A "meta-argument" against all future arguments for God's existence ?

[emjay]

Basically, first and foremost this is an abstract idea in my head... ie it including notions such as infinitely divisible, means it could never be faithfully represented if trying to put it into any external form, but at least simplified versions of the idea could in theory be made into 'art'... either as a picture or some sort of sculpture. I've never done that, but it's always been a possibility in the back of my mind. Would you [...] consider such a thing art?

[...]

So when you describe art as a 'fundamental integration of form and content', that's probably not anything like what I've described?

Yes, I'd certainly say it's art.

Thank you Belacqua, I really appreciate that... it's a little bit of validation I really wasn't expecting  

And since you are clearly imagining the shape, and seeing how the shape and the combination of lines (which are form) are the way in which the content is expressed, then the form and content are indeed integrated. It's not as if you pick a random shape and then write the meaning on it in words -- the shape is a part of how the meaning is embodied. The fact that the physical object can't actually be infinite isn't a problem, I think -- suggesting or symbolizing that which isn't physically showable is a big part of what it's all about.

Thank you, I understand what you mean now about integrating form and content and how it would apply to something like this, both to the thought process behind it and the end result.

Naturally you'd get into questions which ALL artists deal with. For example, the object has a clear and specific meaning for you, but you have to think about to what extent a viewer would be able to pick up this meaning. (Long explanatory labels on the wall of the gallery are cheating.) But a lot of artists are fine with being quite obscure, and have no problem demanding research from the viewer, if their vision leads them that way. Journalism and science books have to be immediately readable on their faces, but art may pose puzzles that reveal themselves through time and effort.

I've never really thought about it beyond personal - ie for my consumption alone - interest, so I have never thought about how it would be received by others, but hypothetically yes, it would be interesting to see if people would easily get my meaning. It has certainly peaked my interest given the way you're talking about it, to see what sort of things others have done, and how they go about titling/explaining their work.

Just as an aside, there's a wonderful episode of One Foot In The Grave (a classic British comedy... Season 6, episode 1: "The Executioner's Song", in case you're interested), which perfectly exemplifies the whole modern art/understanding art issue for me. There's this artist getting rid of modern art paintings he's not 100% happy with, but nearby there are people also dismantling a shed. So with the purest of intentions Victor Meldrew goes there looking to buy/get some art for his neighbour's birthday, and is very happy to acquire one of these discards for free, and after some time presents it to the neighbour, who receives it aghast. Victor leaves, completely oblivious, saying things like 'you try and do something nice for someone...', and after he's left the neighbour says, deadpan 'it's not just that he's given me a sheet of plywood splattered with bird shit for my birthday...' It's just a perfect scene and I wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a splattery piece of modern art and a sheet of plywood splattered with bird shit either

I also think that there is a strong personal value in imagining such a work. (Which might be somewhat greater if you made the object and kept it handy in your room for the next few decades.) Our ideas are fuzzy and fleeting, and making objects out of them is a way to get them into solid form. From there you have something to grasp and hold on to, and it can prompt in you further ideas that might not have come otherwise. I think of it as a ladder, and each work of art is a step you add at the top, which allows you to go a little higher and see a little further, and allows you to make the next one.

I get what you're saying. Ideas are indeed often way too fleeting, but that particular one isn't really because it's just based on my general metaphysical stance regarding consciousness, which rarely changes at that sort of level, but yes in general making those ideas more concrete makes sense, not just to preserve them but also as stepping stones to further ideas like you say. I do to some extent already do that, in that I do have a few bits and bobs around that I have created and refer back to in that way... like where visual art is concerned I like working with simple geometric shapes and perspective, as something that's fairly easy to draw/calculate, in my symbolic ideas... whether that be on paper or, very rudimentarily, if that's a word, in Blender (a 3D modelling program), because in either case that's about as far as my drawing skill extends; ie I'm more interested in, and capable of, systematically constructing some concept/art out of simple components than painting/drawing/sketching real life etc, ie classical art.

I'm absolutely snobbish and elitist about art. I also believe that a person can enter at any point, and the reactions you have are valid and valuable, even in the absence of training and experience -- very much so. One way of keeping track of your growth is to look again and again at the same things, and notice how your reactions change over time. No reaction is wrong.

When I am emperor I will mandate some kind of school or institute where people read Proust every ten years, and record their personal growth by how their opinions of the characters change.

What do you think of Swann's Way? I started reading that/listening to it as an audiobook a long time ago, based on the recommendation that it was a good book about love, but found it very hard going and gave up about half way through. If I recall correctly (which I might not, it really has been a long time), I found it very heavy going and repetitive its descriptions of the scenery. I understand that that's important for painting a picture with words, but it was still very hard going for me, and not what I really enjoy most about reading books... I prefer dialogue I guess, as a means to move a book along, than descriptions of the surroundings. Basically I found reading Dickens easier, and that's probably saying quite a lot. But still, is that a book you'd recommend revisiting?... indeed in line with, like you say, a measurement of personal growth... ie like with the layers of Plato or any revisiting of ideas, usually there is a change in perspective, so maybe I'd see it different now. Or would you recommend something else?