Classifications and the Philosophical Understanding of Art

In the preface to his recent book, Peter Kivy expresses the fatigue that some contemporary aestheticians may feel with regard to the issue of defining art. As Kivy writes, he is not of the opinion that "the traditional task of defining the work of art is either impossible or exhausted as a phil...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:The Journal of aesthetic education 2002, Vol.36 (3), p.78-96
Main Author: Lorand, Ruth
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Aesthetic Education
Aesthetic judgment
Aesthetic objects
Aesthetics
Art criticism
Art Education
Art objects
Artistic representation
Beauty
Definitions
Genre
Hudson, Hud
Music
Philosophy
Poetry
Resistance (Psychology)
Theory
Visual arts
Wittgenstein, Ludwig (1889-1951)
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:In the preface to his recent book, Peter Kivy expresses the fatigue that some contemporary aestheticians may feel with regard to the issue of defining art. As Kivy writes, he is not of the opinion that "the traditional task of defining the work of art is either impossible or exhausted as a philosophical enterprise" but that "at least some of us give it a rest and try to study the arts." The idea that turning from the general concept to its particular forms may prove fruitful is not new. One may recall similar voices of fifty years ago calling to turn to philosophies of art, as Kivy puts it, rather than aim at "a" philosophy of art. To be sure, those were far more extreme voices that firmly demanded the abandoning of the unfortunate project of defining art. The objective of this essay is not to argue against Kivy's project of "philosophies of art" but to object to two points that are implied by Kivy's position: (1) that philosophies of art can do without "a" philosophy of art; and (2) that aestheticians have been engaged far too long in the philosophical project of defining art. By contrast, this essay argues: (1) that philosophies of art cannot do without "a" philosophy of art; and (2) it has not been the philosophical inquiry that kept most contemporary aestheticians busy, but rather the normative, classificatory aspect of art. This essayist argues that the normative (classificatory) definition does not contribute much to the philosophies of art. This, however, does not prove that a "philosophical" reflection on the nature of art would not contribute significantly to the understanding of the various forms of art. (Contains 34 notes.)
ISSN:0021-8510
1543-7809
DOI:10.2307/3333599