's satisfaction.

Thanks - I have quite a bit of catching up to do! :smile:

Do you mean the operator in this case would be the forces of the vector field - Operating on the particle?

Thanks for that. What is meant by an operator valued distribution?

I'm partly in sympathy with this except that a genuine conversation has more clarity and is an exchange and we can ask for clarifications - art is often deliberately irrational and symbolic and hard to discern. Also, artists can notoriously disguise their true selves behind a wall of craft. — Tom Storm

Yes, it is not at all clear cut, but roughly it provides such information, imo. Art symbolizes a certain attitude, or mindset, or understanding, and If I agree with the understanding symbolized then it is something that I would consider hanging on my wall. Likewise Rap symbolizes a certain cultural view, but it is not one I can warm to, so I do not listen to it.

Yes, I think the Information philosopher's definition is the obvious one - to inform - to literally change the shape of. This is what information does in systems theory physically. As @Gnomon says -"The original referent, of the verb "to inform", was to the invisible & intangible contents of a human mind". I would disagree that it is invisible and intangible, I would say information has its neural correlates. So information has the power to physically shape us.

This meaning of the word information, has dropped out of common usage, it seems. As has the term Cybernatics.

Well done! This is always an issue, you just can not trust anything without examining it in great detail yourself. :sad: I think the logic of a time of interaction and processing before determination to a point of consciousness seems right. Of course, an interaction where one thing is distinct against another may also explain it - is this what you are thinking?

I really don't think this is true. It's more like an artist's work is like a seed. Something grows from that seed in the viewer or listener. — frank

Possibly there is an element of that going on, but this would not negate the view that it is a meeting of minds?

But doesn't this also describe any experience humans have, — Tom Storm

Yes, it is no different really. The only difference is that the artist is not there. What is there is something that represents him / her - entangled into the form of an evolving idiomatic ungrounded variable mental construct called art.

When you create art you are giving me information about your consciousness, and subconsciousness. You tell me how you understand art by showing me what you use it for. You give me an insight into your intelligence, your intent, your sympathies, your talent, your demographic, your politics, your spiritual beliefs, etc, etc. A whole bunch of information which I have to interpret with my consciousness, just like a conversation on TPF.

**You could say art is symbolic of the self that created it, but really it is symbolic of self organization - which is much the same thing.

But the idea is that to perceive at all is inherently aesthetic — Constance

Yes, to perceive is inherently experiential, so emotional - has feeling and quality. This begs the question how are aesthetics relevant to art exclusively? The answer is that they are not. This would be a confusion of what art is about. Art is about mind meeting mind, but in this process information of various kinds can be entangled into the form of the artwork, including aesthetic information, but this is just one of the many different forms of information that can be entangled in art. Revolution can also be entangled into it. Really, it is as flexible as any form of communication.

Artist's generally speak of the style of their work as a language.

Art is about mind meeting mind, so an expression of consciousness.

If you want to describe what goes on in in experience as self organizing, you will have further trouble accounting for what this self is that is autonomously at work. Are you treating the self as something that is its own presupposition? — Constance

How is a "self" different to one's consciousness? If art is an expression of consciousness, then art is also an expression of self. Art work is information about the artist's "self".

In systems theory, a self is an artefact of the self organizing process. All natural systems are self organizing, and the result of this organization is the production of a self. A self can be an individual, a group of people like a family, a collective of people - like the characters of this forum - when considered as a whole interactive community, or a really complex system like a an economy. All self organizing systems integrate information much like a black hole, where the information that defines a system becomes more and more dense, such as to distinguish a self.

In information theory ( my personal interpretation ) a "self" is information about the way information has organized itself.

In phenomenology, a self evolves with the experiential process, where cognition disturbs the state of a system, a corresponding emotion is felt, and the system reintegrates. A self aligns itself to meet the consequences of the experience - so is the result of this process, in an endlessly evolving fashion.

Summary
For both postmodernism and modernism, as the meaning of any artwork resides in the mind of the artist or observer and not the artwork, and as quality is a mental concept, then the quality of the artwork resides not in the artwork but in the mind of the artist, or observer — RussellA

:up: Very well put.

The first step is to visualize a vector field: — jgill

The way I am starting to understand this from an information theoretic is: The particle is a body of information being acted upon by an informational field that is forming and determining the particle, in shape and direction.

Consciousness is a similar such body of information that is formed from and determined entirely by information acting upon it.

It issues from what is always already there. — Constance

:up: In systems theory what is always there - what is common to all systems, is self organization.
In information theory, it is information that self organizes. In Yogic logic this self organizing element present in everything is consciousness.

I have said art work is information about an artists consciousness, and I have defined consciousness as an evolving process of self organization. So art work is an expression of the artists evolving process of self organization. This IS the something that is always there. There are no other somethings always there. All the other somethings are variable, and open ended - and continually emerging.

I think we just misunderstand each other rather then disagree. Perhaps disagree on expressive style. :smile:

only when integrated into a holistic concept, does information become conscious meaning — Gnomon

:up: Yep!

1. Potential information exists in the book on a shelf

2. Actual information occurs when we read it - interact with it.

3. Consciousness occurs when this interaction is integrated with past informational structure - ( knowledge).

The wavefunction is probabilistic / potential information, when interacted with it's potential is collapsed to a point, which gives rise to a moment of clarity - which is consciousness.

There is no way in hell you can know this from the currently prevalent definitions of information out there, and I wonder why?? The definition of information as provided by the Information Philosopher is the obvious definition of information - to inform - to literally shape, Is not present in any of the dictionaries, wikipedia, etc.

Information informs, gives shape to things. Only information gives shape to things. Anything that gives shape to things is information. And, everything is information from every perspective.

So, it is plain to see why Information Philosophy is important.

** in systems theory all things are systems.

** I think now it is something like this. This would agree with this and this study which would suggest the information process lasts 1-400ms, and then consciousness arises at the end of this. Must be in between information processing. Of course we can only conceptualize it to some extent.

Incidentally Pop, I can be pretty plain spoken and direct. Some can be offended. You handle this very well. — Constance

No problem at all. :smile: You raise reasonable objections in an intelligent manner - what more can one ask for?

the medium is just the catalyst, the vehicle through which art is communicated. — Constance

:up: Art is an expression of human consciousness. It seems we agree on this, just disagree on the language perhaps.

See Dewey's Art as Experience — Constance

Dewey says something similar to me, but in romantic language:

"The free individuality which is the source of art is also the final source of creative development in time."

Let me translate: The self organization of the individual which is the source of art, is also the source of all self organization in time - universally. In other words, this element that is being expressed in art, has its ontological roots in the self organization of the universe. What the universe expresses and what art expresses are the same thing. It seems to me this is the pinnacle of what can possibly be expressed, and any talk of aesthetics just diminishes and confuses this.

But the real event is interior, in the interpretative milieu of mind. Also, you would need to identify what this essence is. Is it form? And what is meaning as an aesthetic idea, not what language produces fit for a dictionary. — Constance

Identifying that art is an expression of consciousness does this, but then to say consciousness can only exists in respect to aesthetics, or in line with some limited conception of subjectivity, is an error, as consciousness is open ended and will continue to grow, in ways we cannot imagine, and art will reflect this.

The reason I am saying this is that art is certainly NOT information in its essence. — Constance

Everything is information from every perspective. All the disciplines are coming around to understand this. It is the way of the future my friend! :smile: There is a thread open, and I will post more in time, if you are interested in joining the conversation. The information game is just a notch deeper then Wit's word game, imo.

And what does predicting something have to do with defining art? Does this mean with your theory, an object that comes up can be measured by a reliable standard to make the determination as to whether it is art or not? How? — Constance

The definition defines the elements present in art "always - for all time" and discards the elements that are only sometimes present in art. Art work understood as information about the artists consciousness is valid for the first cave art, and it will be valid for the last art ever created, as well as all art in between. It is the only element that is constant in art - all the other elements - aesthetics, subjectivity, beauty, etc are endlessly variable and open ended, so art can not possibly be defined in terms of them, as they are not always present, and the forms of them that will be present in future is unpredictable. It is a definition of art, not a subjective response to what are the best things about art, as most art oratory and definitions seem to be.

But why do you think the analysis of the nature of art rests with organizing? — Constance

Self organization is a concept in Systems Theory that is a place holder for the source of all creation in the universe. Systems theory is pretty much a theory of everything, especially when coupled with emergent information theory. It is a way of seeing what it is all about.

It brings up such questions as who "self organized" first - God or us?

Art expresses this self organization. Most art theory is oblivious to it. I'm surprised by Dewey's intuition though, given he predates these theories. I'm not surprised by his romantic expression however - it reflects the collective consciousness at the time. His work too is information about his consciousness.
By focusing on how consciousness is expressed, you start to understand why the form of something is the way it is, and perhaps start to understand what makes art Art.