The transcendental realism and lucid illusions that makes us believe that ART exists.

I mean that we fall into a kind of transcendental realism when we look at words of art. For looking at art works is a subjective experience like taste

As I was saying, I would argue that art works are works of fiction.”

“And how can that be, sir?”

“Because they are dependent upon the perception and imagination of the observer so there is a solipsism of truth.

Yes, well, as you look at a piece of art it is a contemplative and for some aesthetic experience neither of which constitute existence. Works of art are the product of the imagination; the existence or reality of a completed work of art continues to depend on the make-believe or imaginative activity of the artist or some other subject, such as the observer or reader who conjectures the work as a work of art

“What we undergo as we look at art works is a kind of ‘conscious self-deception’ and this conscious self-deception is necessary to both the creation and appreciation of art. So our commerce with art is a kind of lucid illusion

“And so what then your view on the beauty of art.”

“Beauty comes about through it irreducability. It is not a thing that exists.”

I notice a few restless movements in the seats; no wonder, for this man is trying to deny us our monthly day out to the Royal Academy, or wherever, to have lunch and see that exhibition. But there is no stopping Martin.

 “If we applied more self-reflexive awareness we would realise that something is being imagined when looking at art works, as opposed to believed. When we look at a Ruben’s or a Poussin they may have the capacity to contribute to a subjective appearance of beauty but this does not constitute existence.”

“No, so what does it constitute?” Comes back a very peeved looking lecturer.

“It constitutes subjective idealism. The painting, the wood frame, the paper, the paint, obviously figures amongst the real entities of the world, but if you then extract from these material things, the work of art, and see it as a bearer or locus of beauty and other aesthetic properties, then clearly work of art cannot be the material object in itself so we have to questions its existence.  Take this building it is a material entity of bricks etc. But if we then deem the building to be majestic or grandiose or see this ceiling here as beautiful, or the dome of St Pauls as a work of art then you are engaging in the imaginative apprehension of fictional qualities.”

Well, not as existing but in a relativist or contextualist way, but certainly not as existing.”

“But you say art works don’t exist. But let us say if you discover or come upon some object of any kind then you have to accept that it must exist?”

“That is highly debatable...”

“But  let us let us say you visit this sculptor in his studio he sits in front of a large piece of marble and he begins to chip away as you watch something begins to emerge in the marble it looks like a human figure, later it is clearly a human figure.”

“So what’s your point?”

“My point is you can only discover something if it already exists. So the work of art exists.”