I agree that postmodern art is an opportunity for expression. I think less through the physical object but more through accompanying statements.

These unknown, underexposed postmodern artists, what exactly are they struggling against?

It seems that they are struggling to break into the Artworld, which is, as I see it, an exclusive club rather than a democratic institution. — RussellA

I think the average person also sees the art world as elitist and hard to traverse. I'd say hardship is the primary struggle for most artists unless they gain a following, but that’s just as true for acting, music, and writing as it is for painting.

Art's definitely not democratic, however. It's more of a meritocracy. Exclusive club? It's a whole set of clubs, not just one, and some of them are not exclusive. But like any club, the level of its elitism depends upon the audience.

To succeed in art, it's not an art world you need to satisfy, it's the punters who wish to buy and hang your work. But the machinations of dealers and critics are a separate matter entirely.

I'd better -- it was pretty ugly, sorry! — J

I've written my fair share of ugly sentences. :smile:

Yes, that's what I was asking. And as a corollary: Does the aesthetic value change relative to what we know about a work? — J

From a personal perspective, I would say that the more you know about something, the deeper your understanding and concomitant appreciation might be.

And aesthetic value changes with age and time. If you saw Psycho in 1960, it would have likely been shocking work of art. Some kids I know saw it and they found it dull and comic, and not in the right places.

I used to work for an antiquities dealer, selling Greek, Roman and Egyptian pieces and venerable, overpriced furniture. If you were a connoisseur of such things you might go into paroxysms of aesthetic delight over a Roman torso, which for someone else might just be some broken rubble. We never just relate to things as things; they are also objects of projected meaning. Or something like that.

Do we want to argue that aesthetic value is neutral as regards the amount of information a viewer may have access to? — J

Can you rephrase this? I'm assuming you're asking whether the aesthetic value of a work is independent from the information we have about it. You could easily write an essay on this. Personally, I tend to think that whatever value a work has is tied to who we are and what we know/experince. I don’t believe a work holds aesthetic value in itself, it’s always in relation to some criterion of value, whether basic or sophisticated.

What about for a philosopher? — J

Sure - there are many others too, I just picked a couple.

I know, but I was pointing out that there's much less difference than at first appears, and suggesting we think about an "accompanying statement" more broadly. — J

I understood that but I think this is stretching this idea too far, but we don’t have to agree.

And then there's the name of the painting . . . part of the work? — J

Only if it suits the critic's/owner's/seller's narrative...

At what point does information become necessary in order to see a Renaissance work as art? Leonardo may not have offered us a written statement, but his tradition did, or something very like it. — J

How we see and rate art is contingent on culture, education and values. We don’t just see a work as 'art', we have the potential to read into any work at many levels. If you’re just seeing Leonardo as a decorative thing, who cares? I’m personally not attracted to Leonardo’s work in general and I have superficial knowledge about his time or why he matters. So I haven't accessed any written information to help me form a view that he is 'special'. But I know he is rated... he's a brand, a popstar.

No doubt. So, is that the sort of "innocent eye" we'd find desirable? Probably not. — J

Depends on the purpose. Obviously no good for an art historian or dealer. I think the era of the dilettante expert and appreciator of culture and art may have ended. There used to be a pretence that the educated man (and later woman) would aim at a kind of Renaissance expertise and connoisseurship. I think cultural awareness of this kind used to be a form of virtue signalling, which is probably now left to pronouns and anti-colonisation lectures. :wink:

But this is not only true of post-modernism. There is no such thing as an art work without an "accompanying statement. — J

We're talking about an actual, literal written statement. Most works are without such a thing.

suppose otherwise is to subscribe to the idea of an "innocent eye" which is somehow able to encounter an art work without knowing anything about it, or about art, disregarding the time and place of the encounter, and without bringing any cultural or individual experience to bear. — J

This is a different matter from a physical, prescriptive note from the artist. Also, I think there are plenty of people who are unfamiliar with artworks and have no idea how to engage with them or what they even are.

And by the way, an artist's statement may not be helpful. The artist might be mistaken about their work or might be deliberately trying to disrupt an interpretive framework, perhaps even being playful. A written statement may not support the work at all, but instead function as a provocative declaration that only adds to its ambiguity.

I once saw a broken wooden kitchen chair painted silver and black and arranged on display at an exhibition. There was a note from the artist. It read: 'The song is sung, but singing doesn’t help.' Such a message doesn’t add much to the work; it simply invites a lot of innocent speculation. The artist was later overheard saying, "I don’t know what it means. It just seemed to work." I'm not sure they were right about this.

One problem with Postmodernism is that depends on its existence through the promotion of elitism within society, an incestuous Artworld that deliberately excludes the "common person" in its goal of academic exclusivity. — RussellA

A common view but I think it misses the mark. There’s plenty of postmodern art created by graduate artists and unknown, underexposed, even struggling artists who see in postmodernism a vitality and opportunity for expression that you or others may not.

Is the "artwork" just the pebble or is the "artwork" the pebble plus the accompanying statement by the artist? — RussellA

I guess that's why we have critics... But I'd imagine the statement is part of the artwork.

Every object can be thought of as art and having an aesthetic, though some objects are more artistic or more aesthetic than other objects. — RussellA

I'm reasonably comfortable with this for pragmatic purposes.

it seems clear that there is also a hierarchy in the aesthetic of an object. — RussellA

As long as we recognise that the hierarchy is man-made, rather than discovering a hierarchy in the aesthetic, we are projecting one onto it, based on shared contingent cultural norms, language, and histories and not intrinsic qualities of the object. This may present problems for those who believe objects themselves possess aesthetic qualities. But since I'm sympathetic to postmodernism and you're not, maybe we won't get passed this.

Similarly, when one looks at "The Last Supper" and a straight line and have a greater artistic and aesthetic experience with "The Last Supper" than the straight line, any deep explanation is beyond current scientific or philosophical understanding. — RussellA

It's not very surprising that a painting based on a well-known story, with narrative power and complexity, would draw a stronger emotional reaction than a line with no clear meaning in itself. More or less the same thing would happen if you compared a straight line to a Pez dispenser. We don’t require Da Vinci...

Additionally, what we take to be a "greater" aesthetic experience with The Last Supper over a straight line isn’t about uncovering some objective depth in the work. It’s the result of shared practices, education, and cultural narratives that shape how we respond. The difference isn’t in the objects themselves, but in the interpretive habits we've inherited. What feels profound is what we’ve learned to see as profound.

You seem to be saying that all our feelings are aesthetic experiences. — RussellA

I’m saying that when an artist presents something as art, it’s an invitation to explore it aesthetically.

But yes, more broadly, our experience of the world may also be largely aesthetic. The aesthetic goes beyond art: our sensory and perceptual engagement with the world is aesthetic in nature.

If that is the case, Jeff Koons, as a Postmodern artist, may be inviting the observer to have a feeling towards his artwork, but it does not follow that this feeling must be aesthetic. — RussellA

It does not follow that the feeling can’t be aesthetic, that’s what you’ve been saying about postmodern art. Bear in mind that whether you enjoy or appreciate something is a separate question.

I'm not even sure that non-aesthetic art is possible. Even if an artist adopts an anti-aesthetic position, the work may end up with a contrived negative aesthetic, a deliberate choice that still shapes how we perceive and respond to it, and that perception is itself aesthetic.

What power do you think lies behind an aesthetic experience? Why do you withhold it from certain categories? How do you define an aesthetic experience?

An observer of a Postmodern artwork may pay attention to its conceptual and cultural context, but this does not require the object to be aesthetic. — RussellA

We've already covered this. An object curated and put on display by an artist is an invitation to view it aesthetically. Whether you or I appreciate or enjoy this or not is a separate matter.

In what way is the pleasure of drinking a cup of coffee aesthetic?

In what way is the discomfort of sitting on a hard chair aesthetic?

In what way is being curious about where foxes have their den aesthetic?

In what way is reflecting on what happened yesterday aesthetic? — RussellA

Not sure why these questions have been inserted here, and we were doing so well. Jeff Koons is a postmodern artist. How is his work not an invitation to have an aesthetic experience? I dislike his work, by the way

But since you raised it - an experience is aesthetic when we pay attention to how it feels, looks, or affects us, not just what it does. Drinking coffee becomes aesthetic when we enjoy its taste, smell, and warmth. Sitting on a hard chair can be aesthetic if we notice how it feels and how it makes us sit. It’s about noticing and appreciating the experience, not just using it for a purpose.

I find it impossible to believe that most people don't accept that there is a hierarchy in art. Is there anyone who would try to argue that the quality of a Bob Ross painting is equal to the quality of a Leonardo da Vinci painting — RussellA

There is definitely a hierarchy of taste and academic opinion. Art criticism and art history is part of an intersubjective community. It's pretty easy to say that a cel from a Bugs Bunny cartoon is less 'important' as art than a Rembrandt. (Although Bugs may well have provided more pleasure.) But what about Rembrandt versus Van Gogh? Or da Vinci versus Michelangelo? Is a play by John Osborne better or worse than a play by Arthur Miller? For the most part, I think attempts to impose hierarchies and criteria of value on art are largely moot, though it does keep academics, critics, and the art market in business. Humans love to rate things.

In summary, an aesthetic is not part of a Postmodern artwork, athough may be discovered in an accompanying descriptive text.

Postmodern art is diverse and self-aware, tends to use irony and blurring of categories to challenge traditional ideas of originality, meaning, and distinctions between high and low culture. It often appeals to people who like puzzles, gimmicks, statements and ambiguities.
— Tom Storm

I don't disagree with your description of Postmodernism, but none of the terms used requires an aesthetic. For example, something may be diverse without being aesthetic. — RussellA

All postmodern art has some kind of aesthetic. It doesn’t have to be about beauty; rather, like any work, it’s an invitation to experience something aesthetically.

To experience something aesthetically means to engage with it through your senses and perception, paying attention to its qualities: form, texture, colour, tone, or atmosphere. And the work's conceptual and cultural context. It’s about how the artwork affects you emotionally, intellectually, or even physically, whether through pleasure, discomfort, curiosity, or reflection.

The Postmodernist artist, as a reaction against Modernism, deliberately creates an object minimising any aesthetic. — RussellA

Minimizing? Is that because it can’t be eliminated? Or is it more accurate to say that all art is aesthetic, regardless of the school or style? The difference lies in how much a viewer cares for or engages with it.

Sounds like you have a hierarchy of what counts as art, or maybe just what counts as good art? Thoughts?

I agree. That is why I wrote on page 6

Modernism
It only becomes an artwork if the human responds to the aesthetics of the object. Note that an aesthetic response can be of beauty, such as Monet's "Water lilies", or can be of ugliness, such as Picasso/s "Guernica".

Postmodernism
It only becomes an artwork if the human responds to the object as a metaphor for social concerns.

In what sense is conceptual art intended to be aesthetic? — RussellA

Cool, sorry I didn’t see this earlier. I rate conceptual art as aesthetic, like any other art, because it engages our senses, and invites emotional and/or intellectual responses.

I'm not sure I would subscribe to the above definition of postmodern art - seems too proscriptive and limiting. Postmodern art is diverse and self-aware, tends to use irony and blurring of categories to challenge traditional ideas of originality, meaning, and distinctions between high and low culture. It often appeals to people who like puzzles, gimmicks, statements and ambiguities.

There’s a Buddhist anecdote that an elderly questioner once asked the Buddha, what is the core of his teaching? He replied, ‘Cease from evil, learn to do good, and purify the mind.’ — Wayfarer

What do you take "purify the mind" to mean? A reference to the Noble Eightfold Path?
To me, it could suggest that we don't need to concern ourselves with metaphysics, philosophy, or even whether life has any inherent meaning: we just need to do what's outlined above. It's minimalist, but challenging in its own way.

:up: I appreciate these replies. Thank you.

I’ve had academic friends lose positions for failing to agree with the department they work in. It was never about woke ideology or sleeze. The examples sound like a mixed bag. I would think Rose and Franken may well have had this coming. But aren’t universities always full of odd radicalism and party lines? I guess you’re saying what’s new is the extent of it. I’d be curious to learn how significant it really is.

Yes. I note career’s have often been ended if people failed to support a particular line. It’s standard in organisations like universities and schools.

Yes that makes sense. I'm trying to understand how "wokeism" when seen as problematic has any significant impact beyond rhetorical ‘grandstanding’ by various people making different kinds of claims. So far, this just sounds like the usual complaints people have about forms of identity politics.

I'm not saying there aren't issues, but what I’m looking for are concrete, institutionalised examples, something with real substance, that's meaningfully different from, say, right-wing identity politics where people view all of life through the lens of gun ownership, MAGA, or Christian nationalism, where ridicule and debate are also used to silence dissent. We know this group censors libraries, for instance. Everyone wants to control the narrative, if not the world.

If I address you with the wrong pronoun and you respond with pained moral outrage, it is because your feelings are expressing your assessment that I am culpable for my slight, even if I insist that it was inadvertent. There are no accidents or innocent mistakes when concepts like while privileged and implicit bias judge us guilty in advance. It is this assumed culpability by association, birth and ingrained use of language that is at the bottom of the hyper-moralism attributed to wokism, not a blind reliance on the authority of affect. — Joshs

I've wondered about this process myself. Simple question: do you think wokism is a significant and growing issue in society?

Critics argue that emotional discomfort has become a trigger for restricting speech, displacing debate with moral claims based solely on feeling hurt or offended. — Number2018

Some young people and profs at universities have used this mechanism. What's the evidence that this is a broader social problem of significant concern? Universities have always been subject to value-based stunts. That's kind of their thing.

instead, I attempt to diagnose a shift in discursive practices, particularly in the domains of identity politics and online activism, where affective expressions of marginalization have begun to function as sufficient sources of epistemic and moral authority. — Number2018

Fancy wording but I think this is certainly a widely held belief - perhaps that some people weaponise their lived experience. Can you provide a specific example you are thinking of here - one with broad repercussions?

Thus, emotional experience and perceived marginality are not retained within rigorous ontological framing. Instead, they assert themselves as affective self-reference of truth and moral authority, becoming resistant to questioning, nuance, or deliberate reflection. — Number2018

This builds on the above—I'm keen to understand specific instances.

I would say in the UK the woke term has been extremely and enthusiastically taken up by right wingers. — unimportant

We know that Murdoch and his flunkies like to label progressives as out of touch and deluded, so the term "woke" works well for them to describe a supercharged from of progressive thinking that they consider close to madness. But that doesn’t actually say anything about what "woke" is or isn’t. Generally, if Murdoch's crew is eager to sell a particular frame, it's probably safe to ignore it.

It seems to me that "woke" is just an umbrella term for a diverse range of ideas in our public discourse that some people fear and choose to describe pejoratively. And no doubt there are some zealous left-wing activists who go too far, just as there are young, zealous right-wing ones who do the same.

Nice work and useful. I wish this had been around a few years ago. :wink:

In what sense is conceptual art intended to be either beautiful or utilitarian? — RussellA

Well, I don’t think art is about beauty. I think it’s about evoking an aesthetic experience in a particular context; one shaped by culture, intention, and the viewer’s own perspective. Beauty might be part of it, but it’s not the point.

I don't deny the point. But I'm trying to work out whether a big lie actually matters, or if it's just reflecting what the public already believes. The lie comes afterwards, more like a garnish, than a key motivator for action.

fixed my wording

Yes, but I guess this group was ready to accept any tale that was anti-Biden or anti-Democrat, right? Any story. It didn’t need to be particularly big or require any skill in its dissemination. But did they really believe it or just agree that Biden and the status quo was shit so almost any smear was useful.

Fixed my wording.

Not quite. A soldier throwing himself on a grenade to save his comrades is heroic. A soldier with a ring of immortality jumping on grenades and in front of enemy bullets isn't doing anything heroic. — RogueAI

Yes - what was Jesus' sacrifice exactly - a weekend ruined, perhaps? Then back to the all-powerful, omniscient, immortal ruler of all things.

From an American perspective, regarding American politics, CNN is very liberal. — RogueAI

Interesting. I have only seen it intermittanly and I qalwasy found it conser ative Btu then I cosnider your Democrats to be failty conservative too.

What’s a current example of a big lie?
— Tom Storm

The 2020 election was stolen. — RogueAI

I was going to ask that myself, but how many people actually believed it? Is it still a big lie if only a small percentage of the country believes everything one con artist says?

But the "big lie" today is the illusion of pluralism: Narratives seem diverse but distort facts, polarizing people. — Astorre

So I wonder if one of the big lies is the popular notion that 'politics doesn’t matter because they’re all corrupt.' It seems to me that this idea disempowers voters by lowering their expectations and participation and ends up empowering the baser opportunists to gain more control.

Fox News is using a patriotic and optimistic narrative to give readers pride and confidence in Trump as a leader who acts in America's best interests. CNN focuses on risks and uncertainty, causing alarm and skepticism. The facts are the same, but the emotional "superstructure" is radically different: Fox News creates the image of a strong leader, CNN - a potential culprit of economic problems. — Astorre

But we already know Fox is aligned with the Right and Trump while CNN is softer centrist/conservative. We would have expected both examples of coverage to look like this.

This is how people have generally chosen their preferred news since the days of papers. Reactionary and progressive are discrete markets.

What’s a current example of a big lie?

I'm not in the religion or God business, but by what measure does one determine whether a religion has failed? By its gifts or its brutalities? How do you weigh the benefits against the harms? And which religions are we talking about?

It seems to me you can only make a blanket judgement like that if you already hold the view that religion is superstition that gets good people to do bad things, which is certainly a perspective, but not the only one.

I'm not sure what your point is.

If the idea is simply that our external situation (whatever it might be) isn't inherently bad, but rather it's how we choose to view it that determines this, that's a fairly common perspective, often derived from Stoicism.

Another way to think of it is a cost benefit analysis, to a rich person getting even a couple thousand dollars for their time is ludicrous, but for others they work for even less. I am trying to look past the personal for a different meaning. — Red Sky

But human meaning is entirely context-dependent and situational. To try and turn meaning into an abstraction which transcends lived experience would seem fraught.

Presumably there is a theology that explains all this... — Banno

Theology can explain anything...

A quick google search will provide plenty of articles justifying capital punishment, from Christians. — Banno

Yes, often the same ones who consider abortion to be anathema.

Categorically: if it's in a museum of art as an artobject then it's art. LIke it or hate it, it's in the museum. — Moliere

I tend to agree. The debate about what counts as art seems largely pointless. It's more interesting to talk about what is influential or vital art, versus what is forgettable, while recognising that all of this is contingent on values and tastes. If it's presented for aesthetic appreciation, it's probably art.

The debate about what deserves to be called art is a kind of gatekeeping, based on the idea that for something to be art, it must be exceptional. But art can be dull or shit and still be art.

It is difficult to resist, but possible if you deliberately slow down and separate emotions from facts, as I suggested in a thought experiment. This does not solve the problem completely, but it helps to realize how our opinion is formed not so much by information as by the feelings that it evokes. — Astorre

Doesn’t everyone who takes in any news try to filter out the spin? Watching the news is always an act of interpretation: where are they trying to lead us; where's the bias? The same goes for philosophy or storytelling. It’s generally attempting to lead us somewhere. Most narratives are trying to persuade. :wink:

But I would argue that the "big lie" doesn't have to be one grand fiction. It can be a sustained narrative that is formed through the repetition of emotionally charged interpretations of facts, gradually creating a belief in people that they accept without deep analysis. — Astorre

I’d still need to see this in action to understand your point properly. Is an example of this perhaps something like the idea that people on welfare are lazy? That’s a trope peddled by media for years and is now so common that many accept it as given.

. Unlike the traditional yellow press, where influence was limited to circulation or audience, social networks create echo chambers where emotional narratives circulate endlessly, forming perceptions without the need for one "big" lie - many small, emotionally charged distortions are enough. — Astorre

The issue of social media bubbles is pretty well established. The Fleming story sounds more like a classic urban myth which is a separate phenomenon.

Interesting formulation of this issue, Josh.

In Australia, the only people who use the term 'woke' are Murdoch journalists and oddly discordant right-wingers, from what I’ve seen. It doesn't seem to have captured people’s imagination as widely.

There is a bit of a culture war here too, but it’s essentially a diluted one, riffing off American Republican talking points about political correctness, minority rights, and the usual anti-trans bigotry. But I suspect you’re right. Most of these ideas that are hated or feared by some now will probably be standard worldview in a few years.

The fundamental philosophical insights guiding it are here to stay, and will become accepted by the mainstream within the next 50 years — Joshs

Can you throw us a few dot points about the philosophical insights?

A Modernist artwork may be defined as any object real or imagined that has no utilitarian purpose that has been observed or thought about by a human as an aesthetic, which is about a sense of order within complexity. — RussellA

Is this right? Can't utilitarian objects also be understood as art? Think of works by William Morris, for example, or Greek Attic vases. And then there’s conceptual art.

The transition from traditional media to social media is not a way out of a vicious circle, but simply a change of players. — Astorre

I wasn't saying it was a way out, only that it was a new dimension. I don't know what vicious circle you're referring to.

I propose a thought experiment that allows you to see this mechanism in action:
1. Take any news.
2. "Clean" all emotions from it, leaving only a naked fact.
3. Compare how the same fact is presented in different sources: in the official media, among independent bloggers, in the opposition media. — Astorre

I'm not sure what this establishes. It's well known that different people and outlets cover things differently, even journalists from the same publication might take different angles. Audiences tend to select the outlets that match their values. Which is why old, scared people tend to watch Murdoch's stuff.

I will not refer to specific facts in specific sources, because I can very easily hurt someone's feelings. I propose a focus on the idea itself, leaving the experienced approach to its own discretion — Astorre

I can't really see what you mean unless you provide an example. What is a big lie? I can see lots of little lies - a web of intersecting nonsense and propaganda, but that's kind of how yellow journalism has often functioned throughout its history from Lord Beaverbrook to Hearst to Pulitzer to Murdoch.

I would think many of the inconsistencies in long term religions often arise from trying to square beliefs from different eras cohesively. — MrLiminal

Good point.

I have seen some interpretations of hell as being bad not as a punishment so much as the natural state of being separated from God and his love/will, and because God is perfect, he cannot interact with imperfect beings directly, hence the necessity of Jesus as a sacrificial intermediary. In that reading, I think it's possible to see similarities, but perhaps I'm reaching. — MrLiminal

As society becomes more concerned with parity and social justice, ideas about God also tend to become less severe and more inclusive. That’s why some Western churches now fly the rainbow flag of diversity, while in less diverse and more rigid societies (generally Muslim), people are still executed for being gay based on religion.

It strikes me as odd that some have built significant narratives about God's intentions and actions, along with the functions of hell and punishment even though we’ve yet to establish whether any god exists, and if so, which one.