Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Definition of Art (Institutional theories (Who are the art world? (If…

- - - - Response- widening the notion of the aesthetic to include conceptual aesthetic properties (e.g. mathematical beauty??)
      - Response: conceptual works of art are 'parasitic' on other works of art for their artistic status
      - Response: deny they are art (as Beardsley apparently did)
- - - - "The cluster version of the family resemblance view has been defended by a number of philosophers (Bond 1975, Dissanayake 1990, Dutton 2006, Gaut 2000). The view typically provides a list of properties, no one of which is a necessary condition for being a work of art, but which are jointly sufficient for being a work of art, and which is such that at least one proper subset thereof is sufficient for being a work of art. Lists offered vary, but overlap considerably. Here is one, due to Gaut: (1) possessing positive aesthetic properties; (2) being expressive of emotion; (3) being intellectually challenging; (4) being formally complex and coherent; (5) having the capacity to convey complex meanings; (6) exhibiting an individual point of view; (7) being original; (8) being an artifact or performance which is the product of a high degree of skill; (9) belonging to an established artistic form; (10) being the product of an intention to make a work of art (Gaut 2000)." - Stanford
  - - - "One expression of this impulse is Weitz’s Open Concept Argument: any concept is open if a case can be imagined which would call for some sort of decision on our part to extend the use of the concept to cover it, or to close the concept and invent a new one to deal with the new case; all open concepts are indefinable; and there are cases calling for a decision about whether to extend or close the concept of art. Hence art is indefinable (Weitz 1956). "- Stanford
  - - - Objection- even if true, does this really tell us anything about how things should be classifed?
      - Objection- is the science really all that stable here?
    - - For both, 'arts' vs 'crafts' may be problematic
        
        On that note- I do think this distinction is extremely vague in places anyway. Like, fashion. Particularly artistic chairs. Etc.
- - - - Beardsley's theory is meant to do something along these lines, linking art to the aesthetic