A60-01 New Ways of Seeing 

BY WILLIAM CARLOS WILLIAMS so much depends upon a red wheel barrow glazed with rain water beside the white chickens

@@jeffbooker 'No vers is libre for the man who wants to do a good job' T S Eliot

Thank you for your long and deeply felt analysis. As a scientist I obviously felt sympathy for some of the points raised. To avoid an endless debate I decided to ask ChatGPT. I just entered your argument and the reply is below. If you wish to take it further then I recommend a debate with ChatGPT or one of the many equivalent large language models. I often use it as a sounding board to thrash out complex ideas. "The user's critique of conceptual art and philosophy raises some valid points, but also displays a dismissive and biased attitude towards these fields. While the user argues that conceptual art and philosophy lack the intellectual substance and rigor of science and mathematics, this view oversimplifies the complex relationship between different modes of understanding the world. Conceptual art, at its core, seeks to convey ideas and explore the nature of art itself, rather than focusing solely on aesthetic beauty or technical virtuosity.[1][2] The user's claim that conceptual artists do not express concepts as intellectually stimulating as philosophers is debatable. Many conceptual artists, such as Joseph Kosuth, have engaged deeply with philosophical questions about the nature of art, language, and perception.[1][3] Similarly, philosophers have long grappled with questions about the nature of reality, knowledge, and human experience, which are not necessarily less "intellectually stimulating" than the insights of science and mathematics.[4] The user's assertion that art and philosophy are "like mental chewing gum" and that the "pretence that there's more to it than that is pretentious" reflects a personal bias rather than an objective assessment. Different disciplines offer distinct modes of understanding the world, and dismissing entire fields of human inquiry as "trite" or "a colossal waste of time" is an oversimplification.[5] While the user's appreciation for the wonder and complexity of quantum physics is understandable, the claim that this makes conceptual art and philosophy irrelevant is problematic. These fields offer different perspectives and approaches to understanding the human experience, which can complement and enrich our understanding of the physical world. In summary, the user's critique of conceptual art and philosophy raises some valid points about the need for intellectual rigor and engagement with empirical disciplines. However, the dismissive and biased tone towards these fields oversimplifies the complex relationship between different modes of understanding the world, and fails to recognize the valuable contributions that conceptual art and philosophy can make to our collective understanding of reality.[1][4] [1] Alberro, A. (2003). Conceptual Art and the Politics of Publicity. MIT Press. [2] Lippard, L. R. (1973). Six Years: The Dematerialization of the Art Object from 1966 to 1972. University of California Press. [3] Kosuth, J. (1969). Art after Philosophy. Studio International, 178(915), 134-137. [4] Scruton, R. (2014). The Soul of the World. Princeton University Press. [5] Gell, A. (1998). Art and Agency: An Anthropological Theory. Clarendon Press. Badiou, A. (2005). Being and Event. Continuum. Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1994). What is Philosophy? Columbia University Press. Citations: wrap.warwick.ac.uk/152565/1/WRAP_Theses_Love_2020.pdf www.tate.org.uk/press/press-releases/artist-rooms-on-tour-art-fund-supported-scottish-government www.academia.edu/43532233/David_Hopkins_After_Modern_Art_1945_2000 www.academia.edu/5008372/The_Anthropology_of_Ar2t github.com/artsy/the-art-genome-project/blob/master/api/genes.json"

@@LaurenceShafe Haha! Thanks for that Laurence. I agree with almost all of it! [By the way, I should say that I adore your channel and all the work you do - I've watched it all. And I send my heartfelt thanks and implore you to keep it up, not merely for my benefit but for all your followers both now and to come in the endless forever after] I'm not going to continue the debate, as it's doubtless going to be boring for most people here. But I will say this... Having studied quantum and relativistic physics, I now occupy my time making art in (cliché) Paris. My beef is not with art (which like everything else is to all intents and purposes meaningless) but with the idea that art is a valid means through which to undertake the quest for truly understanding the world in which we live. It isn't. For me conceptual art always fails at this task. I've met Tracey Emin. Believe me, there's not much in there worth a ponder. Art, however, legitimately fulfils other purposes that other intellectual pursuits cannot dream of doing. Knowing the mathematics of musical notes will never illicit the human emotional response of listening to Beethoven's 9th. Upturning a toilet and presenting it, thus redefining what art can be, doesn't really do art any favours. It may send self-declared aficionados into rapture, but it alienates the masses and establishes an in-the-know elite (invariably with a lot of money) whose understanding of the significance of an up-turned toilet elevates them to a higher intellectual realm, even though they haven't the first idea how an electron functions. It's a sham.

That is not to say that your video was in any way less meritorious. It was fantastic, as always, and I guess my response demonstrates that actually conceptual art does elicit debate, which is the bloody point, I suppose, and I've proven myself wrong. Damn!