Sorry man, it all seems empty of content. Taking a dump/painting = same thing. It adds nothing to our understanding of art.

So what is expressed - is it not the current state of mind? — Pop

Probably the artist's projected will. To say it is their state of mind would be close to meaningless.

I don't think it reflects anything pathological. — T Clark

You're right. I was just providing trauma as a potential example. But I do think people's life experiences and childhoods (awful or otherwise) play a bigger role in artistic choices than we often think.

Sure angry people can be mellow and gentle at times, but In a fit of rage, all they will express is a fit of rage. — Pop

Untrue. For years I have worked with prisoners and people with vast anti-social behaviors. A fit of rage may be suppressed. What you say only applies if they are acting out. A person's emotional state need not influence on their work unduly.

n any case, what they express is their state of mind - which is their consciousness. — Pop

You still have not answered why using the word consciousness matters and how this is different to an artist expressing their 'personality'. What does this word consciousness mean for art? Everything we do is consciousness if you want. So by definition taking a shit and painting are both produced by same thing. How does it benefit an understanding of art to use this word? You might as well say all art is life. Because all artists are alive when they work.

Yes you have feelings, opinions, etc, and what you express is your current state of mind about these - which is your consciousness. — Pop

No, the unconscious may well direct artistic choices and the artist may have little or no capacity to access what the work is expressing. Certainly there are schools of psychology that would hold to this, such as the psychoanalytical school. The artist may have little or no insight into their artwork. I've known enough painters, sculptors and writers to understand that often they are producing works without having the slightest idea why choices are made - it may well be all about their own suppressed childhood or traumas but this may not be known to them or readily obvious in the work.

In a fit of rage, you are not going to express something peaceful and serene, are you? — Pop

Wrong. You may well do just this as a wish fulfillment state. There are angry artists who paint or write mellow and gentle works. I've met them. The opposite can also be true. The idea that a work of art will express the emotional state of an artist is naïve. Often art is an expression of unconscious desires or beliefs or may be deliberate constructions which are attempts to build an alternative reality as a consolation.

I don't know if I'd call this rigorous, but I find it very satisfying - the ground of being. It's what's all the way at the bottom when you've swept everything else away. It's a term sometimes used to describe the indescribable Tao. — T Clark

As you probably know, Paul Tillich, one of the most influential Christian thinkers of the 20th century, used this term 'ground of being' to describe god. God permeates all creation and is the answer to the ontological fear of non-being. Or something like that...

If you can’t aspire to ever-increasing material prosperity, which is what the industrial revolution and the idea of progress has brought, then what do you aspire to? That’s why I think a suitable social and personal philosophy has to be discovered. — Wayfarer

Agree. I suspect this is what's behind the growing minimalism movement (which like anything else has also been hijacked by posers). I've been practicing a form of this for around 30 years.

I wanna consider people as proud creatures and not as idiot robots! That way, imo, we help ourselves to grow bigger. Personal responsibility is a huge matter for me. — dimosthenis9

I can respect that. Sounds like you're a romantic, but why not? Take care.

"God's work" as to satisfy their evil instincts but at the same time to justify themselves and not take any blame at all! Hidden behind a "God" and with no sorrows at all. Win win situation for them. — dimosthenis9

Ah, so there's our problem. I don't see that as an excuse. I see that as someone practicing a faith. We need to be comfortable in the realization that some expressions of piety cause harm. Not all, I grant you. But some do and they are practiced with sincerity and not as a 'cover', which is what the word 'excuse' implies.

Reality is the word we use when we go hunting for certainty.

I agree with you. But it doesn't change my point.

I'm not trying to describe religion in all its panoply of great and terrible - just the fact that people who think they do good can be doing bad things indeed. It's not that they need an excuse; they are actually doing 'gods' work.' The fact that religions also do good and that politics also gets good people to do terrible things has no bearing on this key truth.

What's the difference between having no hammer and having a broken hammer? — TheMadFool

You can repair the hammer.

None of this is an argument against anything you've written. I think I'm trying to fit my own experience into your framework. — T Clark

Yep - I'm not saying I'm correct, just that this seems to work. It's always interesting how discussions of art generally end up in good versus bad. Generally we can't help what we like and anyone who can't happily enjoy 'highbrow' and 'lowbrow' together is probably missing out on being human.

It is true that many people use religion as an "excuse" for being good or evil. — dimosthenis9

I think that is limited account of how religions work.

The point is that people of good faith and good intentions often do dreadful things because they think this is what god wants from them.

People may be so awfully brainwashed by religious dogma and, coupled with inadequate education and being socialized in certain religious cultures, may actually think that harming people and judging them is what god wants. They are sincere, not using religion as an excuse.

I value knowledgeable people in general but when it comes to art I can tell if I like something, and no authority on earth can know what may offer an aesthetic experience, though they may know general principles. I'm the best authority on my own sensibilities. — praxis

I guess we're back to that familiar aphorism - "I don't know much about art, but I know what I like." I personally am comfortable with this even though I recognize there is a universe of contested critical assessment and theory (much of it tedious and doctrinaire) available to us to ponder over. The shorthand 'I know what I like' doesn't mean you need to limit yourself to decorative works that you find pretty. It means that you know when you are having an aesthetic experience that you appreciate - it might be confronting, exciting, shocking, captivating.

Actually an old folktale from Chinese Buddhism comes to mind. It concerned the death of a dedicated aspirant who had long left home and become completely detached from all his worldly concerns. At the moment of his dying, he happen to catch sight of a beautiful fawn in dappled sunlight. As I recall the story, this caused him to be reborn in the animal realm. — Wayfarer

No offence intended but I thought the punchline - after the aspirant saw the lovely animal in that golden light - was going to be, "Damn, I've wasted my life!"

A good cautionary tale to this theme is the historical reception of Rachmaninoff's Third piano concerto. "Rach. 3" as it is notoriously called in some cricles can induce in some people deep existential feelings and attitudes that they are not able to cope with. — baker

The thought of this amuses me as it's a fairly lightweight composition. I much prefer Rach 2 - still lightweight but it's far more efficacious I find for wallowing and the indulgence of self. For existential feelings that threaten to overwhelm, I would choose the largo movement from Shostakovich's Fifth Symphony. Or maybe the adagio from Mahler's unfinished 10th symphony. Simon Rattle conducting.

In short, knowledge, true knowledge is an illusion; To put it in different words, I know P (a proposition assumed to be true or itself based on other unfounded assumptions) but P can be false. — TheMadFool

I kind of get what you are saying. I generally take the view that absolute certainty may not be possible - that aside can't we apportion confidence about the truth of a proposition based on the evidence?

All justified-true-belief-web-of-fraught-epistemologies-and infinite-regress aside - I would argue that there are some things we can say are facts (as far as it goes) and we can therefore say that to understand them is have knowledge. Taking this approach may not satisfy your absolute criteria but it does allow us to manipulate our environment rather effectively and survive (and fuck the planet up, but that's another story).

Everyone needs a hobby.

It's a turn of phrase, T... — baker

Copycat.

I, of course, defer to the better judgment of experienced and knowledgeable philosophers but I'm curious. Why can't we know a falsehood? — TheMadFool

If it is a falsehood is it then not the case that we think we 'know' X is the case, when it isn't? My understanding is that we can only know true things. In more colloquial terms we tend to use the word 'know' to express a level of confidence. Or are you asking is it possible for us to know that something is untrue? For instance, I know that the English queen is not 40 years-old.

:up: Useful clarification.

Are humans evil by nature? Selfish, ignorant, violent... — Cidat

Humans are neither good nor bad, but they can often be relied upon to do the wrong thing.

Pretty limited, but apparently some people couldn't tell that it was computer generated. — T Clark

Sure. I have met living therapists who are less engaged than a computer and no one seems to notice they aren't really there either...

I don't think it would be hard to create the illusion of intelligence, after all, most conversation is just a little dance of mechanized and predictable semantics.

With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion. — Steven Weingberg

I fear this is a fairly wise quote. I think of the good citizens of a suburb near me who are Christians and good family people but are willing to condemn any others that are not part of their 'approved by God' group - gay and trans people, women with careers. But worse that that, think of the religious prohibitions against condoms that effectively spread AIDS, or the religious folks who think God will save them from COVID (no mask no vaccine necessary). They seem to be dying in notable numbers... As the quote suggests, one doesn't have to be a slip smacking sociopath to do evil - in some cases just follow the directions of your local preacher...

How does one justify belief, through scientific methodology or through other means of verification of personal belief systems? Do collective aspects of verification and validity cancel out the individual ways of thinking, as inferior to larger systems of belief? — Jack Cummins

Does it not depend on the nature of the proposition you are accepting as true? How does one justify, in any way, the belief that the world is run by a secret cabal of Martians? Individual ways of thinking may well be dysfunctional and stupid.

I've always assumed that one of the roles of philosophy is to examine one's beliefs to see how they stand up to that examination. As difficult and incomplete as this exercise might be in some instances.

I think wisdom and intelligence are synonyms. Are there any uses of the word wisdom where intelligence can't also be used? Sometimes there's snobbery about words and we often reach for 'wisdom' when we are looking for higher status, sage-like accounts of intelligence. Hence we are more likely to say the Dalai Lama is wise rather than the Dalai Lama is intelligent. Wisdom is intelligence wearing a romantic cloak.

I think the real distinction you may be looking for is the difference between knowledge and intelligence/wisdom.

So I ask, what is the reason for this vast discrepancy between us and all else in our world? Of course, the easy and most obvious answer is that there is none. Whether it be coincidental or inevitable, humans are the way they are and that's the way it is. — Jerry

Perhaps I don't understand your point. Humans are essentially clever animals and we use language and technology to help manipulate our environment. I'm not sure why you would take this any further. We are also relentlessly self-regarding and narcissistic. We see meaning everywhere; we think everything is about us. We seem oblivious to that fact that all our frames of reference are human and belong to a scale of our own making.

And besides, it's obvious we were genetically engineered by aliens who took a species of apes and zapped them... prove I'm wrong. :razz:

What's the use of saving your body when it costs you your soul? — baker

What's a soul?

Transports you -- from whence to where? — baker

From suburban shitsville to the Elysian fields... It's a turn of phrase, B...

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 it. — Pop

Goodness... Sorry but his sounds like vague and confused thinking. You still have unfinished work in explaining why consciousness and self-organization matters to this discussion since these two things could explain all human behavior. So what's specific about them in relation to art?

Now you talk about 'great art' in equally imprecise and empty terms.

Please provide an example of a work of great art and demonstrate how the below can be applied in our understanding of the work:

Great art displays an unusual - far from usual awareness of it's subject matter. — Pop

I think you greatly over-simplify things when you attempt to draw a clean break between government and religion. This concept of secularism is fairly new, and it's hardly complete. — Hanover

I'm from Australia so blandly secular is the default in general, even if we currently have our first evangelical Prime Minister. Our politics was always pragmatic and built around property values. We don't even have a Bill of Rights...

That it is to say one can believe in American ideology, but be disappointed in American behavior. The same can be said of any particular religion. — Hanover

Using that measurement criteria you could probably say the same about any given institution. Perhaps it is in unpacking the nature of that disappointment that the difference is located. But I hear you.

But I see the same horrors at the hands of government. How can you participate in government knowing what a past it has had? Might your response be "not the government I believe in"? Substitue "religion" in there for me. — Hanover

What you say is true but I wonder is there a difference in the foundational nature of government and religion? Is religion not founded on and galvanized by notions of moral correctness and inclusivity and fairness and charity and righteousness, making religion's considerable violations all the more hypocritical and scandalous; while the business of politics is by nature conflictual and partisan? Religion also tends to maintain that it holds the truth, while government rarely gets any more totalizing than expressing broadly held community values.

so you live in a cave? How is life in the cave. How do you deal with mold in your lungs? — AlienFromEarth

Well Plato will tell you we all live in a cave. It's a key narrative in philosophy.

That aside is being hostile really a way to engage with a topic? Could it be you are missing something? I think the other responses are nailing this. For instance:

Life is vastly more complicated than your conclusion will admit to. — Bitter Crank

It's kinda self-explanatory, — AlienFromEarth

There's your problem. It isn't. :smile:

But what is it you are fine with? I mean, what is it about art that makes it art such that a pile of bricks can be art? — Constance

This has been answered a few times both directly and indirectly. If it's on display as art it's art. You are being invited to consider something as an aesthetic experience. @Praxis put this well via @T Clark early in the thread. Whether that something is any good is a separate matter. It' s not my job to tell the world what can be considered art. But I know what I like (referencing earlier comment by O Welles).

What the fuck? Self-organization! What does that even mean in this context. — T Clark

Exactly.

But then, and your example is especially telling because it sets itself apart from anything we want to cll art; I mean, shitting and Bach, together in the same category? — Constance

Cool. Yep - both are examples of consciousness and self-organization - which is why I said these criteria are close to meaningless.

Art is no longer "the beautiful" — Constance

Unless one is a slave to idealism notions of 'the beautiful' are not central to art.

Maybe we should tell the the artworld to F*** off, and just because it was Picasso who rearranged a bicycle wheel and handle bars to look like a bull does not establish a new paradigm of what art can be, Duchamp notwithstanding. — Constance

We tend to conflate what is art with what is good art. I am fine with piles of bricks, unmade beds and urinals... it is art if it is put on display as such. But it may not be good art, which is a separate matter entirely.

Maybe Dewey is closer to being right than the artworld's aimless mission to make money through the critic's valorations of bullsh*t. — Constance

The problem is the market. If making money is involved the process is often diverted/corrupted. I don't think there is an artworld as such. There are artworlds and some of them are dominated by insincere money grubbers and have more dominance - 'Twas always thus.

Agree with much of your sentiment.

I have never understood what the word 'pure' adds to the word evil. Would we talk of pure good versus good? I think the word is added to underline it in some way and to add some dubious precision. The word evil is so infected with religious connotations that it is hard to get past all the noise and history.

Your argument about philosophical zombies doesn't resonate with me. Humans behave and some of that behavior is fucked up. It might be easier for us, instead of understanding the causes of fucked up behavior, to use othering or zombie style categories.

What do you think you've added to our understanding of evil?

Maybe it would assist if you presented examples of a pure evil act so we could move past theory and explore your ideas in action.

There is another meaning that might be attached to this admonition to be oneself; that one should not try to disguise himself. I suspect this comes nearer to what psychologists mean when they urge people to be themselves. — Joshs

:up: Nice one Joshs

What I can say for certain is that people hold versions of who they think they are based on stories and interpretations which often do not resemble them at all. My experience suggest that people build identities based on very slender foundations and the 'self' which predominates is an erroneous often problematic projection that can readily be disposed of with courage and practice.

I remember being told as a teenager that we need to lose ourselves to find ourselves, which seemed like empty rhetoric. — Jack Cummins

The way I've generally heard this was that you need to lose any current preconceptions of yourself in order to find your true self. I think it holds up reasonably well as cod wisdom. Personal development starts with a shake up and the need for a fresh start. Certainly this would describe some ways of looking at therapies like DBT or Narrative Therapy.