The Captive Cat:
At Columbia University, a bronze statue of a cat stands on the floor at the head of a staircase. Presumably it is of some value, for university officials have fixed a chain around its neck and fastened the chain to the stair railing.
Should the artwork be appreciated as a statue of a chained cat, or is it simply a chained statue of a cat? Becuase the chain is visiable, is it possible to exclude it from one's aesthetic appreciation of th e work?
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Aesthetic Puzzle for the week of October 11th
Tatarkiewicz's Definition of Art .....(to further our discussion):
The literature of aesthetics contains an embarrassment of riches when it comes to definitions of art. In "What is Art? The Problem of Definition Today," Wladyslaw Tatarkiewicz defines a work of art as follows: "A work of art is either a reproduction of things, or a construction of forms, or an expression of experiences such that it is capable of evoking delight, or emotion, or shock."
Note that this sentence defines art disjunctively ("Anything is a work of art just in case it is A or B or C."), whereas most definitions are conjunctive (Anything is a work of art just in case it is A and B and C"). Tatarkiewicz regards this as an advantage. But what this means is that there are three things (reproductions, constructions, expressions) and three reactions or responses they are capable of evoking (delight, emotion, shock), any one or more of which from each set is a logically sufficient condition for something's being a work of art. The only necessary condition is that a work of art must be at least one of the three things and must be capable of evoking at least one of the three responses.
Is this an adequate definition of art? Do some works of art fail to satisfy Tatarkiewicz's definition? Is there anything that is not a work of art that satisfies his definition?
- taken from "Puzzles About Art, An Aesthetics Casebook".
Now this is to point out that most Aestheticians do not consider "Everything is art" as an adequate definition, which was most of your stated definitions so far, with the exception of Sonny. So I want you to spend some time thinking about the above definition, and we'll discuss this in class Tuesday as part of our critique. Pretend you have to come up with a more concrete definition for what you consider to be art.
The literature of aesthetics contains an embarrassment of riches when it comes to definitions of art. In "What is Art? The Problem of Definition Today," Wladyslaw Tatarkiewicz defines a work of art as follows: "A work of art is either a reproduction of things, or a construction of forms, or an expression of experiences such that it is capable of evoking delight, or emotion, or shock."
Note that this sentence defines art disjunctively ("Anything is a work of art just in case it is A or B or C."), whereas most definitions are conjunctive (Anything is a work of art just in case it is A and B and C"). Tatarkiewicz regards this as an advantage. But what this means is that there are three things (reproductions, constructions, expressions) and three reactions or responses they are capable of evoking (delight, emotion, shock), any one or more of which from each set is a logically sufficient condition for something's being a work of art. The only necessary condition is that a work of art must be at least one of the three things and must be capable of evoking at least one of the three responses.
Is this an adequate definition of art? Do some works of art fail to satisfy Tatarkiewicz's definition? Is there anything that is not a work of art that satisfies his definition?
- taken from "Puzzles About Art, An Aesthetics Casebook".
Now this is to point out that most Aestheticians do not consider "Everything is art" as an adequate definition, which was most of your stated definitions so far, with the exception of Sonny. So I want you to spend some time thinking about the above definition, and we'll discuss this in class Tuesday as part of our critique. Pretend you have to come up with a more concrete definition for what you consider to be art.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Aesthetic Puzzle Note
Your opinions regarding the Aesthetic Puzzles are your personal opinions. No one else needs to agree with you, but it is good to form an opinion. Once you state an opinion, it is always open to revision based on your rethinking of the issue or the input and/or arguement of one of your peers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)