Because morality is extremely complicated, and you can start with a very simple example that's easy for others to comprehend. — Philosophim

I don't agree. Most philosophical thought experiments are silly. To have any value, a thought experiment should take into account the issues we see in the real world. It can still be simple, but it has to be real.

Whether Heidegger was a Nazi or not (for me) may well taint our experience of his work, but it says little or nothing about whether the work is any good. — Tom Storm

Yes.

Because morality is extremely complicated, and you can start with a very simple example that's easy for others to comprehend. — Philosophim

Sorry, I feel like I've waylaid your discussion. I know this wasn't the direction you wanted to take it.

Do you agree that the philosopher must uphold, almost, a fiduciary duty towards the public, in terms of living a certain life? — Shawn

Anyone who accepts anything any philosopher ever says without reflection is a fool. We're not supposed to use philosophy to tell us how to think. We're supposed to use it as a guide to insight. We have to discover the world ourselves. Philosophy is just a road map. We are responsible for what we believe and how it leads us to act, not any philosopher.

So - the philosophy stands on its own feet, although a philosopher's life might lead me to choose whether or not to read their works.

In the light of the video above, where folks were placed in a situation that they really believed that was almost exactly the trolley problem, it is clearly a possible scenario, — unenlightened

How often would that type of scenario actually happen in the real world. Answer - almost never. Given that, why has this become such a centerpiece of moral philosophy?

one has to suspect that you have other reasons to hate it. — unenlightened

Naughty, naughty. You know that questioning motive is not a valid philosophical argument. Perhaps you have another reason to make that kind of argument.

I think this problem is morally irrelevant. — Benkei

Yes, I hate the trolley problem. It's one of those things that gives philosophy a bad name. It's nothing like any person will ever have to face in the real world. I wasn't going to say anything and sidetrack the discussion, but you gave me an opening.

Yes, and not only Europe and China. — Jamal

You just sent me on a 30 minute Wikipedia walk through Mongol and Turkic history in central and western Asia.

[reply

I've been interested in the Mongol's since I was a boy. — Maw

The thing that fascinates me is how big an impact they had on the history of Europe and China and how little we hear about them.

I'll check to see if it is available. Thanks.

I'm not going to participate in your thread because I don't agree with some of your previous points, but I really like the way you set it up. You've made it easier to get at the points you want to examine by making the boundaries of the discussion clear. I wish more people would do that in their OPs.

I would suggest that those images naturally trigger "pleasant" feelings. And while you referenced them to illustrate that pleasant feeling do not necessarily make something art, I think what you have referenced has a direct relationship with art. — ENOAH

That wasn't exactly my point. @flannel jesus wrote

AI imagery shouldn't be <enjoyed? purchased? appreciated? created?> because it doesn't take any effort and isn't a venue for human communication". — flannel jesus

My response was to point out that even if [whatever we call it] created by artificial intelligence isn't art, it still may be worth enjoying, purchasing, appreciating, creating.

This has been an interesting conversation, but I think we have taken it as far as I want to for now.

Then the Biden administration actively worked with Bragg's office to revive and prosecute the case. — fishfry

This is a lie.

haven't we come a far far far way from what got Nixon and Clinton ousted from the presidency. — Shawn

Clinton (I assume you mean Bill) was not ousted. He completed two full terms.

Ok, do you think ai art counts as art? — flannel jesus

I'm not sure. I'll think about it.

I really don't trust it. — fdrake

Yes. Never trust Cormac McCarthy. He is ruthless with both his characters and his readers.

"AI imagery shouldn't be <enjoyed? purchased? appreciated? created?> because it doesn't take any effort and isn't a venue for human communication" — flannel jesus

If you start a thread with a game like that, I'll play. On the other hand, there are many things I wouldn't consider art that are worthy of being enjoyed, purchased, and appreciated even though they don't take any effort or involvement communication - sunsets, landscapes, people's faces... No, let's not have a discussion as to whether or not those should be considered art.

For clarity, I'm not saying "it's pointless to talk about what art means to various people", I'm more saying, "it's pointless to make it your mission to convince other people with different definitions that your definition is the right one", which is apparently the goal of the guy I was talking to. You see the difference? — flannel jesus

Sure. I've tried to be clear in my post that my definitions are what works for me, what helps me think about the subject clearly. On the other hand, if we want to talk about art, which I do, we have to all be talking about the same thing. Beyond that, I love words and I love definitions. I play a game where I'll come across a word I'm familiar with and try to come up with a definition. I'm surprised how often I have trouble.

Self-awareness for you, and perhaps mental masturbation for others. — Tom Storm

That's true of just about all the discussions on the forum for someone. I think many philosophical questions are silly - mind/brain, free will/determinism, hard problem of consciousness, anti-natalism... I participated in those arguments, sometimes vigorously, till I figured out how pointless and intellectually unfruitful they are. Lots of frustration with little or no satisfaction beyond the opportunity to vent my spleen. Now I generally avoid participating in those types of discussions unless I have something constructive to contribute. When I don't I usually regret it and often behave badly. Who needs it.

Maybe there's use in those debates but... it's hard to see — flannel jesus

Some clarifications are useful and help us to manage our lives. — Tom Storm

I find this kind of discussion interesting and helpful because it lets me sort out how different kinds of creations affect me in different ways, how I experience them. It's about self-awareness. If you're not interested in that kind of discussion, you don't have to participate.

There is nothing like coming back to Murakami after a while. — javi2541997

As we have discussed previously, I also like Murakami, but it always takes an act of will to get me to start a new one. The way he writes and the things he evokes are just so different from what I'm used to. Those Japanese. Don't get me started on their movies.

What in God's name does this have to do with Velveeta?

As for your post - I've looked up the definition of "abstract expressionism" numerous times and I still don't know what it means. I know it's more than "My kid could do that." I too like the Nevelson more than the de Kooning. It brings to mind movable type set up for printing or hieroglyphics. The de Kooning doesn't really evoke anything. As you note, the Nevelson clearly required more skill, effort, thought, and time. How do I use that to decide which is better.

I started a thread a while ago, "Skill, craft, technique in art," that attempted to deal with this issue. Competence and skill matter to me, but Collingwood says that could just as well be craft rather than art. In my previous response to Vera Mont, just above this one, I included an excerpt from his discussion of the issue.

In my recent reply, I mentioned Collingwood's discussion of the question of craft vs. art. I just tripped over this quote while looking for something else.

In order to clear up the ambiguities attaching to the word ‘art’, we must look to its history. The aesthetic sense of the word, the sense which here concerns us, is very recent in origin. Ars in ancient Latin, like τέχνη [technē] in Greek, means something quite different. It means a craft or specialized form of skill, like carpentry or smithying or surgery. The Greeks and Romans had no conception of what we call art as something different from craft; what we call art they regarded merely as a group of crafts, such as the craft of poetry (ποιητικη τέχνη, ars poetica), which they conceived, sometimes no doubt with misgivings, as in principle just like carpentry and the rest, and differing from any one of these only in the sort of way in which any one of them differs from any other. — R.G. Collingwood

Well, the mice go for the cheese in the trap whether it's fine cheese from France or it's Velveeta. Now there is a difference between Great Performances on PBS (high quality cheese) and schlock on the networks and cable (Velveeta). — BC

I am deeply moved by your acknowledgement of my attachment to America's greatest cheese (product).

My sentiments exactly! — Vera Mont

Personally, I have a hard time separating art, including mediocre art, from good entertainment. Collingwood arrogantly seemed very certain of his judgments. In "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" Robert Pirsig proposed defining art as "high quality endeavor." I found that compelling 45 or so years ago, but now I don't find it convincing. Pirsig discussed it in the context of a welder who fixed a broken part on his motorcycle. Collingwood would call that craft, not art. He has an interesting section on the difference between craft and art in "The Principles of Art."

I suspect that Idol could be seen as a type of art in its own right - in the genre of realty TV (whatever one may think of this). The music/performances are incidental. The show is about telling stories of people struggling against the odds to follow their dream. It's carefully crafted and built to follow certain emotional arcs. Perhaps it is kitsch, which certain purists might argue precludes it from being art. I would argue there is good and bad kitsch. And the line between kitsch and art may be irrelevant. — Tom Storm

I think you're probably right - it's possible this type of production might be considered art. I'm sure Collingwood wouldn't think so and I doubt you could convince me it is.

...the "show" makes Idol not qualify as art, emotions wise. — ENOAH

I don't think that is necessarily so - writers, producers, directors, actors, and technical staff for a show might rise to the level of artists. I would judge that isn't true for American Idol.

...is Collingwood the convention in Aesthetics? — ENOAH

Collingwood died in the early 1940s and is still respected and discussed. As far as I know, he is just one among many philosophers who write about art. He happens to be a favorite of mine and I find his theory of art matches my intuition well. I strongly recommend his "An Essay on Metaphysics." Both books gave me words to describe what my intuition was trying to tell me.

Or perhaps people think pop music period is not art. But I would say I have drawn more aesthetic value (and certainly more "feelings") from blues, jazz, rock, r & b, rap, than I have from sculptures and paintings in my life time. — ENOAH

Collingwood includes music among the arts, but I doubt he would include the genre's you identify or those included on American Idol. He doesn't really like recorded or broadcast music at all because of the distance it puts between the artist and their audience. He was certainly something of a killjoy. On the other hand, I think those types of music can be artistic by his standard.

Except for the individual singers, the overall "show" does not seem to be "experiencing" emotions in the production, which it wishes to express. — ENOAH

It's not the show that would experience emotions but the artist, perhaps the producers or writers, but as I noted before, I don't think the show is art by Collingwood's criterion.

If it is art, then it can be criticized as art. Is American Idol "good art"? — BC

I remember your "Can this art work even be defaced?" discussion from a couple of years ago fondly. That was one of the first times I tried to figure out my understanding of art systematically.

But is it really important that everyone agrees on what art is? I mean we disagree on what things qualify under what categories all the time, why should art be an exception? — flannel jesus

It doesn't really matter if it's important or not, it will never happen, which I guess is your point.

It seems like I have made the same mistake some others have - mistaking AI for artificial intelligence instead of American Idol. That brings me back to my original judgment - Americal Idol probably is not art but the individual performances may be.

AI meets the criterion which asks if it elicits strong feeling, — ENOAH

Collingwood makes a strong distinction between arousing a feeling and expressing one. I generally agree with him, although, as I mentioned, his formulation is rigid. Here's more from "The Principles of Art."

The expression of an emotion by speech may be addressed to someone; but if so it is not done with the intention of arousing a like emotion in him. If there is any effect which we wish to produce in the hearer, it is only the effect which we call making him understand how we feel. But, as we have already seen, this is just the effect which expressing our emotions has on ourselves. It makes us, as well as the people to whom we talk, understand how we feel. A person arousing emotion sets out to affect his audience in a way in which he himself is not necessarily affected. He and his audience stand in quite different relations to the act, very much as physician and patient stand in quite different relations towards a drug administered by the one and taken by the other. A person expressing emotion, on the contrary, is treating himself and his audience in the same kind of way; he is making his emotions clear to his audience, and that is what he is doing to himself. — R.G. Collingwood

So, since I assume no AI actually experiences anything, AI art does not meet this standard.

I don't really like this definition particularly because of the word "identical". I'm not being pedantic, even if the above sentence were adjusted to instead say "similar to", I think it misses the mark.

When I'm looking at a painting, I don't have any pretense that how I'm experiencing it is identical to, or in any way similar to, how the painter does. I'm having a relatively unique experience, made unique by my own relationship to the subject matter and the colours and my cultural history and etc. — flannel jesus

When we've discussed what art is in the past, we never got anywhere close to a consensus understanding, so it's not surprising you don't like this perspective. I get your point. Collingwood is a pretty judgmental hard ass who likes to take definitive positions. In the book, he stated authoritatively that Kipling's "Just So Stories" is art while Milne's "Winnie the Pooh" is not.

I came to this question with a personal understanding that art doesn't mean anything beyond our experience of it. Collingwood convinced me that we also need to consider the relationship between the artist and the audience. So, no, Collingwood and I don't agree that the artists intentions don't have to be considered. Collingwood is long dead, so I can state that without fear of contradiction from him.

Nice criteria. So it is art if the creator intended it to be; and, if it elicits a level emotion tantamount to that experienced by its creator. American Idol on the face of it is not art. — ENOAH

Some thoughts. 1) I realized that when you were talking about "American Idol" I was thinking about "So You Think You Can Dance." I think what I wrote about one is applicable to both. 2) I'm not sure if this is clear from my previous post. The criteria I described are intended to stand on their own separately. They are alternative standards. I don't propose a work would have to meet both standards in order to be considered art. 3) Thinking more about it, I don't think it makes sense to think of "American Idol" or "So You Think You Can Dance" themselves as art, but it may make sense to think of individual performances that way.

We've had a few "What is art?" discussions over the years. We came up with two criteria that answer the question for me. 1) It is art if it is presented with the intention that it be judged on an aesthetic basis. I got this from @Praxis. Hey, Praxis, I'm going to keep giving you credit for this unless you tell me to stop. And 2) It is art if it meets the criteria described by R.G. Collingwood in his "The Principles of Art." He proposes that, when we call something art (in this case a painting)...

It means that the picture, when seen by some one else or by the painter himself subsequently, produces in him (we need not ask how) sensuous-emotional or psychical experiences which, when raised from impressions to ideas by the activity of the spectator’s consciousness, are transmuted into a total imaginative experience identical with that of the painter. This experience of the spectator’s does not repeat the comparatively poor experience of a person who merely looks at the subject; it repeats the richer and more highly organized experience of a person who has not only looked at it but has painted it as well. — R.G. Collingwood

American Idol: Art? — ENOAH

I am not sure what to make of your post, but I will at least take a quick swing at your title. I haven't watched a lot of dance and I'm mostly ignorant about its technical aspects, but I did watch several episodes back in the first couple of seasons. More than once during the shows I found myself unexpectedly moved to the point that I had tears in my eyes. The human body in motion can be beautiful and exhilarating.

Does that make it art?

Aha, that actually made me laugh out loud for several minutes. — Apustimelogist

As I noted, that was written in about 1974. They probably wouldn't have been able to print it now. For that matter, very little of what was in the National Lampoon would be suitable for 2024.