Heather Faulkner
Section 12
Section 12
Aesthetics is a branch of philosophy that studies beauty and taste. The philosophy of art falls under the umbrella of Aesthetic philosophy, seeking to understand what art really is, what purpose it serves, and whether the aesthetic value of art is subjective or objective. The purpose of this blog is to give an overview of some different philosophical approaches to defining art.
With the internet and social media, people today have access to artistic works 24/7, including images of paintings, musical recordings, movies, tv shows, digital novels, etc. Experiencing and sharing artistic creations have become more convenient than ever, making it an everyday part of our lives. Because of this, understanding what art really is may seem easy at first, especially because the word itself is clearly defined in the dictionary. However, finding a philosophical definition is a bit more complicated.
Generally, art is recognized as something that is man-made, meaning that a pretty sunset isn’t a work of art, because it simply exists in nature. However, under this definition alone, everything that is man-made can be considered art, such as buildings, dumpsters, power lines, pencils, etc. In order for art to be distinguishable from other things, there needs to be some sort of definitional boundary to separate what art is and what it is not. Where to draw the line between art and other man-made items isn’t entirely clear. However, many philosophers have come up with their own theories as to where art begins and ends.
Essentialists believe that there is a certain set of properties or characteristics that make something a work of art. Art philosopher and critic, Arthur Danto, argues that “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 (iv) where the work in question and the interpretations thereof require an art historical context.” Some say that these conditions are too narrow and that they favor certain types of art over others.
Institutionalist theories claim that art is art when the “artworld,” a term coined by Danto, says it is. George Dickie is a prominent voice for institutional theories, believing that “a work of art is an artifact of a kind created to be presented to an artworld public.” Dickie goes on to say that all it takes to be a member of the artworld is to see yourself as a member of the artworld. This is problematic because there is no consistency between artworld members in what classifications are used to determine works of art, nor is there a clearly defined artworld, so therefore, there isn’t a single, unified definition of art.
Criticized for similar issues, historical definitions assert that art is characterized by its historical connection to earlier works of art. For example, Jerrold Levinson said, “An artwork is a thing that has been seriously intended for regard in any way preexisting or prior artworks are or were correctly regarded.” One of the problems with this definition is that the first artworks wouldn’t have had an art-historical context to begin with. If there was no preexisting art, by definition, these pieces can’t be considered works of art. Also, it isn’t exactly clear how one is supposed to tell the difference between historical art traditions and non-art traditions, so using a historical context to define today’s art isn’t so straightforward.
Functional definitions claim that art must have some sort of function or intended functions, typically resulting in aesthetic properties and experiences. For example, Monroe Beardsley defines art as “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.” John Dewey claims that an aesthetic experience in art entails the ongoing interaction between the artwork and the entire individual. In short, the intended function of art is to elicit an aesthetic experience, otherwise it is not art.
Anti-Essentialists, such as Morris Weitz, argue that art cannot be defined. Weitz says art is undefinable because it is an open concept, whose “conditions of application are emendable and corrigible.” From this point of view, because art is ever expanding, changing, and pushing boundaries, it cannot be defined by a specific set of conditions or rules. However, the difficulty of separating art from everything else still remains.
Clearly, art is not an easy concept to define. Some argue that finding a definition is not important, and that what makes something a work of art should be up to each and every individual. Others think that in order to fully understand the purpose, allure, and quality of art, we must be able to define what it technically is. Either way, artistic expression and appreciation is a major part of the human experience, making it an important feature of life to study within the realm of philosophy. Please take the time to read the following discussion and quiz questions.
Discussion Questions:
- Do you think that art has to be man-made? Can nature itself be a work of art?
- What do you personally believe makes art, art?
- Would art cease to be art if we attached strict definitional boundaries to it? If so, should we even try to define it?
Quiz Questions:
- Who said that art cannot be defined because it is an open concept?
Morris Weitz
- _______ believe that there is a certain set of properties or characteristics that make something art.
Essentialists
- _________ definitions claim that art must have some sort of function or intended functions, typically resulting in aesthetic properties and experiences.
Learn More About Aesthetics:
Links to posts I have commented on:
I did my post on music, so we're coming from a similar place.
ReplyDeleteDo you think that art has to be man-made? Can nature itself be a work of art?:
I think for something to count as art, it needs intention. There is no intention in nature, so I do not think there can be art.