Experimental Philosophy and Intuitions on What Is Art and What Is Not Annelies Monserãƒâ© Citation

Abstract

Nigh philosophers of art assume that there are three categories with regard to arthood, namely 'fine art', 'aesthetic' and 'non-art' and that, therefore, a definition must be able to account for 'artful items', also called 'deadline cases of art'. This article, notwithstanding, defends the thesis that, since there is no agreement over which items fall under the category 'artful', the power to account for borderline cases of art should not exist used as a criterion for evaluating definitions of art. The defended thesis is important not simply because it reveals that virtually all declared descriptive definitions of art have strong recommendatory consequences but also because the thesis has implications for the (many) artefacts that are considered to be deadline cases of art.

Access options

Buy unmarried article

Instant access to the full commodity PDF.

34,95 €

Price includes VAT (Indonesia)
Tax calculation volition be finalised during checkout.

Notes

1. But one main figure inside post-war analytic philosophy of fine art explicitly states that the boundary between art and non-art is accented, namely Arthur Danto, Danto, A. C. (1992). Beyond the Brillo Box. The Visual Arts in Mail service-Historical Perspective. University of California Printing.

2. Although there is a distinction to exist fatigued betwixt definitions and theories of fine art, here I will use 'definition of fine art' and 'theory of fine art' more or less interchangeably: they both refer to attempts to clarify ' art' past formulating conditions for arthood, whether or not these atmospheric condition are supposed to be necessary and sufficient.

3. One noteworthy exception comes to mind; Nick Zangwill does not accept that extensional adequacy should be philosophers of art's principal concern, as such, he implicitly denies that a theory of art should be able to account for deadline cases of art. See: Zangwill, Northward. (1995). Groundrules in the Philosophy of Art. Philosophy, lxx(274), 533–544.

4. I call metaphysical theories normative given that they want to alter our usage of the concept in order to fit the nature of fine art. All the same, I do not suggest that such theories aim to alter the nature of art.

5. I thank Maarten Boudry for raising this objection.

6. I thank Eric Schliesser for raising this objection.

7. To my knowledge, there is only one theory that aims to exist descriptive, yet does not start from (a presupposed consensus over) the extension of fine art, namely Alessandro Pignocchi's intentional characterisation of art. His account is purely descriptive, since it simply has a theory of disagreement, but non a theory of error. However, he arguably is engaged in a different project birthday than the philosophers that have been discussed hither. See Pignocchi, A. (2012). The Intuitive Concept of Fine art. Philosophical Psychology, 1–20.

8. It might be objected that these claims presuppose a very naïve, and ultimately wrong, estimation of the influence definitions of art accept within the broader field of the arts. Reference to analytic definitions of art is extremely deficient in other domains concerned with the arts, such as art history and artistic practice. Therefore, it would exist apartment-out wrong to propose that when philosophers of art declare that an particular is a borderline case of art, the field of the arts will accept their word for it. Nonetheless, the fact that other inquirers in the field of the arts practise non take much interest in definitions of art does not mean that philosophers of art should not intendance for what their definitions entail for the evaluation of artworks, non-artworks and borderline cases of art. This is especially important since philosophers of art themselves have argued that their efforts are and should be relevant for the broader field of the arts. Beardsley, M. (1982). Redefining Art. In Thousand. J. Wreen & D. M. Callen (Eds.), The Artful Point of View. Selected Essays (pp. 298–315). Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press. Carroll, Northward. (1999). Philosophy of Art: A Contemporary Introduction. London: Routledge. I thank Hans Maes for raising this objection.

9. I am grateful to the post-obit people for their helpful comments: Kris Goffin, Hans Maes, Violi Sahaj, Bart Vandenabeele and Erik Weber. I take presented earlier versions of this chapter at the ASA Annual Meeting 2012 (Saint Louis, US), the ESA Conference 2013 (Prague, Czech republic) and at a Work In Progress Seminar at Ghent University (2014). I would like to thank the audiences for generous feedback and give-and-take, especially Maarten Boudry, Eric Schliesser and an bearding reviewer of this journal. This work was supported past the Research Foundation – Flanders (FWO) under Grant number 1161213N.

References

• Abelson, R. (1967). Definition. In P. Edwards (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Vol. 2). New York: MacMillan.

  Google Scholar

• Adajian, T. (2003). On the cluster account of fine art. [Article]. British Journal of Aesthetics, 43(4), 379–385.

  Commodity  Google Scholar

• Adajian, T. (2009). The Definition of Fine art. Stanford: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

  Google Scholar

• Anderson, R. L. (1989). Calliope's Sisters: A Comparative Written report of Philosophies of Art. Upper Saddle River, JN: Prentice Hall.

• Beardsley, M. (1982). Redefining art. In M. J. Wreen & D. Grand. Callen (Eds.), The aesthetic signal of view. Selected essays (pp. 298–315). Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.

  Google Scholar

• Carroll, Due north. (1993). Historical narratives and the philosophy of art. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 51(three), 313–326.

  Article  Google Scholar

• Carroll, Due north. (1998). A Philosophy of Mass Art. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  Google Scholar

• Carroll, N. (1999). Philosophy of Art: A Contemporary Introduction. London: Routledge.

  Book  Google Scholar

• Carroll, N. (2000). The descent of art. [Commodity]. Revue Francaise D Etudes Americaines (86) (pp. eleven–24).

  Google Scholar

• Clowney, D. (2011). Definitions of art and art's historical origins. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 69(iii), 12.

  Article  Google Scholar

• Cohen, T. (1973). The possibility of art—remarks on a proposal past Dickie. Philosophical Review, 82(1), 69–82.

  Commodity  Google Scholar

• Crowther, P. (2003). Cultural exclusion, normativitiy, and the definition of art. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 61(2), 121–131.

• Crowther, P. (2004). Defining fine art, defending the canon, contesting culture. British Journal of Aesthetics, 44(4), 361–377.

  Article  Google Scholar

• Danto, A. C. (1992). Beyond the Brillo Box. The Visual Arts in Post-historical Perspective. Berkeley, Los Angeles and London: University of California Printing

• Danto, A. C. (1997). After the End of Fine art. Gimmicky Art and the Pale of History. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

  Google Scholar

• Davies, S. (1991). Definitions of Art. New York: Cornell University Press.

  Google Scholar

• Davies, S. (2006). The Philosophy of Art. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

  Google Scholar

• Dean, C. (2006). The trouble with (the term) art. Art Journal, 65(2), 24–33.

  Article  Google Scholar

• Dickie, One thousand. (1997). The Art Circle. A Theory of Art. Evanston: Chicago Spectrum Press.

  Google Scholar

• Documenta XII in El Bulli. (2008). 2015.

• Dutton, D. (2006). A naturalist definition of art. [Commodity]. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 64(three), 367–377.

  Article  Google Scholar

• Gaut, B. (1998). Simply joking: the ideals and aesthetics of humor. Philosophy and Literature, 22(i), 51–68.

  Article  Google Scholar

• Gaut, B. (2000). 'Art' as a cluster concept. In N. Carroll (Ed.), Theories of Art Today (pp. 25–45). Madison and London: University of Wisconsin Press.

• Gaut, B. (2005). The cluster account of fine art dedicated. [Article]. British Periodical of Aesthetics, 45(3), 273–288.

  Article  Google Scholar

• Jones, J. (2007). Food tin can be artistic—but it tin can never be fine art. Retrieved 17.07.2015, 2015, from http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2007/may/17/foodcanbeartisticbutitca

• Kamber, R. (2011). Experimental philosophy of fine art. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 69(two), 197–208.

  Commodity  Google Scholar

• Kasfir, Southward. L. (1992). African art and authenticity: a text with a shadow. African Arts, 25(2), 40-53+96-97.

  Article  Google Scholar

• Levinson, J. (1979). Defining art historically. British Journal of Aesthetics, xix(3), 232–250.

  Article  Google Scholar

• Levinson, J. (1993). Extending fine art historically. Journal of Aesthetics and Fine art Criticism, 51(3), 411–423.

  Commodity  Google Scholar

• Longworth, F., & Scarantino, A. (2010). The disjunctive theory of fine art: the cluster account reformulated. [Article]. British Journal of Aesthetics, 50(2), 151–167.

  Article  Google Scholar

• Lopes, D. Grand. (2014). Beyond Art. Oxford: Oxford Academy Printing

• Lopez de Sa, D. (2010). How to respond to borderline cases. In R. Dietz & Due south. Moruzzi (Eds.), Cuts and Clouds. Vagueness, Its Nature, and Its Logic (pp. 327–339). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  Chapter  Google Scholar

• Miller, Thou. C. (2013). In memoriam—Alfred Hitchcock. Retrieved 28/07/2015, 2015, from http://world wide web.newrepublic.com/commodity/114279/alfred-hitchcocks-hidden-genius-greatest-creative person-century

• Miller, R. B. (2000). Without intuitions. Metaphilosophy, 31(three), 231–250.

  Article  Google Scholar

• Moravcsik, J. (1993). Why philosophy of art in cross-cultural perspective. Periodical of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 51(3), 425–435.

  Article  Google Scholar

• Pignocchi, A. (2012). The intuitive concept of fine art. Philosophical Psychology, ane–20

• Prinz, J. (2007). When is Film Art? Paper presented at the Pacific APA.

• Ravenhill, P. Fifty. (1992). On the cantankerous-cultural appreciation of art. African Arts, 25(4), 18–twenty.

  Article  Google Scholar

• Represa, M. (2013). Ferran Adrià on El Bulli. Retrieved 17.07.2015, 2015, from http://www.anothermag.com/fine art-photography/2887/ferran-adria-on-el-bulli

• Scruton, R. (2010). Photography and representation. In S. Walden (Ed.), Photography and Philosophy: Essays on the Pencil of Nature (pp. 138–166). West Sussex: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

  Google Scholar

• Scruton, R. (2013). The Aesthetics of Architecture. New Jersey: Princeton Academy Press.

  Google Scholar

• Silvers, A. (1976). The artwork discarded. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 34(four), 441–454.

  Article  Google Scholar

• Smillie, S. (2007). Is Food Fine art? Retrieved 17.07.2015, 2015, from http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/wordofmouth/2007/may/24/theatreoffood

• Sorensen, R. (1991). Vagueness and the desiderata for definition. In J. H. Fetzer, D. Shatz, & G. North. Schlesinger (Eds.), Definitions and Definability: Philosophical Perspectives. Dordrecht, Boston & London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

  Google Scholar

• Stecker, R. (2000). Is information technology reasonable to endeavour to define art? In N. Carroll (Ed.), Theories of Art Today (pp. 45–64). University of Wisconsin Press.

  Google Scholar

• Stecker, R. (2010). Aesthetics and the Philosophy of Art. An Introduction (2nd ed.). Plymouth: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

  Google Scholar

• Stolnitz, J. (1979). The artistic and the aesthetic "in interesting times". Periodical of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 37(4), 401–413.

  Commodity  Google Scholar

• Tolhurst, Due west. (1984). Toward and aesthetic account of the nature of fine art. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 42(3), 261–269.

  Article  Google Scholar

• Weiss, A. S. (2002). Feast and Folly. Cuisine, Intoxication, and the Poetics of the Sublime. SUNY Press.

  Google Scholar

• Winner, Due east. (1982). Invented Worlds. The Psychology of the Arts. Harvard: Harvard University Printing.

  Google Scholar

• Wright, C. (2003). Vagueness: a fifth cavalcade arroyo. In J. Aggravate (Ed.), Liars and Heaps. New Essays on Paradox (pp. 84–105). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  Google Scholar

• Zangwill, N. (1995). Groundrules in the philosophy of art. Philosophy, 70(274), 533–544.

  Article  Google Scholar

• Zangwill, N. (2002). Are in that location counterexamples to aesthetic theories of fine art? [Proceedings Paper]. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, lx(ii), 111–118.

  Article  Google Scholar

• Zangwill, N. (2006). The unimportance of the avant-garde. Journal of the Kinesthesia of Letters, The Academy of Tokyo, Aesthetics, 31, 85–ninety.

  Google Scholar

Download references

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to the following people for their helpful comments: Kris Goffin, Hans Maes, Violi Sahaj, Bart Vandenabeele and Erik Weber. I have presented earlier versions of this chapter at the ASA Annual Coming together 2012 (Saint Louis, United states), the ESA Conference 2013 (Prague, Czech republic) and at a Work In Progress Seminar at Ghent University (2014). I would like to thank the audiences for generous feedback and discussion, particularly Maarten Boudry, Eric Schliesser and an anonymous reviewer of this periodical. This work was supported by the Inquiry Foundation – Flanders (FWO) under Grant number 1161213N.

Writer information

Affiliations

1. Ghent Academy, Ghent, Belgium

   Annelies Monseré

Corresponding writer

Correspondence to Annelies Monseré.

Rights and permissions

About this article

Cite this commodity

Monseré, A. Borderline Cases and the Projection of Defining Art. Acta Anal 31, 463–479 (2016). https://doi.org/ten.1007/s12136-016-0285-0

Download citation

• Received: 06 October 2015

• Accepted: 12 January 2016

• Published: 23 January 2016

• Outcome Date: Dec 2016

• DOI : https://doi.org/ten.1007/s12136-016-0285-0

Keywords

• Borderline Example
• Clear Case
• Reflective Equilibrium
• Cluster Account
• Deadline Status

mcguiganevours77.blogspot.com

Source: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12136-016-0285-0

Share this post