1. What is to be made of these art conferring theories? Can anyone hold such a theory, and as such, can anyone confer the status of art to any object as long as they postulate a theory to encompass it?
One of the problems I see with all of the aesthetic theories is quite simply that - there are many of them. They all have different answers that are proved through different mediums. Some theories even rely on the disapproval other theories (Tolstoy's reasoning for the development of his) in order to reach a conclusion. Most theories, in one way or another, involve conferring the status of "art" to an object - as we've just discussed, there are many ways to do this; Conceptual "closedness" or "openness" can be utilized, satisfying conditions, perceptual/sensational interpretation, based on an empirical evidence sort of method, can be used, and some other forms of attribution, such as leaving the job of defining the art to "the wise, experienced, venerated elders" of society with the "aesthetic senses." I don't think anyone can truly confer the status or determine what is art simply by creating a theory. There are many theories as to how the planets came to being, yet not every one of them is true. Since many aesthetic theories, like those of the planet's beginnings, contradict each other, then it is even possible that some of them, or parts of the theories, can't even possibly be true if others are. My resulting conclusion would have to be, nobody truly knows about the true aesthetic definition. We were left here to interpret and define ourselves. I believe aesthetic relevance is, like beauty, "in the eye of the beholder," or more importantly, subjective. Therefore, the attribution and application thereof would be subjective as well, and supposedly in that sense, you could confer the title of art to those objects of which you choose, but in the objective sense, your labels could be wrong.
2. Danto maintains that an artworld must exist for there to be art. Without aestheticians, there can be no art. But an artworld is an atmosphere of artistic theory and a knowledge of the history of art. There must exist artistic theory before there can be art? There must be a history of art before there is any art? Discuss this apparent tension. Is there a way to diffuse this apparent contradiction?
2. Danto maintains that an artworld must exist for there to be art. Without aestheticians, there can be no art. But an artworld is an atmosphere of artistic theory and a knowledge of the history of art. There must exist artistic theory before there can be art? There must be a history of art before there is any art? Discuss this apparent tension. Is there a way to diffuse this apparent contradiction?
In order for there to be proper art, and aesthetic theory must be in place so we have some sort of categorizing method to determine what is actually art. However, in order for there to be an aesthetic theory, there must be a history of art. Art cannot exist short of an aesthetic theory, however, an aesthetic theory can't typically exist without a historical basis of trial and error on determining the satisfying conditions of what is "art." I don't see any simple diffusion on this matter, but it'd be interesting to see what others say on the matter.
Q: What is one way to formulate and propose an aesthetic theory without a proper history of art?
No comments:
Post a Comment