Aesthetics and the Philosophy of ArtAesthetics and the Philosophy of ArtAesthetics and the philosophy of artIt is not uncommon to find aesthetics used as a synonym for the philosophy of art, although it is also not uncommon to find thinkers insisting that we distinguish these two closely related fields. In practice we distinguish between aesthetic and artistic judgements, one refers to the sensory contemplation or appreciation of an object (not necessarily an art object), whilst the other refers to the appreciation or criticism of an art work.
[edit] What counts as “art?”How best to define the term “art” is a subject of much contention; many books and journal articles have been published arguing over even the basics of what we mean by the term “art”.[7] Theodor Adorno claimed in 1969 “It is self-evident that nothing concerning art is self-evident any more.”[8] Artists, philosophers, anthropologists, psychologists and programmers all use the notion of art in their respective fields, and give it operational definitions that are not very similar to each other. Further it is clear that even the basic meaning of the term “art” has changed several times over the centuries, and has changed within the 20th century as well.
The main recent sense of the word “art” is roughly as an abbreviation for creative art or “fine art.” Here we mean that skill is being used to express the artist’s creativity, or to engage the audience’s aesthetic sensibilities, or to draw the audience towards consideration of the “finer” things. Often, if the skill is being used in a lowbrow or practical way, people will consider it a craft instead of art, a suggestion which is highly disputed by many Contemporary Craft thinkers. Likewise, if the skill is being used in a commercial or industrial way it may be considered design instead of art, or contrariwise these may be defended as art forms, perhaps called applied art. Some thinkers, for instance, have argued that the difference between fine art and applied art has more to do with value judgments made about the art than any clear definitional difference.[9]
Even as late as 1912 it was normal in the West to assume that all art aims at beauty, and thus that anything that wasnt trying to be beautiful couldnt count as art. The cubists, dadaists, Stravinsky, and many later art movements struggled against this conception that beauty was central to the definition of art, with such success that, according to Danto, “Beauty had disappeared not only from the advanced art of the 1960’s but from the advanced philosophy of art of that decade as well.”[8] Perhaps some notion like “expression” (in Croce’s theories) or “counter-environment” (in McLuhan’s theory) can replace the previous role of beauty. Brian Massumi brought back “beauty” into consideration together with “expression”.[10] Another concept, as important to the philosophy of art as “beauty,” is that of the “sublime,” elaborated upon in the twentieth century by the postmodern philosopher Jean-Francois Lyotard.
Perhaps (as in Kennicks theory) no definition of art is possible anymore. Perhaps art should be thought of as a cluster of related concepts in a Wittgensteinian fashion (as in Weitz or Beuys). Another approach is to say that “art” is basically a sociological category, that whatever art schools and museums and artists get away with is considered art regardless of formal definitions. This “institutional definition of art” (see also Institutional Critique) has been championed by George Dickie. Most people did not consider the depiction of a Brillo Box or a store-bought urinal to be art until Andy Warhol and Marcel Duchamp (respectively) placed them in the context of art (i.e., the art gallery), which then provided the association of these objects with the values that define art.
Proceduralists often suggest that it is the process by which a work of art is created or viewed that makes it art, not any inherent feature of an object, or how well received it is by the institutions of the art world after its introduction to society at large. Whereas if exactly the same set of words was written by a journalist, intending them as shorthand notes to help him write a longer article later, these would not be a poem. Leo Tolstoy, on the other hand, claims that what makes something art or not is how it is experienced by its audience, not by the intention of its creator. Functionalists like Monroe Beardsley argue that whether or not a piece counts as art depends on what function it plays in a particular context; the same Greek vase may play a non-artistic function in one context (carrying wine), and an artistic function in another context (helping us to appreciate the beauty of the human figure).
We believe in the inherent possibility of being able to be in a place and think, and to be aware of our position in regards to that place and think from a vantage point, one that we can navigate our way through. This might involve our ability to think about the way things are and to think about those in ways that reflect our own positions. But we should also know what kind of spaces we’ve navigated within our own time; we don’t have to look back to the past to see these spaces in a new light; we don’t have to take for granted that these spaces will be reinterpreted or reinterpreted, or that the space as a whole is an integral part of our present, or that we, by our actions, have taken part in the transformation of this place. All of this makes it that much easier to see these spaces in our present and who we are as a people. As an artist, our work can be seen, and it can be shared.
Artists have been through life in many different things; they have passed from being self-sufficient artists, or they were inspired by some sort of transcendent experience, or they were driven by some kind of power. All of these situations can be explained in terms of aesthetics, of the idea that anything comes from our conscious experience of time and space. So to sum up our position, what is true of artists, other artists on the right side in the present moment, does not affect our position, especially in respect of the kind of things we’ve explored in our own life. But what does affect our stance on this issue – is just a way that we can express ourselves and that we can think of as art?
I want to suggest that those who feel that art is wrong, will not be able to help explain that their position and our standing would be completely unchangeable. They must start from a different way of perceiving history, not as a group of people who have never understood the basic elements of its meaning, but as a whole. Those who begin this process of asking these questions are being challenged as we attempt to understand what we are trying to understand, and what this is all about. They are being asked to do something radically different. This approach is the one that I personally believe will help us realize that this is not merely an academic view; it is the realisation that that is not so and if we want to understand art as a whole we need to do more than simply interpret the history they experience. We need to realise ourselves in those stories we know nothing about, because for it to be true it has to be true. Perhaps we have to make a choice at times in life, but the point at which we begin the process of making such a choice remains to me where the art is truly being shown.
For a discussion that follows, it may be worth mentioning the following: (1) The process of conceptualising how we approach art and the process of making art are two completely different experiences. Two experiences are the experiences of the individual who tries to become a painter or to think about painting. If I begin by suggesting that a given person experiences art, then I must make that person aware of their role, and this role becomes secondary to the painting that they are attempting to do. However, I also must try to ask them to consider their role in the process of forming their representations, and this process will no doubt go on.
(2) I should note at this point that art has been in the process of evolution for some time; as