Saturday, October 30, 2010

ACDC 3 Live Concert - 1980, 1977, 1991

AC/DC - Paris 1980

Video Google
AC/DC Concert in 1977

Full Live Concert With Bon Scott, Angus Young and the rest of AC/DC's Original Cast

Video Google
AC/DC Donington (8/17/91)

AC/DC are an Australian rock band formed in 1973 by brothers Malcolm and Angus Young. Although the band are commonly classified as hard rock and are considered a pioneer of heavy metal, they have always classified their music as rock and roll.

AC/DC underwent several line-up changes before releasing their first album, High Voltage, in 1975. Membership remained stable until bassist Mark Evans was replaced by Cliff Williams in 1977 for the album Powerage. The band recorded their highly successful album Highway to Hell in 1979. Lead singer and co-songwriter Bon Scott died on 19 February 1980, after a night of heavy alcohol consumption. The group briefly considered disbanding, but soon ex-Geordie singer Brian Johnson was selected to replace Scott. Later that year, the band released their best-selling album, Back in Black.

The band's next album, For Those About to Rock We Salute You, was their first album to reach number one in the United States. AC/DC declined in popularity soon after drummer Phil Rudd was fired in 1983 and was replaced by future Dio drummer Simon Wright, though the band resurged in the early 1990s with the release of The Razor's Edge. Phil Rudd returned in 1994 (after Chris Slade, whom was with the band from 1990–1994, was asked to leave in favour of him) and contributed to the band's 1995 album Ballbreaker. Stiff Upper Lip was released in 2000 and was well received by critics. Since then, the band has stayed the same with the 1980-1983 lineup. The band's most recent album, Black Ice, was released on 20 October 2008. It was their biggest hit on the charts since "For Those About to Rock, reaching #1 on all the charts eventually. AC/DC's newest studio album, AC/DC: Iron Man 2 is set to release on April 19, 2010.

As of 2008, AC/DC have sold more than 200 million albums worldwide, including 71 million albums in the United States. Back in Black has sold an estimated 45 million units worldwide, making it the highest-selling album by any band and the 2nd highest-selling album in history, behind Thriller by Michael Jackson. The album has sold 22 million in the US alone, where it is the fifth-highest-selling album. AC/DC ranked fourth on VH1's list of the "100 Greatest Artists of Hard Rock" and was named the seventh "Greatest Heavy Metal Band of All Time" by MTV. In 2004, the band was ranked number 72 in the Rolling Stone list of the "100 Greatest Artists of All Time".

AC/DC "Anti Christ / Devils Child"

Malcolm and Angus Young developed the idea for the band's name after their older sister, Margaret Young, saw the initials "AC/DC" on a sewing machine. "AC/DC" is an abbreviation for "alternating current/direct current". The brothers felt that this name symbolised the band's raw energy, power-driven performances, and a love for their music. "AC/DC" is pronounced one letter at a time, though the band is popularly known as "Acca Dacca" in Australia.

Early years (the Dave Evans era, 1973-1974)

In November 1973 Malcolm and Angus Young formed AC/DC and recruited bassist Larry Van Kriedt, vocalist Dave Evans, and Colin Burgess, ex-Masters Apprentices drummer. The band played their first gig at a club named Chequers in Sydney on New Year's Eve, 1973. They were later signed to the EMI-distributed Albert Productions label for Australia and New Zealand. The early line-up of the band changed often; Colin Burgess was the first member fired, and several bassists and drummers passed through the band during the next year.

By this time, Angus Young had adopted his characteristic school-uniform stage outfit. The idea was his sister Margaret's. Angus had tried other costumes, such as Spider-Man, Zorro, a gorilla, and a parody of Superman, named Super-Ang. In fact in its early days, most members of the band dressed in some form of glam or satin outfit but this approach was abandoned when it was discovered Melbourne band Skyhooks had already adopted this approach to their stage presentation.

The Young brothers decided that Evans was not a suitable frontman for the group, because they felt he was more of a glam rocker like Gary Glitter. On stage, Evans was occasionally replaced by the band's first manager, Dennis Laughlin, who was the original lead singer with Sherbet prior to Daryl Braithwaite joining the band. Evans did not get along with Laughlin, which also contributed to the band's ill feeling toward Evans.

Scott's death (1980)

As 1980 began, the band began work on a new album that would eventually become Back in Black, but Bon Scott would not live to see the project being finished. On February 19, 1980, Scott passed out after a night of heavy drinking in London and was left in a car owned by an acquaintance named Alistair Kinnear. The following morning, Kinnear rushed him to King's College Hospital in Camberwell, where Scott was pronounced dead on arrival. Pulmonary aspiration of vomit was the cause of Scott's death,and the official cause was listed as "acute alcohol poisoning" and "death by misadventure". Scott's family buried him in Fremantle, Western Australia, the area to which they had emigrated when he was a boy.

Inconsistencies in the official accounts of Scott's death have been cited in conspiracy theories, which suggest that Scott died of a heroin overdose, or was killed by exhaust fumes redirected into the car, or that Kinnear did not exist. Additionally, Scott was asthmatic, and the temperature was below freezing on the morning of his death.

Following Scott's death, the band briefly considered quitting; they eventually concluded, however, that Scott would have wanted AC/DC to continue, and various candidates were considered for his replacement, including Buzz Shearman, ex-Moxy member, who was not able to join because of voice problems,and ex-Back Street Crawler vocalist Terry Slesser, who turned down this opportunity when he decided not to join an established band and instead started a solo career. The remaining AC/DC members finally decided on ex-Geordie singer Brian Johnson.

Angus Young later recalled, "I remember Bon playing me Little Richard, and then telling me the story of when he saw Brian singing." He says about that night, "There's this guy up there screaming at the top of his lungs and then the next thing you know he hits the deck. He's on the floor, rolling around and screaming. I thought it was great, and then to top it off—you couldn't get a better encore—they came in and wheeled the guy off!" Later that night, Johnson would be diagnosed with appendicitis, which was the cause of his writhing around on stage.

For the audition, Johnson sang "Whole Lotta Rosie" from Let There Be Rock and Ike & Tina Turner's "Nutbush City Limits". He was hired a few days after the audition.

With Brian Johnson the band completed the songwriting that they had begun with Bon Scott for the album Back in Black. Recording took place at Compass Point Studios in the Bahamas a few months after Scott's death. Back in Black, produced by Mutt Lange and recorded by Tony Platt, became their biggest-selling album and a hard-rock landmark; hits include "Hells Bells", "You Shook Me All Night Long", and the title track. The album was certified platinum three months after its release, and by 2007 it had sold more than 22 million copies in the United States, making it the fourth-highest-selling album ever in the US. The album reached #1 in the UK and #4 in the US, where it spent 131 weeks on the Billboard 200 album chart.

Tuesday, October 26, 2010

The Legend of Atlantis

Atlantis (in Greek, "island of Atlas") is a legendary island first mentioned in Plato's dialogues Timaeus and Critias.

In Plato's account, Atlantis was a naval power lying "in front of the Pillars of Hercules" that conquered many parts of Western Europe and Africa 9,000 years before the time of Solon, or approximately 9600 BC. After a failed attempt to invade Athens, Atlantis sank into the ocean "in a single day and night of misfortune".

Scholars dispute whether and how much Plato's story or account was inspired by older traditions. Some scholars argue Plato drew upon memories of past events such as the Thera eruption or the Trojan War, while others insist that he took inspiration from contemporary events like the destruction of Helike in 373 BC or the failed Athenian invasion of Sicily in 415–413 BC.

The possible existence of a genuine Atlantis was discussed throughout classical antiquity, but it was usually rejected and occasionally parodied by later authors. As Alan Cameron states: "It is only in modern times that people have taken the Atlantis story seriously; no one did so in antiquity". While little known during the Middle Ages, the story of Atlantis was rediscovered by Humanists in the Early Modern period. Plato's description inspired the utopian works of several Renaissance writers, like Francis Bacon's "New Atlantis". Atlantis inspires today's literature, from science fiction to comic books to films. Its name has become a byword for any and all supposed advanced prehistoric lost civilizations.

Athanasius Kircher's map of Atlantis, in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. From Mundus Subterraneus 1669, published in Amsterdam. The map is oriented with south at the top.

How do we know about Atlantis?
Source from: World Mysteries

Timaeus and Critias, two of Plato's dialogues, are the only existing written records which specifically refer to Atlantis.
The dialogues are conversations between Socrates, Hermocrates, Timaeus, and Critias. Apparently in response to a prior talk by Socrates about ideal societies, Timaeus and Critias agree to entertain Socrates with a tale that is "not a fiction but a true story."
The story is about the conflict between the ancient Athenians and the Atlantians 9000 years before Plato's time.
Knowledge of the distant past apparently forgotten to the Athenians of Plato's day, the story of Atlantis was conveyed to Solon by Egyptian priests. Solon passed the tale to Dropides, the great-grandfather of Critias. Critias learned of it from his grandfather also named Critias, son of Dropides.
Cast of Characters
All of the men, except for Timaeus, who take part in or are mentioned in Timaeus and Critias are known to have actually existed in ancient Greece. Records of their lives and deeds have been recorded in other writings from the time period.
Note: There are 2 people named Critias related to the story of Atlantis and this can lead to some confusion. There is the Critias who actually takes part in the dialogues. He is the one who tells the story of Atlantis to Socrates. Then there is Critias who was the grandfather of the Critias of the dialogues. This elder Critias told the story of Atlantis to his grandson, Critias, who then conveyed the story to Socrates in the dialogues.
Those who actually take part in the dialogues:
Timaeus - there is no historical record of him.
Critias - Plato's great grandfather.
Socrates - Plato's mentor and teacher. He was condemned to death by authorities in Athens for "corrupting the moral of Athenian youth"; He lived from 469 to 399 BC.
Hermocrates - statesman and soldier from Syracuse.
Those mentioned in the dialogues:
Solon - Athenian traveler, poet, and lawgiver who lived from approximately 638-559 BC. According to Plato it was he who learned of the story of Atlantis from an Egyptian priest.
Dropides - Critias' great grandfather who was told the story of Atlantis by Solon, a distant relative and close friend.
Critias - Son of Dropides and grandfather of the Critias who takes part in the dialogues. It was he who related the story of Atlantis to the Critias of the dialogues.
Read online both dialogues: Timaeus | Critias | Compare here: different translations

Evidence for Existence of Atlantis

Note: The following 4 segments contain excerpts from the full length articles listed below.
"This is probably the greatest discovery in World history", was stated by Maxine Asher, the co-director of a scientific expedition that found Atlantis at the bottom of the ocean, reported United Press International and major newspapers in the United States during the summer of 1973. UPI continued that "Maxine Asher said that scuba divers found data to prove the existence of the super-civilization which legend says sank beneath the sea thousands of years ago". "The divers had found evidence of roads and large columns, some with concentric spiral motifs, in the exact place described by the Greek philosopher Plato".

"The group of some 70 scientists, teachers and adventurers was endorsed by Pepperdine University in Los Angeles, California."

The document "History of the Golden Ages" reveals over 30 ruins including pyramids, domes, paved roads, rectangular buildings, columns, canals and artifacts that have been found on the ocean bottoms from the Bahamas to the nearby coasts of Europe and Africa, referencing the vast size of the lost continent.

Dozens of historians and famous writers wrote about the Atlantis they believed existed, how the Myans and Aztecs had told their conquerors that they came from Atlantis and Mu, about ancient tablets photographed in Peru showing those two lost continents, Atlantis and Lemuria, and ancient maps clearly showing Atlantis.

Just some of the ruins so far found include:
  • A pyramid explored by Dr Ray Brown on the sea floor off the Bahamas in 1970. Brown was accompanied by 4 divers who also found roads, domes, rectangular buildings, unidentified metallic instruments, and a statue holding a "mysterious" crystal containing miniature pyramids. The metal devices and crystals were taken to Florida for analysis at a university there. What was discovered was that the crystal amplified energy that passed through it.
  • Ruins of roads and buildings found off Binini Island in the 1960's by the photographed and published expeditions of Dr Mansan Valentine. Similar ruins were also photographed off Cay Sal in the Bahamas. Similar underwater ruins were found off Morocco and photographed 50 to 60 feet underwater.
  • A huge 11 room pyramid found 10,000 feet under water in the mid Atlantic Ocean with a huge crystal top, as reported by Tony Benlk.
  • A 1977 report of a huge pyramid found off Cay Sal in the Bahamas, photographed by Ari Marshall's expedition, about 150 feet underwater. The pyramid was about 650 feet high. Mysteriously the surrounding water was lit by sparkling white water flowing out of the openings in the pyramid and surrounded by green water, instead of the black water everywhere else at that depth.
  • A sunken city about 400 miles off Portugal found by Soviet expeditions led by Boris Asturua, with buildings made of extremely strong concrete and plastics. He said "the remains of streets suggests the use of monorails for transportation". He also brought up a statue.
  • A marble acropolis underwater across five acres of fluted columns raised on pillars.
  • Heinrich Schilemann, the man who found and excavated the famous ruins of Troy (which historians thought was only a legend), reportedly left a written account of his discovery of a bronze vase with a metal unknown to scientists who examined it, in the famous Priam Treasure. Inside it are glyphs in Phoenician stating that it was from King Chronos of Atlantis. Identical pottery was found in Tiajuanaco, Bolivia.
Many other examples of roads, buildings and columns are available, many of them made with materials not available in their areas.

Many ancient maps are also known to have Atlantis on them, including the ancient Greek ones studied by Christopher Columbus before he set sail for America.

Ancient writings from the Aztecs, Myans, Greeks, Egyptians, Spain, India, Tibet, and islands in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans all speak of ancient sunken continents and their connection to them.

Human footprints and shoe prints, a perfectly engineered cube, jewelry, a prehistoric animal with a hole in its skull that scientists admit only a bullet could make, a remnant of a screw, and other modern artifacts have been found in layered rock strata geologists admit formed on these objects MILLIONS of years ago. All of these discoveries were printed in public daily newspapers when they occurred, and left out of history books simply because historians could not explain them with THEIR theories.

Who Were the Atlanteans?

Firstly, it's important to point out that Atlantis was not the only continent from ancient times that sank beneath the waves. There was the huge continent of Lemuria which also incorporated other countries like Mu and Mar in the Pacific Ocean, and Lumania in the Indian Ocean. Remnants of the lost continents may still be seen as the peaks of their mountains make small islands in the middle of vast oceans - Easter Island is thought to be a remnant of Lemuria and still bears the great stone statues, though only their heads are showing above the ground.

There were also the lands of Thule and Hyperborea in the north, which are believed to be sunk below what is now the north pole. There is also information about this land at the north pole continuing to exist today on a fourth dimensional level - but that's another story. Also the land which is now at the south pole was also thought to be once inhabited when it was a tropical land.

The story of how these various continents became inhabited with highly advanced civilizations is a fascinating one, but after many thousands of years it all came to an end for the last time around 11,500 years ago with dramatic planetary events which sank and shifted continents and covered much of the earth with water. Clues to the history on earth before our own recently recorded history can be found in the Sumerian texts.

So who were the Atlanteans and how did they live? The following information has been gathered from various sources for a very brief introduction. I recommend that you read the original documents for more in-depth information [linked at the bottom of the page].

The original Atlanteans were of extra-terrestrial origin and came to earth over 50 thousand years ago. They were of human shape, but not modern earth humans as we are. They were very tall and fair skinned and probably originated from the Lyrian star system. They are also known as the Elohim or Annunaki and their story is hidden in the texts of Genesis. They had life spans of around 800 years and are known in some texts as 'the tall ones'.

Most all ancient civilizations believed in the Titans, the race of giant humans that inhabited Earth long ago. Different races knew them by different names. These 7 to 12 foot humanoids were thought to be legendary until the excavation of over a dozen skeletons 8 to 12 feet tall, around the world, shocked archaeologists. The Spanish Conquistadors left diaries of wild blond-haired, blue eyed 8 to 12 foot high men running around in the Andes during the conquest of the Incas.

They, along with other groups working on the planet, eventually developed the smaller human being by genetic manipulation, originally for use as workers.

The 'Adamu' (or man) were originally created to work in various projects around the world. Some of these were mining, food production, construction, etc. By giving man the ability to reproduce on his own (the original sin), the population began to multiply quite rapidly. The Annunaki began to clamor for more of the workers. Human females were further altered so that conception was possible not once per year, but every 28 days. This can be found in Genesis, Chapter 3, Verse 16.

The Annunaki soldiers eventually started to reproduce with the earth human females: "When the sons of the Elohim came unto the daughters of man, and they bore them children".

Technology on Atlantis

The Atlantean consciousness eventually evolved from a less material, fourth-dimensional form toward the sensual, or physical. Far from being like the other 'ancient' civilizations that we know about, the level of technology reached when Atlantis was at its' peak was far superior to our own.

Among the accomplishments of the Atlanteans, for example, was 'perfect' wather control. Now the average immediate notion is of abundant fields of waving grain in endless summer alongside the most beautiful of beaches. They had that, and it bored them; too utilitarian to them, like we might look at a vineyard. They left such backlands to the serving creatures. The Atlanteans had come into the physical world essentially for the stimulation. They loved storms. Whole areas of their land were given over, like national parks, to violent displays of atmospheric turbulence. Their servants, of course, were less fond of these events, which could kn the equivalent of "artisitc licence" spill over and kill them, destroy their homes, etc. If the Atlanteans noticed and/or cared, they could restore all this damage at will. Some did, some didn't.

They also had the ability to effect geological events for their experiential pleasure. Volcanic fountains were a favourite, but much was done with steam and mineral venting for artistic result. They had plenty of time. The earlier ones were still immortal. More than one volcanic seamount poking its head above the waters of the Atlantic Ocean started out this way. Later, of course, they lost control.

The real core of Atlantean technology that can still be dug up around the earth was far beyond something as simple as weather control. What has attracted the military like carrion is the 'threshold' technology. Some hint of this floated up in the movie 'Stargate', except that the Atlantean version could be called 'Probability Gate'. It's a solid state device (with no selectable 'dial' like the stargate in the movie, for instance) that uses what we think of as time/space as an energy source. The threshold is a lens into probable existence streams, or continua. This area was delved into more deeply with research like the Philadelphia Experiment.

Atlantean Crystals

The Atlanteans used crystals quite extensively, and mis-used them to such a degree that they eventually led to the catastrophe which caused Atlantis to disappear into the ocean.

The Atlanteans used the knowledge of the crystal refraction, amplification and storage. It is known that a beam of light directed intensley and focused specifically on certain series of facets in a gem will, when it exits from the reflective plane of the gem, be amplified rather than diminished. And further, these amplified energies were broken down into a wide and sophisticated spectrum. The Atlanteans used the spectrum of this energy so as to be more useable, and for a specific purpose, much as one would use petoleum in terms of its various spectrum limitations for specific purposes.

Extracting this and that and other things from the same basic substance, they used certain divisions of the energy for growing things. Others for healing, others for knowledge or increasement of substance. Other phases of spectrum for dissassembling molecule structures, and yet other combinations of these strata for building, assembling structures, as in chains; or producing matter, transmutation of matter and that sort. Their basic technology is still available in the earth plane in various locations.

Crystals have the ability to transfer energy, to retain it, to maintain its intensity, to focus and transmit it over great distance to similar receivers as are equal or comparable to the transmitter. Thus, from one pyramid to another the Atlanteans, in a sense, transmitted energy. That when the face of the earth was directed toward a certain point, one pyramid would function to intensify and transmit energies to other pyramids which would then act as receiving devices and would disperse energy as it was needed. The opposite would be true, when that pyramid was at unfocusable point to their celestial alignment the others would transmit to those. Very simple method, very effective method. Though it brought them many difficulties later.

Atlantean crystals were natural forms, but their growths were speeded up. Some specimens of clear quartz were produced to almost 25 feet high and 10 feet in diameter, had 12 sides and were used for storing and transmitting power.

Small crystals, four to five feet high were infused with different colours, and had a varied number of facets, to be used for different purposes, such as healing, meditation, psychic development, increasing mental capacity, communications, powering generators, dematerialisation, and transport of objects, magnetic force fields, and travel at speeds undreamed of by our culture today.

A number of crystals were shaped into invered pyramids, with four to six sides, were infused with various shades of pink or rose, which created a light beam for surgery, by changing molecular structure, and for soothing pain, particularly in the delicate areas of the brain, the eyes, the heart and reproductive organs. Gold or yellow crystals changed colours to deeper hues in the presence of disease or bodily vibrational disorders. Ruby and purple stones helped cure emotional and spiritual problems; and black crystals, no longer in existence, were powerful protectors.

For general rejuvenation and a return of vitality the ancient Atlanteans periodically meditated 15 to 20 minutes inside a circle of 6, 11, 22 or 24 stones of different types, holding a clear quartz in their hands, which acted as a control and focaliser.

All these various crystals received their power from a variety of sources, including the Sun, the Earth's energy grid system, or from each other. The larger stones, called Fire Crystals, were the central receiving and broadcasting stations, while others acted as receivers for individual cities, buildings, vehicles and homes. On a higher spiritual level, rooms made of crystals were places where the Initiates left their bodies in the Final Transcendence, often never to return.

In the modern Bermuda Triangle, on the ocean bottom where the ruins of Atlantis now exist, the energy build-up in the sunken and damaged Fire Crystals can periodically trigger dematerialisations of anything in the area.

One of the most detailed descriptions of the Atlantean use of a mysterious instrument called the Great Crystal was given by Edgar Cayce, who mentioned it many times. The crystal, he said was housed in a special building oval in shape, with a dome that could be rolled back, exposing the Crystal to the light of the sun, moon and stars at the most favourable time.

The interior of the building was lined with non-conducting metal or stone, similar to asbestos or bakelite, a thermosetting plastic. The Crystal itself, which Cayce also called the Tuaoi Stone, or Firestone, was huge in size, cylindrical in length, and prismatic in shape, cut with six sides. Atop the crystal was a moveable capstone, used to both concentrate incoming rays of energy, and to direct currents to various parts of the Atlantean countryside.

It appears that the Crystal gathered solar, lunar, stellar, atmospheric and Earth energies as well as unknown elemental forces and concentrated these at a specific point, located between the top of the Crystal and the bottom of the capstone.

The energy was used for various purposes. In the beginning it was used as purely a spiritual tool by initiates who could handle the great energy. The early Atlanteans were peaceful people. As they developed more physical material bodies, they used the crystal to rejuvenate their bodies and were able to live hundreds of years while maintaining a youthful appearance.

Later the Crystal was put to other uses. Currents of energy were transmitted throughout the land, like radio waves, and powered by these, crafts and vehicles traversed the land, through the sky and under the sea at the speed of sound. By utilisation of other currents originating from the Crystal, the Atlanteans were also able to transmit over great distances the human voice, and pictures, like modern television. In the same manner, even heat and light could be directed to specific buildings or open arenas, giving illumination and warmth by seemingly invisible means.

Toward the end of their existence, however, the Atlanteans became greedier for more power, the operation of the Crystal was taken over by those of less spiritual fortitude, and the energies of the Great Crystal were tuned to higher and more destructive frequencies.

Finally the Crystal was tuned too high, activating volcanoes and melting mountains, ultimately causing the submergence of Atlantis, and perhaps even the axis shift of the Earth itself.
Important Related Article: Precession and Ancient Knowledge

The Legend of Atlantis - It´s Time to Wake Up
Ashatur | February 04, 2008
Thousands of years ago the gods came down to Earth from the stars to initiate a genesis. Human civilization was formed and reached a peak with Atlantis. A dark age began and the battle of Atlantean gods led to its fall. A secret brotherhood brought Atlantean secret teachings before the fall to Egypt. Through all civilizations and with inspiration from extraterrestrian guards the secret Atlantean brotherhood managed all political systems with an educational mission. The thrilling documentation shows for the first time the secret activities of a brotherhood in relations with invisible masters from Shambhala and Agharta and the secret about the hollow earth.

Following the catastrophe in Atlantis all nations were dispersed. A part of the Atlantean brotherhood's secret knowledge survived in Egypt, in India and in Tibet. The heirs of these secret brotherhoods led mankind during the dark age...through Atlantean knowledge and through all ages. In modern times the Freemasons, Templars and Illuminati brotherhoods were formed. After World War I the Neutemplerorden and Thule society emerged in Munich and Vienna. New occult sects which saw 'satan' in the old Freemason lodges. With Hitler these occult sects came to power. This thrilling documentation shows for the first time the background of the Third Reich and its intellect which led to the catastrophy of World War II.

Atlantean secret knowlege tells us the legend of mankind and those souls, who have to undergo cycles. With the fall of Atlantis a gigh civilization cycle had ended. All prophecies and more recent Earth changes point out that today's mankind has reached the end of the next experience cycle. Up to the year 2011 the most serious Earth and climate changes, earthquakes, social and political changes have been predicted. This thrilling documentation shows the prophecies of ELIA, the returned prophet and his message on the last days, Christ's return and the space Brotherhood.

Milleniums have passed... since the high culture of Atlantis sank with a catastrophe through power abuse of some corrupt scientists. All humans of that time, who also experienced the descent into the dark age, are being reincarnated today. The thrilling documentation shows the return of the Atlantean light children and allows deep insight into the role of the lightworkers and brotherhoods of Atlantis. It shows why some souls reincarnate today and act as environmental protectionists, therapists, artists, esoterics etc. for the healing of the earth. Addresses also the Space Brotherhood events--11:11, the hollow earth, Shambhala and Agharta.

The Legend of Atlantis Part 1 of 25

The Legend of Atlantis Part 2 of 25

The Legend of Atlantis Part 3 of 25

The Legend of Atlantis Part 4 of 25

The Legend of Atlantis Part 5 of 25

The Legend of Atlantis Part 6 of 25

The Legend of Atlantis Part 7 of 25

The Legend of Atlantis Part 8 of 25

The Legend of Atlantis Part 9 of 25

The Legend of Atlantis Part 10 of 25

The Legend of Atlantis Part 11 of 25

The Legend of Atlantis Part 12 of 25

The Legend of Atlantis Part 13 of 25

The Legend of Atlantis Part 14 of 25

The Legend of Atlantis Part 15 of 25

The Legend of Atlantis Part 16 of 25

The Legend of Atlantis Part 17 of 25

The Legend of Atlantis Part 18 of 25

The Legend of Atlantis Part 19 of 25

The Legend of Atlantis Part 20 of 25

The Legend of Atlantis Part 21 of 25

The Legend of Atlantis Part 22 of 25

The Legend of Atlantis Part 23 of 25

The Legend of Atlantis Part 24 of 25

The Legend of Atlantis Part 25 of 25

Sunday, October 24, 2010

Definition of Art, What is True Art?

Definition of art:
Source from: The Free Dictonary
1. Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature.
a. The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium.
b. The study of these activities.
c. The product of these activities; human works of beauty considered as a group.
3. High quality of conception or execution, as found in works of beauty; aesthetic value.
4. A field or category of art, such as music, ballet, or literature.
5. A nonscientific branch of learning; one of the liberal arts.
a. A system of principles and methods employed in the performance of a set of activities: the art of building.
b. A trade or craft that applies such a system of principles and methods: the art of the lexicographer.
a. Skill that is attained by study, practice, or observation: the art of the baker; the blacksmith's art.
b. Skill arising from the exercise of intuitive faculties: "Self-criticism is an art not many are qualified to practice" (Joyce Carol Oates).
a. arts Artful devices, stratagems, and tricks.
b. Artful contrivance; cunning.
9. Printing Illustrative material.

The Definition of Art
First published Tue Oct 23, 2007
Source from: Stanford

The definition of art is controversial in contemporary philosophy. Whether art can be defined has also been a matter of controversy. The philosophical usefulness of a definition of art has also been debated.

Contemporary definitions are of two main sorts. One distinctively modern, conventionalist, sort of definition focuses on art's institutional features, emphasizing the way art changes over time, modern works that appear to break radically with all traditional art, and the relational properties of artworks that depend on works' relations to art history, art genres, etc. The less conventionalist sort of contemporary definition makes use of a broader, more traditional concept of aesthetic properties that includes more than art-relational ones, and focuses on art's pan-cultural and trans-historical characteristics.

1. Constraints on Definitions of Art

Any definition of art has to square with the following uncontroversial facts: (i) entities (artifacts or performances) intentionally endowed by their makers with a significant degree of aesthetic interest, often surpassing that of most everyday objects, exist in virtually every known human culture; (ii) such entities, and traditions devoted to them, might exist in other possible worlds; (iii) such entities sometimes have non-aesthetic — ceremonial or religious or propagandistic — functions, and sometimes do not; (iv) traditionally, artworks are intentionally endowed by their makers with properties, usually perceptual, having a significant degree of aesthetic interest, often surpassing that of most everyday objects; (v) art, so understood, has a complicated history: new genres and art-forms develop, standards of taste evolve, understandings of aesthetic properties and aesthetic experience change; (vi) there are institutions in some but not all cultures which involve a focus on artifacts and performances having a high degree of aesthetic interest and lacking any practical, ceremonial, or religious use; (vii) such institutions sometimes classify entities apparently lacking aesthetic interest with entities having a high degree of aesthetic interest.

Evidently, some of these facts are culture-specific, and others are more universal.

There are also two more general constraints on definitions of art. First, given that accepting that something is inexplicable is generally a philosophical last resort, and granting the importance of extensional adequacy, list-like or enumerative definitions are if possible to be avoided. Enumerative definitions, lacking principles that explain why what is on the list is on the list, don't, notoriously, apply to definienda that evolve, and provide no clue to the next or general case (Tarski's definition of truth, for example, is standardly criticized as unenlightening because it rests on a list-like definition of primitive denotation). (Devitt, 2001; Davidson, 2005).) Second, given that most classes outside of mathematics are vague, and that the existence of borderline cases is characteristic of vague classes, definitions that take the class of artworks to have borderline cases are preferable to definitions that don't. (Davies 1991 and 2006, Stecker 2005)

Whether any definition of art does account for these facts and satisfy these constraints, or could account for these facts and satisfy these constraints, are key questions for the philosophy of art.

2. Traditional Definitions

Traditional definitions, at least as commonly portrayed in contemporary discussions of the definition of art, take artworks to be characterized by a single type of property. The standard candidates are representational properties, expressive properties, and formal properties. So there are representational or mimetic definitions, expressive definitions, and formalist definitions, which hold that artworks are characterized by their possession of, respectively, representational, expressive, and formal properties. It is not difficult to find fault with these simple definitions. For example, possessing representational, expressive, and formal properties cannot be sufficient conditions, since, obviously, instructional manuals are representations, but not typically artworks, human faces and gestures have expressive properties without being works of art, and both natural objects and artifacts produced for the homeliest utilitarian purposes have formal properties but are not artworks.

But the ease of these dismissals serves as a reminder of the fact that traditional definitions of art are not self-contained. Each traditional definition stands in (different) close and complicated relationships to its system's other complexly interwoven parts — epistemology, ontology, value theory, philosophy of mind, etc. For this reason, it is both difficult and somewhat misleading to extract them and consider them in isolation. Two examples of historically influential definitions of art offered by great philosophers will suffice to illustrate. First, Plato holds in the Republic and elsewhere that the arts are representational, or mimetic (sometimes translated “imitative”). Artworks are ontologically dependent on, and inferior to, ordinary physical objects, which in turn are ontologically dependent on, and inferior to, what is most real, the non-physical Forms. Grasped perceptually, artworks present only an appearance of an appearance of what is really real. Consequently, artistic experience cannot yield knowledge. Nor do the makers of artworks work from knowledge. Because artworks engage an unstable, lower part of the soul, art should be subservient to moral realities, which, along with truth, are more metaphysically fundamental and hence more humanly important than beauty. Beauty is not, for Plato, the distinctive province of the arts, and in fact his conception of beauty is extremely wide and metaphysical: there is a Form of Beauty, of which we can have non-perceptual knowledge, but it is more closely related to the erotic than to the arts. (See Janaway, and the entry on Plato on Rhetoric and Poetry.) Second, although Kant has a definition of art, he is for systematic reasons far less concerned with it than with aesthetic judgment. Kant defines art as “a kind of representation that is purposive in itself and, though without an end, nevertheless promotes the cultivation of the mental powers for sociable communication.” (Kant, Critique of Judgment, Guyer translation, section 44)). The definition, when fully unpacked, has representational, formalist and expressivist elements. Located conceptually in a much broader discussion of aesthetic judgment and teleology, the definition is one relatively small piece of a hugely ambitious philosophical structure that attempts, famously, to account for, and work out the relationships between, scientific knowledge, morality, and religious faith. (see the entry on Kant's Aesthetics and Teleology) For treatments of influential definitions of art, inseparable from the complex philosophical systems in which they occur, see, for example, the entries on 18th Century German Aesthetics, Arthur Schopenhauer, Friedrich Nietzsche, and Dewey's Aesthetics.

3. Skepticism about Definitions

Skepticism about the possibility and value of a definition of art has been an important part of the discussion in aesthetics since the 1950s on, and though its influence has subsided, uneasiness about the definitional project persists. (See section 4, below, and also Kivy, 1997, and Walton, 2007).

A common family of arguments, inspired by Wittgenstein's famous remarks about games (Wittgenstein, 1953), has it that the phenomena of art are, by their nature, too diverse to admit of the unification that a satisfactory definition strives for, or that a definition of art, were there to be such a thing, would exert a stifling influence on artistic creativity. One expression of this impulse is Weitz's Open Concept Argument: any concept is open if a case can be imagined which would call for some sort of decision on our part to extend the use of the concept to cover it, or to close the concept and invent a new one to deal with the new case; all open concepts are indefinable; and there are cases calling for a decision about whether to extend or close the concept of art. Hence art is indefinable. (Weitz, 1956) Against this it is claimed that change does not, in general, rule out the preservation of identity over time, that decisions about concept-expansion may be principled rather than capricious, and that nothing bars a definition of art from incorporating a novelty requirement.

A second sort of argument, less common today than in the heyday of a certain form of extreme Wittgensteinianism, urges that the concepts that make up the stuff of most definitions of art (expressiveness, form) are embedded in general philosophical theories which incorporate traditional metaphysics and epistemology. But since traditional metaphysics and epistemology are prime instances of language gone on conceptually confused holiday, definitions of art share in the conceptual confusions of traditional philosophy (Tilghman).

A third sort of argument, more historically inflected than the first, takes off from an influential study by the historian of philosophy Paul Kristeller, in which he argued that the modern system of the five major arts [painting, sculpture, architecture, poetry, and music] which underlies all modern aesthetics … is of comparatively recent origin and did not assume definite shape before the eighteenth century, although it had many ingredients which go back to classical, mediaeval, and Renaissance thought. Since that list of five arts is somewhat arbitrary, and since even those five do not share a single common nature, but rather are united, at best, only by several overlapping features, and since the number of art forms has increased since the eighteenth century, Kristeller's work may be taken to suggest that our concept of art differs from that of the eighteenth century. As a matter of historical fact, there simply is no stable definiendum for a definition of art to capture.

A fourth sort of argument suggests that a definition of art stating individually necessary and jointly sufficient conditions for a thing to be an artwork, is likely to be discoverable only if cognitive science makes it plausible to think that humans categorize things in terms of necessary and sufficient conditions. But, the argument continues, cognitive science actually supports the view that the structure of concepts mirrors the way humans categorize things – which is with respect to their similarity to prototypes (or exemplars), and not in terms of necessary and sufficient conditions. So the quest for a definition of art that states individually necessary and jointly sufficient conditions is misguided and not likely to succeed. (Dean, 2003) Against this it has been urged that psychological theories of concepts like the prototype theory and its relatives can provide at best an account of how people in fact classify things, but not an account of correct classifications of extra-psychological phenomena, and that, even if relevant, prototype theory and other psychological theories of concepts are at present too controversial to draw substantive philosophical morals from.

3.1 Some descendants

Philosophers influenced by the moderate Wittgensteinian strictures discussed above have offered family resemblance accounts of art, which, as they purport to be non-definitions, may be usefully considered at this point. Two species of family resemblance views will be considered: the resemblance-to-a-paradigm version, and the cluster version.

On the resemblance-to-a-paradigm version, something is, or is identifiable as, an artwork if it resembles, in the right way, certain paradigm artworks, which possess most although not necessarily all of art's typical features. (The “is identifiable” qualification is intended to make the family resemblance view something more epistemological than a definition, although it is unclear that this really avoids a commitment to constitutive claims about art's nature.) Against this view: since things do not resemble each other simpliciter, but only in at least one respect or other, the account is either far too inclusive, since everything resembles everything else in some respect or other, or, if the variety of resemblance is specified, tantamount to a definition, since resemblance in that respect will be either a necessary or sufficient condition for being an artwork. The family resemblance view raises questions, moreover, about the membership and unity of the class of paradigm artworks. If the account lacks an explanation of why some items and not others go on the list of paradigm works, it seems explanatorily deficient. But if it includes a principle that governs membership on the list, or if expertise is required to constitute the list, then the principle, or whatever properties the experts' judgments track, seem to be doing the philosophical work.

The cluster version of the family resemblance view has been defended by a number of philosophers. (Gaut 2000, Dissanayake 1990, Dutton 2006) The view typically provides a list of properties, no one of which is a necessary condition for being a work of art, but which are jointly sufficient for being a work of art, and which is such that at least one proper subset thereof is sufficient for being a work of art. Lists offered vary, but overlap considerably. Here is one: (1) possessing positive aesthetic properties; (2) being expressive of emotion; (3) being intellectually challenging; (4) being formally complex and coherent; (5) having the capacity to convey complex meanings; (6) exhibiting an individual point of view; (7) being original; (8) being an artifact or performance which is the product of a high degree of skill; (9) belonging to an established artistic form; (10) being the product of an intention to make a work of art. (Gaut, 2000) The cluster account has been criticized on several grounds. First, given its logical structure, it is in fact equivalent to a long, complicated, but finite, disjunction, which makes it difficult to see why it isn't a definition. (Davies, 2006) Second, if the list of properties is incomplete, as some cluster theorists hold, then some justification or principle would be needed for extending it. Third, the inclusion of the ninth property on the list, belonging to an established art form, seems to invite, rather than answer, the definitional question. Finally, it can be wondered whether there is a principle that unites the items on the list. Gaut construes aesthetic properties (possession of which is the first item on the list), very narrowly, but this is not essential to cluster views. Another cluster theorist, Dutton, who gives a list that overlaps very significantly with the one discussed here (it includes representational properties, expressiveness, creativity, exhibiting a high degree of skill, belonging to an established artform), remarks that aesthetic properties are omitted from his list because, he says, it is the combination of the other items on the list which, combined in the experience of the work of art, are precisely the aesthetic qualities of the work. (Dutton, 2006)

4. Contemporary Definitions

Definitions of art attempt to make sense of two different sorts of facts: art has important historically contingent cultural features, and it also, arguably, has trans-historical, trans-cultural characteristics that point in the direction of a relatively stable aesthetic core. (Theorists who regard art as an invention of eighteenth-century Europe will, of course, regard this way of putting the matter as tendentious, on the grounds that entities produced outside that culturally distinctive institution do not fall under the extension of “art” and hence are irrelevant to the art-defining project. (Shiner 2001) Whether the concept of art is precise enough to justify this much confidence about what falls under its extension claim is unclear.) Conventionalist definitions take art's cultural features to be explanatorily fundamental, and attempt to capture the phenomena —revolutionary modern art, the traditional close connection of art with the aesthetic, the possibility of autonomous art traditions, etc. — in social/historical terms. Non-conventionalist or “functionalist” definitions reverse this explanatory order, taking a concept like the aesthetic (or some allied concept like the formal, or the expressive) as basic, and aim to account for the phenomena by working that concept harder, perhaps extending it to non-perceptual properties.

4.1 Conventionalist Definitions: Institutional and Historical

Conventionalist definitions deny that art has essential connection to aesthetic properties, or to formal properties, or to expressive properties, or to any type of property taken by traditional definitions to be essential to art. Conventionalist definitions have been strongly influenced by the emergence, in the twentieth century, of artworks that seem to differ radically from all previous artworks. Avante-garde works like Marcel Duchamp's Fountain (an ordinary urinal which Duchamp exhibited at the Armory Show in Philadelphia in 1915) and other “ready-mades” – ordinary unaltered objects like snow-shovels (In Advance of the Broken Arm) and bottle-racks — conceptual works like Robert Barry's All the things I know but of which I am not at the moment thinking - 1:36 PM; June 15, 1969, and John Cage's 4''33', have seemed to many philosophers to lack or even, somehow, repudiate, the traditional properties of art: intended aesthetic interest, artifactuality, even perceivability. Conventionalist definitions have also been strongly influenced by the work of a number of historically-minded philosophers, who have documented the rise and development of modern ideas of the fine arts, the individual arts, the work of art, and the aesthetic.(Kristeller, Shiner, Carroll, Goehr, Kivy)

Conventionalist definitions come in two varieties, institutional and historical. Institutionalist conventionalism, or institutionalism, a synchronic view, typically hold that to be a work of art is to be an artifact of a kind created, by an artist, to be presented to an artworld public (Dickie, 1984). Historical conventionalism, a diachronic view, holds that artworks necessarily stand in an art-historical relation to some set of earlier artworks.

4.2 Institutional Definitions

The groundwork for institutional definitions was laid by Arthur Danto, better known to non-philosophers as the long-time influential art critic for the Nation. Danto coined the term “artworld”, by which he meant “an atmosphere of art theory.” Danto's definition has been glossed as follows: something is a work of art if and only if (i) it has a subject (ii) about which it projects some attitude or point of view (has a style) (iii) by means of rhetorical ellipsis (usually metaphorical) which ellipsis engages audience participation in filling in what is missing, and (v) where the work in question and the interpretations thereof require an art historical context. (Danto, Carroll) Clause (v) is what makes the definition institutionalist. The view has been criticized for entailing that art criticism written in a highly rhetorical style is art, lacking but requiring an independent account of what makes a context art historical, and for not applying to music.

The most prominent and influential institutionalism is that of George Dickie. Dickie's institutionalism has evolved over time. According to an early version, a work of art is an artifact upon which some person(s) acting on behalf of the artworld has conferred the status of candidate for appreciation. (Dickie, 1971) The most recent version consists of an interlocking set of five definitions: (1) An artist is a person who participates with understanding in the making of a work of art. (2) A work of art is an artifact of a kind created to be presented to an artworld public. (3) A public is a set of persons the members of which are prepared in some degree to understand an object which is presented to them. (4) The artworld is the totality of all artworld systems. (5) An artworld system is a framework for the presentation of a work of art by an artist to an artworld public. (Dickie, 1984) Both versions have been widely criticized. Philosophers have objected that art created outside any institution seems possible, although the definition rules it out, and that the artworld, like any institution, seems capable of error. It has also been urged that the definition's obvious circularity is vicious, and that, given the inter-definition of the key concepts (artwork, artworld system, artist, artworld public) it lacks any informative way of distinguishing art institutions systems from other, structurally similar, social institutions. (David Davies, 2004, p. 248-249, mentions the “commerceworld”) Early on, Dickie claimed that anyone who sees herself as a member of the artworld is a member of the artworld: if this is true, then unless there are constraints on the kinds of things the artworld can put forward as artworks or candidate artworks, any entity can be an artwork (though not all are). Finally, Matravers has helpfully distinguished strong and weak institutionalism. Strong institutionalism holds that there is some reason that is always the reason the art institution has for saying that something is a work of art. Weak institutionalism holds that, for every work of art, there is some reason or other that the institution has for saying that it is a work of art. (Matravers, 2000) Weak institutionalism, in particular, raises questions about art's unity: if nothing unifies the reasons that the artworld gives for designating entities as artworks, the unity of the class of artworks is vanishingly small.

4.3 Historical Definitions

Historical definitions hold that what characterizes artworks is standing in some specified art-historical relation to some specified earlier artworks, and disavow any commitment to a trans-historical concept of art, or the “artish.” Historical definitions come in several varieties. All of them are, or resemble, inductive definitions: they claim that certain entities belong unconditionally to the class of artworks, while others do so because they stand in the appropriate relations thereto. According to the best known version, Levinson's intentional-historical definition, an artwork is a thing that has been seriously intended for regard in any way preexisting or prior artworks are or were correctly regarded. (Levinson 1990) Historical functionalism says that an item is an artwork at time t, where t is not earlier than the time at which the item is made, if and only if it is in one of the central art forms at t and is made with the intention of fulfilling a function art has at t or it is an artifact that achieves excellence in achieving such a function. (Stecker 2005) Historical narrativism is the view that a sufficient but not necessary condition for the identification of a candidate as a work of art is the construction of a true historical narrative according to which the candidate was created by an artist in an artistic context with a recognized and live artistic motivation, and as a result of being so created, it resembles at least one acknowledged artwork. (Carroll, 1993)

The similarity of these views to institutionalism is obvious, and the criticisms offered parallel those urged against institutionalism. First, historical definitions appear to require, but lack, any informative characterization of art traditions (art functions, artistic contexts, etc.) and hence any way of informatively distinguishing them (and likewise art functions, or artistic predecessors) from non-art traditions (non-art functions, non-artistic predecessors). Correlatively, as Stephen Davies has noted, non-Western art, or alien, autonomous art of any kind appears to pose a problem for historical views: any autonomous art tradition or artworks — terrestrial, extra-terrestrial, or merely possible — causally isolated from our art tradition, is either ruled out by the definition, which seems to be a reductio, or included, which concedes the existence of a supra-historical concept of art. Historical definitions also require, but do not provide a satisfactory, informative account of the basis case – the first artworks, or ur-artworks, in the case of the intentional-historical definitions, or the first or central art-forms, in the case of historical functionalism.

As regards autonomous art traditions, it has been replied that anything we would recognize as an art tradition or an artistic practice would display aesthetic concerns, because aesthetic concerns have been central from the start, and persisted centrally for thousands of years, in the Western art tradition. Hence it is an historical, not a conceptual truth that anything we recognize as an art practice will centrally involve the aesthetic; it is just that aesthetic concerns that have always dominated our art tradition. (Levinson, 2002) The idea here is that if the reason that anything we'd take to be a Φ-tradition would have Ψ-concerns is that our Φ-tradition has focused on Ψ-concerns since its inception, then it is not essential to Φ-traditions that they have Ψ-concerns, and Φ is a purely historical concept. But this principle entails, implausibly, that every concept is purely historical. Suppose that we discovered a new civilization whose inhabitants could predict how the physical world works with great precision, on the basis of a substantial body of empirically acquired knowledge that they had accumulated over centuries. The reason we would credit them with having a scientific tradition might well be that our own scientific tradition has since its inception focused on explaining things. It does not seem to follow that science is a purely historical concept with no essential connection to explanatory aims. (Other theorists hold that it is historically necessary that art begins with the aesthetic, but deny that art's nature is to be defined in terms of its historical unfolding. (Davies, 1997)) As to the first artworks, or the central art-forms or functions, some theorists hold that an account of them can only take the form of an enumeration. Stecker takes this approach: he says that the account of what makes something a central art form at a given time is, at its core, institutional, and that the central artforms can only be listed. (Stecker, 1997, and 2005) Whether relocating the list at a different, albeit deeper, level in the definition renders the definition sufficiently perspicuous is an open question.

4.4 Functional (mainly aesthetic) definitions

Functional definitions take some function(s) or intended function(s) to be definitive of artworks. Here only aesthetic definitions, which connect art essentially with the aesthetic — aesthetic judgments, experience, or properties – will be considered. Different aesthetic definitions incorporate different views of aesthetic properties and judgments. See the entry on aesthetic judgment.

As noted above, some philosophers lean heavily on a distinction between aesthetic properties and artistic properties, taking the former to be perceptually striking qualities that can be directly perceived in works, without knowledge of their origin and purpose, and the latter to be relational properties that works possess in virtue of their relations to art history, art genres, etc. It is also, of course, possible to hold a less restrictive view of aesthetic properties, on which aesthetic properties need not be perceptual; on this broader view, it is unnecessary to deny that abstracta like mathematical entities and scientific laws possess aesthetic properties.)

Monroe Beardsley's definition holds that an artwork: “either an arrangement of conditions intended to be capable of affording an experience with marked aesthetic character or (incidentally) an arrangement belonging to a class or type of arrangements that is typically intended to have this capacity.” (Beardsley, 1982, p. 299. For more on Beardsley, see SEP, Beardsley's Aesthetics)Beardsley's conception of aesthetic experience is Deweyan: aesthetic experiences are experiences that are complete, unified, intense experiences of the way things appear to us, and are, moreover, experiences which are controlled by the things experienced. (SEP Dewey's Aesthetics). Zangwill's aesthetic definition of art says that something is a work of art if and only if someone had an insight that certain aesthetic properties would be determined by certain nonaesthetic properties, and for this reason the thing was intentionally endowed with the aesthetic properties in virtue of the nonaesthetic properties as envisaged in the insight. (Zangwill, 1995)Aesthetic properties for Zangwill are those judgments that are the subject of “verdictive aesthetic judgments” (judgements of beauty and ugliness) and “substantive aesthetic judgements”, (e.g., of daintiness, elegance, delicacy, etc. ). The latter are ways of being beautiful or ugly; aesthetic in virtue of a special close relation to verdictive judgments, which are subjectively universal. Other aesthetic definitions are easily obtained, by grafting on a different account of the aesthetic. For example, one might define aesthetic properties as those having an evaluative component, whose perception involves the perception of certain formal base properties, such as shape and color. (De Clercq, 2002).

Views which combine features of institutional and aesthetic definitions also exist. Iseminger, for example, builds a definition on an account of appreciation, on which to appreciate a thing's being F is to find experiencing its being F to be valuable in itself, and an account of aesthetic communication (which it is the function of the artworld to promote). (Iseminger, 2004) Another definition that combines features of institutional and aesthetic definitions is David Davies'. Davies adopts Nelson Goodman's account of symbolic functions that are aesthetic (a symbol functions aesthetically when it is syntactically dense, semantically dense, syntactically replete, and characterized by multiple and complex reference, which he takes to clarify the conditions under which a practice of making is a practice of artistic making. (Davies 2004; Goodman 1968)

Aesthetic definitions have been criticized for being both too narrow and too broad. They are held to be too narrow because they are unable to cover influential modern works like Duchamp's ready-mades and conceptual works like Robert Barry's All the things I know but of which I am not at the moment thinking - 1:36 PM; June 15, 1969, which appear to lack aesthetic properties. (Duchamp famously asserted that his urinal, Fountain, was selected for its lack of aesthetic features.) Aesthetic definitions are held to be too broad because beautifully designed automobiles, neatly manicured lawns, and products of commercial design are often created with the intention of being objects of aesthetic appreciation, but are not artworks. Moreover, aesthetic views have been held to have trouble making sense of bad art. (see Dickie, Art and Value, and Stephen Davies, Philosophy of Art, p. 37) Finally, more radical doubts about aesthetic definitions center on the intelligibility and usefulness of the aesthetic. Beardsley's view, for example, has been criticized by Dickie, who has also offered influential criticisms of the idea of an aesthetic attitude. (Dickie 1965, Cohen 1973, Kivy 1975)

To these criticisms several responses have been offered. First, the less restrictive conception of aesthetic properties mentioned above, on which they may be based on non-perceptual formal properties, can be deployed. On this view, conceptual works would have aesthetic features, much the same way that mathematical entities are often claimed to. (Shelley 2003, Carroll 2004) Second, a distinction may be drawn between time-sensitive properties, whose standard observation conditions include an essential reference to temporal location of the observer, and non-time-sensitive properties, which do not. Higher-order aesthetic properties like drama, humor, and irony, which account for a significant part of the appeal of Duchamp's and Cage's works, on this view, would derive from time-sensitive properties. (Zemach 1997) Third, it might be held that it is the creative act of presenting something that is in the relevant sense unfamiliar, into a new context, the artworld, which has aesthetic properties. Or, fourth, it might be held that (Zangwill's “second-order” strategy) works like ready-mades lack aesthetic functions, but are parasitic upon, because meant to be considered in the context of, works that do have aesthetic functions, and hence constitute borderline cases. Finally, perhaps heroically, it can be denied that Duchamp's Fountain is a work of art. (Beardsley1982).

As to the over-inclusiveness of aesthetic definitions, a distinction might be drawn between primary and secondary functions. Or it may be maintained that some cars, lawns, and products of industrial design are on the art/non-art borderline, and so don't constitute clear and decisive counter-examples. Or, if the claim that aesthetic theories fail to account for bad art depends on holding that some works have absolutely no aesthetic value whatsoever, as opposed to some non-zero amount, however infinitesimal, it may be wondered what justifies that assumption.

5. Conclusion

Conventionalist definitions account well for modern art, but have difficulty accounting for art's universality – especially the fact that there can be art disconnected from “our” (Western) institutions and traditions, and, conceivably, our species. Aesthetic definitions do better accounting for art's traditional, universal features, but less well, according to their critics, with revolutionary modern art; their further defense requires an account of the aesthetic which can be extended in a principled way to conceptual and other radical art. (An aesthetic definition and a conventionalist one could simply be conjoined. But that would merely raise, without answering, the difficult question of the unity or disunity of the class of artworks.) Which defect is the more serious one depends on which explananda are the more important. Arguments at this level are hard to come by, because positions are hard to motivate in ways that do not depend on prior conventionalist and functionalist sympathies. If list-like definitions are flawed because uninformative, then so are conventionalist definitions, whether institutional or historical. Of course, if the class of artworks is an arbitrary one, lacking any genuine unity, then enumerative definitions cannot be faulted for being uninformative: they do all the explaining that it is possible to do, because they capture all the unity that there is to capture. But in that case the worry articulated by one prominent aesthetician, who wrote earlier of the “bloated, unwieldy” concept of art which institutional definitions aim to capture, needs to be taken seriously, even if it turns out to be ungrounded: “It is not at all clear that these words – ‘What is art?’ – express anything like a single question, to which competing answers are given, or whether philosophers proposing answers are even engaged in the same debate…. The sheer variety of proposed definitions should give us pause. One cannot help wondering whether there is any sense in which they are attempts to … clarify the same cultural practices, or address the same issue.” (Walton, 1977, 2007)


  • Beardsley, Monroe, 1982, The Aesthetic Point of View, Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press.
  • Carroll, Noel, 2004, “Non-Perceptual Aesthetic Properties.” British Journal of Aesthetics, 44: 413-423.
  • Carroll, Noel, 2000, (ed.) Theories of Art Today, Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
  • Carroll, Noel, 2001, Beyond Aesthetics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Davies, David, 2003, Art as Performance, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
  • Danto, Arthur, 1981, The Transfiguration of the Commonplace, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
  • Davies, Stephen, 1991, Definitions of Art, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
  • Davies, Stephen, 1997, “First Art and Art's Definition,” Southern Journal of Philosophy, 35: 19-34
  • Davies, Stephen, 2000, “Non-Western Art and Art's Definition,” in Carroll (ed.), Theories of Art Today, pp. 199-217 .
  • Davies, Stephen, and Sukla, Ananta, 2003, Art and Essence, Westport, CT: Praeger.
  • Davies, Stephen, 2006, The Philosophy of Art, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
  • Dean, Jeffery, 2003, “The Nature of Concepts and the Definition of Art,” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 61: 29-35.
  • Devitt, Michael, 2001, “The Metaphysics of Truth,” in Michael Lynch (ed.), The Nature of Truth. Cambridge: MIT Press, pp. 579-611.
  • DeClerq, Rafael, 2002, “The Concept of an Aesthetic Property,” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 60: 167–172.
  • Dickie, George, 1984, The Art Circle, New York: Haven.
  • Dickie, George, 2001, Art and Value, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
  • Dissanayake, Ellen, 1990, What is Art For?, Bellingham: University of Washington Press.
  • Dutton, Denis, 2006, “A Naturalist Definition of Art,” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 64: 367–377.
  • Gaut, Berys, 2000, “The Cluster Account of Art,” in Carroll 2000, pp. 25-45.
  • Goehr, Lydia, 1994, The Imaginary Museum of Musical Works, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Goldman, Alan, 1995, Aesthetic Value, Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
  • Goodman, Nelson, 1968, Languages of Art: An Approach to a Theory of Symbols, Indianapolis: The Bobbs-Merrill Company.
  • Iseminger, Gary, 2004, The Aesthetic Function of Art, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
  • Janaway, Christopher, 1998, Images of Excellence: Plato's Critique of the Arts, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Kant, Immanuel, 2000, Critique of the Power of Judgment, trans. Paul Guyer and Eric Matthews. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Kivy, Peter, 1997, Philosophies of the Arts, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Kristeller, Paul, 1951, “The Modern System of the Arts,” Journal of the History of Ideas, 12: 496–527.
  • Levinson, Jerrold, 1990, Music, Art, and Metaphysics, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
  • Levinson, Jerrold, 2005, “What Are Aesthetic Properties?” Proceedings of the Arisotelian Society, 79: 191–210.
  • Matravers, Derek, 2000, “The Institutional Theory: A Protean Creature,” British Journal of Aesthetics, 40: 242–250.
  • Plato, 1997, Complete Works, Cooper, John M. (ed.), Indianapolis: Hackett.
  • Shelley, James, 2003, “The Problem of Non-Perceptual Art.” British Journal of Aesthetics, 43: 363-378.
  • Sibley, Frank, 1959, “Aesthetic Concepts,” Philosophical Review, 74: 135-159.
  • Shiner, Larry, 2001, The Invention of Art, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Shiner, Larry, 2003, “Western and Non-Western Concepts of Art: Universality and Authenticity” in Davies and Sukla (eds.), Art and Essence, pp. 143-157.
  • Stecker, Robert, 1997, Artworks: Definition, Meaning, Value, University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.
  • Stecker, Robert, 2005, Aesthetics and the Philosophy of Art, Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
  • Tilghman, Benjamin, 1984, But Is It Art?, Oxford: Blackwell.
  • Walton, Kendall, 1997, “Review of Art and the Aesthetic,” Philosophical Review, 86: 97-101.
  • Walton, Kendall, 2007, “Aesthetics—What?, Why?, and Wherefore?” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 65: 147–162.
  • Wittgenstein, Ludwig, 1968, Philosophical Investigations, Oxford: Blackwell.
  • Weitz, Morris, 1956, “The Role of Theory in Aesthetics,” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 15: 27-35.
  • Zangwill, Nick, 1995a, “Groundrules in the Philosophy of Art,” Philosophy, 70: 533–544.
  • Zangwill, Nick, 1995b, “The Creative Theory of Art,” American Philosophical Quarterly, 32: 315-332
  • Zangwill, Nick, 2001, The Metaphysics of Beauty, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
  • Zemach, Eddy, 1997, Real Beauty, University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.

Art is the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way to affect the senses or emotions. It encompasses a diverse range of human activities, creations, and modes of expression, including music, literature, film, photography, sculpture, and paintings. The meaning of art is explored in a branch of philosophy known as aesthetics.

The definition and evaluation of art has become especially problematic since the early 20th century. Richard Wollheim distinguishes three approaches: the Realist, whereby aesthetic quality is an absolute value independent of any human view; the Objectivist, whereby it is also an absolute value, but is dependent on general human experience; and the Relativist position, whereby it is not an absolute value, but depends on, and varies with, the human experience of different humans. An object may be characterized by the intentions, or lack thereof, of its creator, regardless of its apparent purpose. A cup, which ostensibly can be used as a container, may be considered art if intended solely as an ornament, while a painting may be deemed craft if mass-produced.

Traditionally, the term art was used to refer to any skill or mastery. This conception changed during the Romantic period, when art came to be seen as "a special faculty of the human mind to be classified with religion and science". Generally, art is made with the intention of stimulating thoughts and emotions.

The nature of art has been described by Richard Wollheim as "one of the most elusive of the traditional problems of human culture". It has been defined as a vehicle for the expression or communication of emotions and ideas, a means for exploring and appreciating formal elements for their own sake, and as mimesis or representation. Leo Tolstoy identified art as a use of indirect means to communicate from one person to another. Benedetto Croce and R.G. Collingwood advanced the idealist view that art expresses emotions, and that the work of art therefore essentially exists in the mind of the creator. The theory of art as form has its roots in the philosophy of Immanuel Kant, and was developed in the early twentieth century by Roger Fry and Clive Bell. Art as mimesis or representation has deep roots in the philosophy of Aristotle. More recently, thinkers influenced by Martin Heidegger have interpreted art as the means by which a community develops for itself a medium for self-expression and interpretation.

theduderinok April 19, 2010
Speech by Fred Ross. transcript:

True Art Revival Part 1 of 2

True Art Revival Part 2 of 2

The Promise of Art: Terence Mckenna

The Following is taken from the Kybalion
"The infinite mind of The ALL, is the womb of universes."
"While it is true that the ALL is in all, it is equally true that the ALL is within ALL."
"..And, in the degree that Man realizes the existence of the Indwelling Spirit immanent within his being, so will he rise in the spiritual scale of life. This is what spiritual development means-the recognition, realization, and manifestation of the Spirit within us. Try to remember this last definition-that of spiritual development. It contains the Truth of True Religion."
"As above, So Below."

The Kybalion: The Mental construct of the Universe, Consciousness, Light, and Quantum Physics

To me art comes in all different forms of sound, movement, creation, shapes and sizes. Art is something unique. It can be simple or complicated, read or unread, understood or misunderstood, beautiful or ugly, it all depends on the mind of an individual. Art can shift ones emotion be it good or bad feelings. Art screams out loud for justice in these times but not many hears her call to be free and not oppressed. Many Symbols and Mystical teachings are hidden from us, not only on matters of the light and of the dark arts (positive and negative energy). We are all art, love yourselves and spread love on to others.