Similarly, Weitz maintains that artists should always be able to produce something new or different, without the fear that it will not fit under conditions for being a work of art (1956, 32). As a result, individually necessary and jointly sufficient conditions for being a work of art are problematic for Weitz as he believes they lack inclusiveness to avant-garde works. 20th century avant-grade art renounced definitions of art at that time. Weitz states that any definition of art would continue to be renounced as conditions would not be able to accommodate all art works. To demonstrate this, Carroll uses the example of Duchamp’s ‘Fountain’ (1999, 211). Several of the earlier definitions of art would have denied that this was a work of art. …show more content…
The argument is not fatally damaging to my claim as the open concept argument leads to the idea of family resemblances. The family resemblance method involves seeing if an artwork significantly resembles other established artworks (Kaufman 2007, 282). If so, then it could be considered art. Weitz, following the ideas of Wittgenstein, uses the example of games, including card games, ball games and the Olympic games (1956, 31). He realises that while they are all classified as ‘games’, they do not have something which is common to all; they only have similarities (ibid). The games have no common trait but have resemblances. These resemblances vary on a depending on the type of game, on a case by case basis. Thus, the group of games is said to form a family with family resemblances. If one were to question the concept of a game, the family resemblances would be used to explain it and similar things (ibid). Replacing the concept of a game with art, it is clear to see why there are no necessary and sufficient conditions required, merely a group of family resemblances. Artworks also have no common trait, merely similarities. Family resemblances allow the artworld to be able to recognise works of art because of the properties they have which are similar to properties of already regarded artworks. Exemplar cases of where there can be no doubt of an artwork’s description as art can be given, but an exhaustive list of conditions for the concept of art cannot be assumed. Family resemblances are not a way of defining art but a way of categorising works of art, without the need to define it, so that concept remains open. A true definition of art, one that would create necessary and sufficient conditions for being a work of art, therefore cannot be given.
Humanity has faced the challenge of placing a definition on the ever so abstract concept of art since the beginning of the Renaissance. The ongoing dispute between art critics and aesthetic philosophers has generated the creation of numerous textual and pictorial compositions in regards to varying views on the idea of art. To translate a scene of a room and a bed onto a large canvas should not be considered true art. Early art philosophers struggled between perceiving art as an inspiration or a true knowledge. Andrew Wyeth’s watercolor, Master Bedroom, seems to just be an imitation of a real master bedroom instead of a true work of art. The piece deserves the least amount of appreciation because of its lack of originality, creativity, and
... find the authors’ of my articles arguments very convincing. By weaving both visual and literature evidence together the authors support their arguments almost scientifically. The articles go into more depth than the Gardner text book. Gardner does not provide as much contextual evidence to support his arguments. In this manner the articles I read are a more progressive form of art history. Also, Gardner’s text discusses Witz’s intense focus on realism, but does not discuss his important departures from realism. In actuality, Witz’s departures from realism represent the most significant aspects of the painting. Although we have learned to not read into a work too much, Witz’s hyper deliberate nature requires attention to every detail and is well suited to more than surface level analysis. My analysis of the painting reflects, and supports the author’s conclusions.
Duchamp’s piece was not controversial because of the simplistic nature of the piece, nor the oddity of it- it was controversial because he had not made it himself. People were very opposed to this idea because they believed that art was something made and not found. Duchamp’s “ready-made” art, which were always mass produced objects made by machines, was offensive to them and so they rejected it wholeheartedly. Unlike Fountain, Kandinski’s Little Pleasures was not rejected because of the nature of its ’creation’, it was rejected because people had never before seen art with such a lack of recognizable forms. Before Kandinski, art had always had representations of things from life, and Little Pleasures seemed almost completely arbitrary to them with no connections to the world they lived in. As such, both pieces were, at first, denied the title of “art” because society was unable to break from tradition and admire something
People can have many different opinions depending on a topic, but what is truly difficult is getting a complete level of understanding from every opinion, or understanding the point of view of each opinion. Even accepting the points of view can be difficult for some people, who believe that their opinions are right. Luckily, people can learn about the other person’s frame of reference, and at the very least understand the topic or the person a little better. This particular topic is art, which is known for its multiple possible perceptions or its many different messages that it can send a person or group of people. In this way, people can learn more about the thought processes and feelings of others. Unfortunately, with differing opinions,
Barasch, Moshe. Modern Theories of Art, 1 From Winckelmann to Baudelaire. New York and London: New York University Press, 1990. Print.
However only as individuals can we really determine our own definitions of art; it is subjective to each individual to understand their own meanings and interpretations. Leo Tolstoy says it best “Art is not, as the metaphysicians say, the manifestation of some mysterious idea of beauty or God; it is not, as the aesthetic physiologists say, a game in which man lets off his excess of stored-up energy; it is not the expression of man’s emotions by external signs; it is not the production of pleasing objects; and, above all, it is not pleasure; but it is a means of union among men, joining them together in the same feelings, and indispensable for the life and progress toward safety of individuals and of humanity.” There will always be art, however it is only appreciated if it is understood, and accessible to
Avant-garde is a term referred to works or concepts that are experimental and 'cutting-edge' concepts (Avant-garde:2014). In the purpose of this study, Cezanné was part of early 20th-century art world’s avant-garde known as Impressionism. Clement Greenberg (1909: 755), identifies Kant as the first philosopher to describe Modernism as a self-critical tendency as he was the first to criticize criticism in itself. A modernist is said to be seen as a kind of critic, who criticizes according to a specific set of values and ideas about the development of art, thus a modernist is not necessarily seen as a kind of artist (Harrison 1996:147).According to Greenberg, Modernism self-criticizes itself differently when compared to the Enlightenment as the Enlightenment criticizes from the outside whereas Modernism does so from the inside (Greenberg 1909:755).
It’s interesting to note what happened to the art world after Duchamp revolutionized art into meaninglessness. Artists seem to be exempt from the moral laws that are binding to ordinary people. Everything is O.K. under art’s magic umbrella: rotting corpses with snails crawling over them, kicking little girls in the head, rape and murder recreations, women defecating. Where does it stop? What is art and what is porn? What is art and what is disgusting? Where is the line? There isn’t one anymore. The effect of Duchamp’s pranks was to point out that anything could be art. All it took was getting people to agree to call something art.
Just as other works that reflect art, pieces in the category of fine arts serve the important message of passing certain messages or portraying a special feeling towards a particular person, function or activity. At times due to the nature of a particular work, it can become so valuable that its viewers cannot place a price on it. It is not the nature or texture of an art that qualifies it, but the appreciation by those who look at it (Lewis & Lewis, 2008).
When visiting an art museum, there could be many thoughts that can run through someone’s mind. One can contemplate the tale that the artist is trying to convey while others can discuss the impact the piece has in term of aesthetics. And people continues to walk around and observing different piece, a thought occurs and questions your logic and reasoning. Why are any of these pieces considered as art? This is not a questioning of the quality of the piece, the mere presence at the measure demonstrates that it is certainly fine art. The question is why is it general called art? Looking past the creative imagery and aesthetic themes, the piece is just ink on paper or shaped clay or any variation on a thing. So is piece of art just a mere thing? As written in the Origin of the Work of Art, Martin Heidegger would state that it’s not a simply put. Some of the subjects that Heidegger discusses range from the origin of the essential of art to the interpretation of things.
AA theory by Clive Bell suggests the pinpoints the exact characteristic which makes a work true art. According to Bell, an artwork must produce “aesthetic emotion” (365). This aesthetic emotion is drawn from the form and formality of an artwork rather than whether or not it is aesthetically pleasing or how well it imitates what it is trying to depict. The relation of objects to each other, the colors used, and the qualities of the lines are seemingly more important than what emotion or idea the artwork is trying to provoke. Regardless of whether or not the artwork is a true imitation of certain emotions, ideals, or images, it cannot be true art unless it conjures this aesthetic emotion related to formality (367).
...took place. Through , an area of its own had been set aside for man’s artistic creativity. Now independence turned into domination, and the tendency towards differentiation gave way to desire for total inclusiveness. Art, after liberating itself from service under alien powers, (namely the repression of artists and their art, or the lack of education in the arts) aspired in its turn to embrace life in its entirety. In everything, there is art, and in art, there is everything. Or so it was in German romantic thought.
Clive Bell theorizes art in terms of a theory known as Formalism. Formalism is based upon a relatively simple line of logic. All art produces in the viewer an emotion. This emotion is not different but the same for all people in that it is known as the Aesthetic Emotion. There must be a factor common to all works of art that produces in the viewer a state of Aesthetic Emotion thus defining the works as art. This common factor is form. Formalism defines artworks as that which has significant form. Significant form is a term used by Bell to describe forms that are arranged by some unknown and mysterious laws. Thus, all art must contain not merely form, but significant form. Under Formalism, art is appreciated not for its expression but instead for the forms of its components. Examples of these forms include lines, curves, shapes, and colors. Abstract art, twentieth century, or modern art such as color field painting or the works of Mondrian, are examples of art that are not representative and thus are most lik...
Among the many theories of art that have emerged over time, the theory I will defend in this paper is the Neo-Wittgensteinian theory of Art. I will defend this view against the following (two) objections: a) The “open concept” idea of art is too expansive, and b) the “family resemblance” theory of artworks is also too expansive.
Art can be defined in many ways by an individual. One can say that any creative output by a person is considered art. Others contend that art must conform to a societal standard and the basis of the creation should be understood by most intellectual people. For example, some contend that computer-generated images, such as fractals, are not art due to the large role played by a computer. E.O. Wilson states “the exclusive role of the arts is to intensify aesthetic and emotional response. Works of art communicate feeling directly from mind to mind, with no intent to explain why the impact occurs” (218). A simple definition may be that art is the physical expression of the ideals formed by the mind.