For what reasons would that person deem one object to be art and the other object not art ?
— RussellA

Ha, ha. This is something you would have to ask the person deeming one object art, and the other one not. But there would be reasons, or in other words something about their state of mind or thinking ( consciousness ) would result in such an action. Because consciousness is "integrated information", the choices people make are congruous with their general state of mind, so when they make the choice that something is art this is an aspect of their general mind activity, and in an ideal setting we should be able to infer a lot of their mind activity from the clues provided in what they choose as their art. — Pop

A few basic reasons are that either the object wasn’t framed as art, or that the observer didn’t recognize it as art, or that the observer recognizes that it’s framed as art but, evaluated by their own criteria, judges it to not be art.

Significant to your claims, the recognition or evaluation of art has nothing to do with your definition of art that “Art is an expression of human consciousness. Art work is information about the artist’s consciousness.” In order to define something you need to specify it’s unique attributes. Your definition only identifies information and human consciousness, nothing specific to art. It is not a definition of art and has no explanatory power in regards to art.

This would not have been possible in Jane Austin's England. If you hung a piece of rubbish on your wall - you would be carted off to the nut house. You could only hang ideal landscapes, or if you could afford it portraits.

…

My point is that consciousness evolves both collectively and individually and art reflects this. — Pop

It’s not news that culture and art develop. The issue highlighted in the example is that hanging a piece of rubbish on the wall could be seen as a reflection of the mind that put it there, or information about someone’s consciousness, at any point in history or in any culture. It may or may not be seen as art, therefore your definition doesn’t define art. Don’t you see?

If you wanted to explain it to Georgian era gentry how the rubbish is art you would need to include the concept of aesthetic experience in order to reference and try to shift their aesthetic appreciation.

Interesting statistics. One of the most striking differences is the percentage of stories framed around leadership/character vs policy/agenda, with 74% about leadership/character in the Trump nightmare compared to only 35% during the same period of the Biden administration. How is that at all unexpected or surprising though? If Biden made himself the star of a reality tv show, made it all about himself as much as inhumanly possible, the media would certainly accommodate him.

the fevered media treatment unlike the world has ever seen, peering into every facet of his life. — NOS4A2

You’re starting to talk like Trump, at least when you’re too rushed to consult a dictionary. And the fevered media treatment, seriously? Biden can’t use the wrong fork at dinner without it being dragged through unfriendly media outlets and them calling for impeachment. I exaggerate of course.

This emergent understanding of information was critical to this definition of art. Wit could not find something singular that all art is, and in his time information was something one exchanged with the neighbors over the back fence. We now know definitively that all art is information - since information is fundamental. The only question that then remains for art is - information about what? And the obvious answer is consciousness. The term consciousness captures the mind activity that leads to the creation of art, and how the art is limited only by the consciousness that creates it - which when we look at art across cultures, and through the ages, seems so obvious. To me at least - :lol: - but it has the consequence of ruffling feathers, since we all know exactly what art is! - right? — Pop

No. For example, an artist pins a banana to a wall and says that it’s art. Many people agree that it’s art, but many others disagree that it’s art. How does your definition help in this situation?

If something has “nothing whatsoever” to do with qualitative distinctiveness then why should it offend?

I'll go through it step by step.

talk about complex transmissions of information may be true, as the actuarial tables are true — Constance

You compare Pop's claim that "Art work is information about the artist’s consciousness" with actuarial tables.

life and death qualitatively has nothing whatsoever to do with actuarial tables — Constance

If the experience of life and death has nothing to do with actuarial tables, then the experience of art has nothing to do with Pop's claim.

This is why your announcement that art in information offends others here. — Constance

An announcement that is compared to actuarial tables. If an actuarial table has nothing to do with the experience of life and death then it would not be offensive to that experience.

They think art is profound, religious, or deeply meaningful. — Constance

These are experiential qualities, and whoever 'they' are, experience art as profound, religious, or deeply meaningful. This has "nothing whatsoever" to do with Pop's claim so it's strange that you say it's offensive.

My trouble, as I read through this, is that it is entirely a quantifiable analysis. Aesthetics is not quantifiable, or it is (in some hedonic scheme), but this is not the point; the point is, quantifying is altogether absent of the quality, and aesthetics is all about quality. All talk about complex transmissions of information may be true, as the actuarial tables are true for people selling insurance, and no one can say such tables are false, or wrong. They're not. But then, life and death qualitatively has nothing whatsoever to do with actuarial tables. This is why your announcement that art in information offends others here. They think art is profound, religious, or deeply meaningful. Others look to the meanings in play, how truth connects to images, how images are iconographic reflections of the self; and so on. — Constance

Strange take, I don’t know anyone who is offended by an actuarial table, or anyone who’s not emotionally affected by artistic quality.

I will not tolerate histrionic whinging and whining, or backhanded derision without reciprocating. — Pop

Speaking of melodrama.

Your mate did not understand what a scientific definition of art even means. It means that the definition is relevant for all art ever made, regardless of culture, from the furthest past, to the most distant future. — Pop

That’s super cool and all, but what use is it? You claim that it will put art back into the hands of intellectuals and artists, and put a thorn in the side of aestheticism, but can’t explain how. I hope you realize how clownish this makes you look.

Long ago I read a book about centenarians and if I recall correctly, the theme that I derived from the personal stories basically corresponded to Newton’s first law of motion, that an object in motion tends to stay in motion and an object at rest tends to stay at rest. The centenarians who had active (mental & physical) lives were vital and those that had sedentary lives were like vegetables.

Claiming that art is an expression of consciousness in no way contradicts aestheticism.
— praxis

I don't wish to say that art is not aesthetic, plainly it is. However all experience is aesthetic, so to focus on aesthetics as the defining feature that separates art from everything else is an error. — Pop

Aestheticism emphasizes aesthetic value and effects. It doesn’t deny other positions so this can’t be said to be a definition of art. What are you thinking?!

So art is information about the artist's consciousness (hopefully you understand consciousness a little more broadly by now). — Pop

I might understand your ideas about it if you were to ever expand on them. When asked, you mention various various philosophies and belief systems, some of which appear to contradict things you’ve said, but don’t explain your ideas in any depth.

Yes art is aesthetic … You can not, and you have not put forward any arguments or propositions that define art in terms of aesthetics — Pop

Apparently I don’t need to.

… most pertinent element of all art - that it is information about consciousness. This makes all art meaningful, as an expression of consciousness, regardless of anybody's personal preferences or motives, or understanding. — Pop

Every expression is meaningful regardless of art. I can demonstrate this fact. Try to communicate something to me that is meaningless.

You have failed to show how claiming that art is an expression of consciousness contradicts (“is a thorn in the side of”) aestheticism.

Just the excuse I needed to get a 3D printer. Goodbye fiestaware.

Maybe it would help if you thought like a Trump supporter. I’m sure they could come up with all kinds of examples where liberals actually punish the uneducated.

I too remember the post where we said we were discussing actual policy. — StreetlightX

conservatives like punishing women (cf. Texas) — StreetlightX

You mentioned this actual policy and ask us to compare it with something but neglect to give a comparison.

If you’re referring to Tim Wood’s comments about preventing Trump supporters from voting, that’s punishing Trump supporters, and it’s not actual policy.

So help me out. It shouldn’t be that much trouble.

Where conservatives like punishing women (cf. Texas), liberals like punishing the uneducated. — StreetlightX

You gave an example for conservatives but neglected to give one for liberals.

You’re saying that silencing opposition and controlling the truth may both be strategic power plays?

before trying to punish people you don't like.
— StreetlightX

Also useful if you could learn to tell the difference between yourself and others not you. I take your remark to be projection, a conclusion imo well-grounded in many posts of yours. — tim wood

You can’t blame him, my ego would definitely want to disown that irrational hostility.

It is a thorn in the side of those who think art is for art's sake, as it proves art is an expression of consciousness - regardless of the art's form. — Pop

Claiming that art is an expression of consciousness in no way contradicts aestheticism. It’s as though you’re saying that defining art as an expression of consciousness somehow proves that art is inherently didactic. That makes no sense whatsoever.

It seems to me that you’re problem isn’t with aestheticism but simply a general lack of art appreciation in society, assuming the concern were honest. Defining art as an expression of consciousness doesn’t help, and I don’t think it’s designed to help. It’s designed to exploit the lack of art appreciation in order to influence.

Dumb fascist that I am, I still don’t get it. You’re saying that you can’t tell truth from lies?

I am very intelligent. — StreetlightX

And funny.

Looks good, I love roasted kale with olive oil and salt. — darthbarracuda

I normally add it to salads but occasionally sauté it with avocado oil, onion, garlic, and fresh ground pepper and salt. Like spinach, a big gob of it cooks down instantly to a fraction of its original apparent mass. Delish.

A little refresher on a couple of words and their meaning.

Advocate
To speak or write in favor of; support or urge by argument; recommend publicly.

Consider
To think carefully about, especially in order to make a decision; contemplate; reflect on.

I meant similar to the bar. A show of basic competency that relates specifically to voting, whatever that may be. For example, one question might be: what is socialism?

I don't know how to keep Trumpsters and their ilk from voting. But if I could, I would. Just as I would block most people from owning most guns under most circumstances, as do many jurisdictions in the US, and opposed to those, like Texas, which appears to allow anyone who wants to carry a gun to do so. What I am against is craziness, and I am willing to discriminate non-prejudicially against that all day and all night long. — tim wood

Maybe earning the right to vote by passing an examination like the bar exam. Though even if preparation for the examination was made freely available to all the poor would most likely tend to be under represented, but that wouldn’t be anything new.

Who is trying to influence now? — Pop

Influence is my art form. :nerd:

But seriously, earlier you wrote:

A definition of art, and I’m not saying my definition is necessarily it, has the potential to shift the power balance in the art world, back into the hands of the intellectuals and the artists. This is my primary goal.

It’s not clear how this will change anything. Could you enlighten us? Also, those with power and influence will have power and influence regardless of how art is defined. They’ll still be able to influence culture and speculate on the value of art.

I don’t know what you mean.

I don't want to be a player in the consciousness guru game. I want to be a player in the art definition game. :lol: — Pop

What these games have in common is the desire to influence rather than the desire experience the aesthetic. This disparity is worlds apart.

... and who is proficient at recognizing when it is appropriate (and effectively how) to hurt or help anyone deliberately. 'To gadfly or not to gadfly' – that is our aporia. — 180 Proof

In game theory, cooperation for mutual benefit is the most beneficial strategy. All nice guys, all finish mutually beneficially. In a room of wolves, dog eat dog rules apply and the nice guy gets eaten.

Produce something that exists for you outside of consciousness of it. — Pop

I don’t know what exists beyond of my consciousness. I’m not even sure about what ‘exists’ within my consciousness. If you want to be a player in the consciousness guru game you will need to learn how to embrace the unknown, or at least learn how to pretend that you can.

nothing exists outside of moments of consciousness — Pop

How exactly do you know that?

It is most gentlemenly to be agreeable so I will agree to disagree, thank you very much.

I stumbled onto Dr Rupert Sheldrake, something of a pop * C O N S C I O U S N E S S * guru, and he seems to think that mystical experiences validate the belief in universal consciousness. Remove the self and the self becomes everything, the reasoning seems to be. Rather anthropomorphic if you asked me.

1) But you are a gentleman, good Sir.

2) But you are also a stooge (often the butt of your own joke), good Sir.

It seems to me that Trump and his supporters say whatever people want to hear and whatever they believe gains them some kind of advantage, regardless of what's said is true, so the basic strategy is not to silence opposition but to control the truth or reality. I doubt Mr. Wood is onboard with that.

A little refresher course for all us gents.

The part I wish to share is I find that I have tried always to be a gentleman. — tim wood

+3 virtue points for trying.

• Salsa dancing, but not since pandemic :mask:
• Dog agility (my dog's hobby too)
• Oil painting
• Surfing
• Wing foiling
• Cooking
• Newest hobby is growing kale* :grin:

*

I visited the Louvre once and out of the dizzying amount of painting you couldn’t get within 10 yards of the Mona Lisa because of all the people crowded around it. Elephant art really stands apart.