Aesthetics

4 Different Theories of Art: Plus some others

1. Mimetic Theory of Art‑

Think “Mime.”

Art is a mimicking of nature.

• Probably the Oldest Account of “Art” in Western Though
• From the ancients until the 1700 accepted the view of art.
• Art is an imitation (later a representation) of nature.

Paintings imitate visual scenes;

Sculptures imitate three dimensional objects

Drama imitates human behavior

Music was always difficult for this theory to account for. Music doesn’t seem to be imitating anything, at least on the face of it.

Marsilio Ficino, a Renaissance Neo-Platonist suggested that it was the mimicking or representation of the Divine Geometry which orders the movement of the celestial spheres;

To accept this theory of Art would seem to imply that good art accurately imitates nature of bad art does not faithfully imitate nature. Faithfulness to reality becomes an evaluative criterion.

Plato on Mimetic Art:

Plato thought art was essentially was mimetic. But if art is merely a “copy” of nature, then it is worthless, he claims. But he presumes that mimetic art needs to serve some useful purpose or at very least not be harmful if it is to be supported or even tolerated:

An Ancient Quarrel

“there is an ancient quarrel between philosophy and poetry; of which there are many proofs, such as the saying of 'the yelping hound howling at her lord,' or of one 'mighty in the vain talk of fools,' and 'the mob of sages circumventing Zeus,' and the 'subtle thinkers who are beggars after all;

Notwithstanding this, let us assure our sweet friend and the sister arts of imitation that if she will only prove her title to exist in a well-ordered State we shall be delighted to receive her --we are very conscious of her charms; but we may not on that account betray the truth.

If her defense fails, then, my dear friend, like other persons who are enamored of something, but put a restraint upon themselves when they think their desires are opposed to their interests, so too must we after the manner of lovers give her up, though not without a struggle.”[1]

In Book X of the Republic, Plato concludes that in fact mimetic art does NOT serve some useful purpose. He further believed that not only did art have no positive value, it had negative values and was teaching dangerous things. His criticism of art cover a spectrum of perspectives:

(Mimetic) Art is Useless: Art was useless.

It serves no valuable purpose in society. As a mere "False Copy of Nature" it adds nothing our knowledge or understanding of the world nor does it perform any useful service to society. The same value could be added by simply by holding up a mirror to the world. Note that simply holding up a mirror would be far less costly and demand fewer resources then the "production of art," but would have the same approximate value. According to this line of thought, if art was basically an imitation of nature and it was "costly" one at that, it should be worth the time and money we put into it. But it is not, concluded Plato. It was useless.

Further, art was mainly concerned with sensual pleasure. Art seems directed entirely towards pleasing the senses and ignoring the mind, intellect, or concepts. According to Platonic Mind/Body Dualism, our senses/body are the least valuable, least permanent, least "real" aspects of our personalities. According to Plato, our senses are also incapable of providing us with genuine knowledge since they only gather information from an ever changing physical world and not the immaterial forces which guide, direct and sustain it (the Forms).

As such our senses, and consequently sensuous art, are "metaphysically" and “epistemologically” misguided since they are directed towards illusion and not "reality." Art serves to perpetuate and sustain this misdirection, keeping us ignorant of truth, justice, goodness and "real" beauty.

Metaphysical:

Recall Plato’s “Realm or Being” and “Realm of Becoming.” The world of particular objects is a reflection or imperfect copy of the timeless and eternal forms. Particular objects of “ontologically dependent” on the form (of which they are copies) and therefore less “real.” Well then, pictures are merely copies of the copies and thus “thrice removed from the throne of truth.”[2] Paintings are even “less real” then the things they depict since that are ontologically dependent on the things to which they refer and not the other way around.

Epistemological:

(See “Metaphysically and epistemologically misguided above, but also) Art seem whole unconcerned with truth of any kind. Indeed the whole pole seems to be to deceive you. Not only are the stories dramatists tell usually false, but they are no worse and no better as dramas if they were true. Hence truth seems to be entirely beside the point. Also, mimetic are seems to be most successful when it deceived.[3] Remember, Plato did not think real knowledge came to us via our senses. But this was all art appealed to. It was literally concerned only with appearances: surfaces and what is superficial.

Moral:

Art was unconcerned with morality, sometimes even teaching immoral lessons. Plato could cite The Iliad as an example in which Achilles refuses to fight for his country out of spite. This story is told even though the poem glorifies Achilles as a hero. Plato worries that such art would encourage immorality in the citizens of this state. People might uncritically accept and admire immoral, vicious traits when they are attractively packaged by skilled artists (distinction between truth and illusion/ physicians and cooks/ beauty and glamour.) Like a skilled chef, artists are only interested in pleasing the palate, even if it poisons the diner. Since (mimetic) art is institutionally divorced from truth, goodness or any concern with 'real' beauty, it creates an environment of superficial "flavors" where all sorts of atrocities can be made to seem a tempting confection.

Psychological:

Art was psychologically de-stabilizing. Human existence is, in great part, a struggle to master the emotions and sensual urges by using reason and intellect according to Plato. Therefore art was dangerous and counterproductive to this end since it appeals not to reason and intellect, but to the psychological forces which constantly try to over-through reason, namely passion and emotion. Plato suggest that art “feeds and waters the passions instead of drying them up; she lets them rule, although they out to be controlled if mankind are ever to increase in happiness and virtue.” (The Republic 602)

Political:

Art was politically dangerous, a threat to the common good. Similar to the point made earlier, Plato worried that strong art which appeals to emotions stirs up negative emotions which we are trying to control. But this is more than just a problem for the individual. A people with a history of "mania" would certainly view strong, emotion-stirring art as a threat to the good of state/community. It was, therefore, correctly the concern of government. Remember, Greece had suffered from waves of mania, episodes of mass, irrational, emotional, destructive behavior. The ecstatic, and often violent and destructive, dances of the Maenads may have been episodes of mass hysteria, triggered perhaps by disease and pent up frustration by women living in a male-dominate society. On at least one occasion these dances were banned and an effort was made to chancel the energy into something else such as poetry reading contests.

With this as precedent, it is not surprising that Plato was deeply concerned about dramatic arts (the roots of which were festivals to Dionysus) which intentionally caused people to cry and weep presumably without any real reason. (see “The Paradox of Fiction”). This is similar to the criticism raised by some today of the violence and sex in the media. Like Plato, they argue that violence and sex in the media cause us to be a more violent, sexually obsessed culture. Therefore, it affects not just the people who consume the violent images, but the entire community of which they are a part.

Plato recommends driving artists from the city, but recognized that artists were the creators of great beauty (in the REPUBLIC). He equates creativity with some sort of divine madness since artists themselves could not explain beauty nor how they came to consistently produce beautiful things. Thus the creation of art along with its appreciation could not be seen as a cognitive process since, though on some level conceptual, does not seem to be consciously mediated by concepts.

Side note: Romantics agree with Plato that artists can't give reasons for what they do.

Thus Plato thought art was essentially was mimetic, and being so, that it had no positive value, but was pernicious (had negative values, teaching dangerous things).

Note: Dance (at least the Public Ceremonial Procession-Type dance) was seen as neither mimetic nor as worthless by Plato. Indeed, for the very reason Plato thought that dance was not really art, he thought that is was a valuable practice in the good state. In such dance people participated in the communal organism, each finding and knowing and doing their vital part. As such this was not seen as in imitation of public/social order and harmony, it was rather a manifestation of it. However, as dance did not share in the condemnation of her sister arts, neither did she share in the rehabilitation of art’s reputation by art’s later champions.

Aristotle’s Critical Responses

Aristotle also believed that Arts was essentially mimetic, but claimed that art has a positive value and defended art against Plato’s charged.

Aristotle’s Critical Responses

Aristotle was Plato's most famous student and greatest critic. While disagreeing with much else that Plato said, Aristotle agreed that art was essentially an imitation of nature. But, he maintained, art was not useless nor dangerous.

First, and crucial to Aristotle's defense of art is his rejection of Plato's dualism. Man is not an "embodied" intellect, longing for the spiritual release of death, but rather and animal with, among all the our other natural animalistic faculties, the ability to use reason. Aristotle also reject Plato’s “Rationalism” with its rejection of empirical investigations. Instead he embraces Empiricism. We must study actual humans empirically as we would study other animals to discover what their "nature" is. Among the species, who are the thriving and successful members and what activities do they engage in? This is how to determine what is and is not appropriate for a human to do and for human societies.

(Mimetic) Art is Useless: Art was useless.

Art is not useless; it is natural:

Claims that it is natural for human beings to imitate. Any human society which is healthy will be a society where there is imitative art. Nothing is more natural than for children to pretend. (Note: the inability or lack of desire to engage in spontaneous games of pretend is a symptom of developmental disability- perhaps Autism.) Nothing is more natural than for human beings to create using their imagination. We could never eliminate art from healthy human society according to Aristotle. Furthermore, since art is imitation, it is an imaginative use of concepts; at its heart, art is "conceptual," "intellectual."

Art production and training is a necessary part of any education since it uses and encourages the imaginative manipulation of ideas. Further Mimesis is NOT merely copying particulars in nature, but the representation of ideals. This too requires the intellectual act of abstracting the essential nature from a group of particulars.

Art is defined by Aristotle as the realization in external form of a true idea, and is generated out of the natural pleasure humans take in their innate ability to imitate and imagine as well as the pleasure humans feel in recognizing likenesses. Contrary to Plato, Aristotle claims that art is not merely “copying.” Rather, in art, the artist idealizes nature and compensates for its deficiencies. It is an intellectual (cognitive) process where the artist seeks to make manifest the universal type in the individual phenomenon.

Metaphysical:

Rejects the dualism of Plato and the notion that the world of objects is “less real” than the forms the objects possess.

Epistemological:

Art is not entirely deceptive according to Aristotle because artists must accurately portray reality to be successful. Drama must accurately portray psychological reality in order for characters to be believable and their actions understandable. Convincing and powerful drama is convincing and powerful because it reveals some truth of human nature. It teaches effectively and it teaches the truth.

Also, Aristotle introduces the concept of " Organic Unity."

Organic Unity: refers to the quality a work of art or an organism has when each of the parts contribute to the overall success of the whole. Excellent, successful works of art have this quality.

As in nature, there is a "unity in difference." In order for a work of art to be successful each element in the work must contribute to the overall success of the work; there must be a "unity among the parts." This is the first time in western aesthetics that a formal characteristic is offered as a value principle. Aristotle believes that it follows from a mimetic reading of nature; just as in biological organisms each part contributes to the overall health and well‑being of the creature, so too in works of art each element must contribute to the thematic development. This is another way in which works of art reflects or imitates reality.

For reasons stated above, Aristotle did not believe that art was solely concerned with the sensual pleasures, but rather was/should be an intellectual, conceptual affair. Furthermore, Aristotle did not believe that the mind was one thing and the body was something else. Aristotle did not suffer from the sort of "Mind/Body Dualism" that Plato did and therefore Aristotle did not have the bias against physical pleasures that Plato did. The only way of acquiring knowledge at all, according to Aristotle, was through the senses and so developing, exercising and sharpening those senses through art was a healthy thing to do.

Moral:

Aristotle believed that drama was an excellent way of teaching morality. In a Greek Tragedy the main character always comes to a bad end because of a character flaw. Thus Greek Tragedies teach moral truths: When trying to understand how tragedies achieve their peculiar effect (fear & pathos), he notes the psychology and morality on which they must be based. The main character must not be totally evil (or else we would not identify with him and feel happy when he met his comeuppance) nor must he be totally good (or else we would find his misfortune repugnant). Instead the main character must be basically good, but flawed and it is this flaw that is his undoing. Pathos is achieved because while we commiserate with the fallen hero, we nevertheless understand that the outcome was inevitable and proper. The "moral truth" that all tragedies teach is that immoral actions or character flaws lead one to a tragic ending. In doing so, drama reinforces morality and the ultimately rational structure of the universe rather than challenging it.

Bear in mind that Aristotle believed that drama imitated not only "events," but actions. As such they imitated intentions, psychological forces and the unseen "inner life" of persons. The art of dramatic poetry, though it is an imitation of human actions, it is not a mere “chronicle” of events (history). While (un-philosophical) history is limited to what has actually happened, poetry depicts things in their universal character.

"(P)oetry is more philosophical and more elevated than history" says Aristotle because “while the latter records what did happen, the former reveals what should happen and what must happen” according to the laws of the universe and human psychology.[4]

Fiction does not teach us history, but because art imitates human actions, good art has to depict character, character traits and personality. These latter things are real so it teaches us moral, psychological lessons; what it is imitating is real and applicable to our lives. We can learn a lot from these false stories because though they are false in once sense, they are in another sense “true.”

Note: I want to make a further point here. It also displays and transmits this knowledge in an unique way. The audience must understand the universals at work in the drama to be carried away by the drama, and in that sense they must internalize the knowledge of human nature and morality utilized by the playwright. This is different from the sort of “book” knowledge one might get from a psyche text.

Psychological:

Aristotle believed that strong art did stir up negative emotions but, he also believed that these negative emotions were then purged in an harmless, healthy way. This was his doctrine of "catharsis".

Catharsis: refers to a cleansing or purification that one achieves from art that invokes strong emotional responses.[5]

Therefore strong art was neither psychologically de-stabilizing nor politically destructive, but actually a therapeutic part of the healthy life of not only the individually, but of the nation. Again this is similar to arguments made today in defense of graphically sexual or violent art or even of pornography or of violence on television. Defenders sometimes claim that we are naturally sexual and naturally violent. Images of depicted sex and violence allow us to purge these otherwise negative and potentially destructive emotions and a harmless way. It is odd that a debate which started over 2000 years ago between Aristotle and Plato has still yet to be resolved. Aristotle says that art has a positive value.

Political:

Since art was not psychologically destabilizing it did not pose political threat that Plato thought it did. But more than that, Aristotle argued that artistic education was the responsibility of the State.

Aristotle on Artistic Education:

“Children should during their earliest years be carefully protected from all injurious associations, and be introduced to such amusements as will prepare them for the serious duties of life. Their literary education should begin in their seventh year, and continue to their twenty-first year. This period is divided into two courses of training, one from age seven to puberty, and the other from puberty to age twenty-one. Such education should not be left to private enterprise, but should be undertaken by the state. There are four main branches of education: reading and writing, Gymnastics, music, and painting. They should not be studied to achieve a specific aim, but in the liberal spirit which creates true freemen. Thus, for example, gymnastics should not be pursued by itself exclusively, or it will result in a harsh savage type of character. Painting must not be studied merely to prevent people from being cheated in pictures, but to make them attend to physical beauty. Music must not be studied merely for amusement, but for the moral influence which it exerts on the feelings. Indeed all true education is, as Plato saw, a training of our sympathies so that we may love and hate in a right manner.”

Consequences for Dance

Note: He unwittingly set up two functions for dance-as-art to fulfill; to imitate human actions (drama/ literature) and to imitate "organic unity" (music, architecture). At the earliest this shows why dance inherited a place subordinate to other arts since, in a sense, these other four could do everything that dance could do as art, but better.

Aristotle’s defense of Art was accepted for generations of artists, philosophers, aestheticians, and art critics. Along with his defense they bought into his account of Art, that art is imitation, and that faithfulness to reality was goal and the standard of evaluation of art.

Note that the standard for excellence was art's relation to something external to art, the "real world." Further all seemed to agree that art had to "sing for its supper," that is, that art had to perform some socially productive work (education, moral instruction) in order to justify the amount of time, money and other resources that we typically spend on it. They accept with Plato that if art cannot demonstrate its usefulness then is does not deserve our support or attention.

2. Formalism

Formalism came out of 18 & 19th century fascination of beauty (and other aesthetic qualities like awe or sublimity), more precisely from the seeking of an Enlightenment/scientific understanding of beauty.

This view understands works of art are unique arrangements. But Arrangement of "What?" Well, they often look at the standard artistic media and identify each’s formal elements and formal principles. For instance in the visual arts there are visual elements of the medium and the principles by which the elements can be organized and designed.

The Elements of Art (seven basic components, or building blocks of visual art)

1. color

2. value

3. line

4. texture

5. shape

6. form

7. space

The Principles of Visual Art (eight different ways the elements can be used in a work of art)

1. balance

2. emphasis

3. harmony

4. variety

5. gradation

6. movement

7. rhythm

8. proportion

For a more detailed examination of how one might assess and critique a work of visual art using these formal elements and principles see my notes here:

Thinkers came to believe that there were principles behind the experience of beauty and that these were formal principles. Some posited an "aesthetic sense" which is stimulated by certain formal arrangements. (Think of how the shape of the sugar molecule stimulates the sweet taste sensation.) We can see perspective, balance, movement, in paintings. In music were respond almost automatically to the 8th, the 5th and third 3rd. We recognize harmony, chords and discords and all these are formal qualities.

Formalism says that art is the construction of aesthetically fascinating objects or events (stimulates our “Aesthetic Sense”) and that good art constructs objects that are genuinely aesthetically fascinating and bad fail to do so.

Formalism posits an unique pleasure: Aesthetic Experience. This is the sort of pleasure that you get when looking at art; it is a disinterested pleasure. It is characterized by immediate gratification. It is contrasted with experiences where these is practical gain. Kant put it this way; we do not care whether the object before us is real, imitation or wholly and illusion when appreciating it aesthetically or "disinterestedly." When I appreciate a bowl of fruit “aesthetically” it does matter to me whether it is real fruit, or plastic, or wax, or a hologram. Now, if I were contemplating the bowl of fruit as a possible snack that is, from an interested/ practical point of view, then it would matter to me whether it was real or not. But not when I appreciate it aesthetically. There I am merely attending to the qualities given in immediate perception.

Kant also talks about being able to appreciate a purposeful-ness to things without being aware of their actual purpose. When I see a beautiful flower, for instance, it seems to have a design-like quality to it. You don’t know that it was designed or what it might have been designed for, but nevertheless there seems to be a sort “right-ness” about it. It makes sense in a way the visual “noise” does not.

Kant also talks about the mind engaging in "free-play." the product of which is not useful judgments but a sort of fanciful musing. He talks more about natural things (flowers, sunsets, mountains) than art.

Twentieth Century Aesthetician Clive Bell posits Significant Form as the feature by which an object is able to elicit an Aesthetic Emotion (as opposed to ordinary emotion, what he call the Emotions of Life). It is that arresting "Ah!" that some works of art are able to achieve;

On this view of art, the purpose of art is not to teach us messages; purpose is to be aesthetically fascinating.

The wrong thing to do is ask "What it is about?" or "What is it supposed to be?" Just look at it; art for art's sake;

Pros:

1 Theory claims that one should not judge art by its moral work but judge art by its own unique value; art is to be appreciated for itself; aesthetic experience is a value onto itself; art is a vehicle for this aesthetic pleasure and that is all.

2. The theory is a way of approaching any and all works of art, of talking about and critically assessing any art (in a formal/compositional way). This is why this is the route they go in art appreciation classes;

3.This theory can help explain the lasting attention we pay to "great" works in term of properties of the work itself. "Great Art," it would seem, remains great even after the culture they came from passes away. Formalism can explain that.

4. This theory sets up art as sort of a value onto itself

As the result of Formalism, we have a wide variety of new kinds of art forms; anything can be looked at in an aesthetic way (even air vent or box of Brillo).

Problems:

1. There does not seem to be a strong distinction between anything and works of art; the role of intention seems lost

2. It seems no good at accounting for some works of art (the Blues, Rock Music, Highly Mimetic or Representative Art)

3. It would imply that very close copies of works of art are as good as the originals.

3. Expressive Theory

Expressively Theory claims that the point of art, function of art, value of art is that it expresses the feelings of the artist and the theory of the artist; expresses a feeling or emotion.

Leo Tolstoy, among others, advanced this view. Part of the attraction of this view is that it locates Art as a natural, irreducible human activity, common to all cultures. It finds the value of art in the communication to makes possible and/or self discovery it makes possible and it acknowledged the profound emotional impact art can have on views and artists alike.

3 Problems

1. What do you mean "express?"

a.) 2 term meaning: Venting

b.) 3 term meaning; Artist communication to audience a content via the art object.

3a. Expressive Theory (Venting)

This is a 2 -term model of expression, that is, the artist and the work.

The artist merely “makes public” what he or she is thinking or feeling.

If this is the point of art (function) the good are is merely that art with succeeds in exhausting and materializing the internal content.

But this raises still more questions. What do you mean venting? that it just vents?

If all you mean is venting then art becomes some sort of therapy. Where is its value for the pubic at large? Is there good or bad art or merely successful or less then successful therapy sessions?

Further, on this view, is all sincere art good? There seems no evaluative criterion for this two-term model except maybe the degree of satisfaction felt but the artists.

3b. Expressively Theory (Communicating)

This is a 3 -term model of expression, that is, the artist and the work and the “receiver.”

Here the point of art is to communicate sincere emotions (Tolstoy says to “infect”) felt by the artist to the viewer/receiver. On Tolstoy view, this can only be done via art. Art therefore is a single vehicle for building communal emotion and thereby communities.

This does seem to explain the power and importance of art historically and contemporarily. It also seems to do justice to some of the experiences we have when viewing art. And it locates art in a quasi cognitive function, irreplaceable by the sciences.

But…

The ability of art to "resonate with a particular audience” will change over time. Given a different audience, they may not "get it." Is the work then "not a good work of art for them?" It would seem odd to say that the work stops being great when you put it in front of a different set of eyes. To say this would imply that the greatness of the work was not a feature of the work at all. At least that it was not a feature of the work in itself.

One version of Expressive Theory- Romantic Theory of art‑ has idea that art is the communication of important ideas; symbolic communication; cultural, moral political, religious ideas;

Romantic View of Art

Romantic Theorists suggested that rational investigation (science) can only reveal part of reality. There are more mystical truths (supra-rational) that only emotion and imagination can articulate. This is the value of Art. It communicates to us that part of reality which science cannot.

Romantic View – George Hegel ‑ art is supposed to communicate most (symbolize) (political, social) important ideas of a community to that community.

‑Art which does this well is good art.

‑Art which does this poorly is bad art.

‑Art which does not do this is not (really) art

(Dance: Hegel seems to suggest that Dance is not really an art from because it simply cannot sustain the weighty work of art. Dance. He suggests that unlike the five fine arts, Dance has not been and cannot be a vehicle a culture utilizes to communicate its most important ideas. )

Hagel thought these were real art:

1. architecture (Pyramids)

2. sculpture (Greek Statues)

3. paintings (Romantic Image )

4. poetry (Romantic Verbal effective communication)

5. music (expressive of feelings)

Poetry and painting are the most romantic of the romantic arts.

‑Romantic Theory agree that art is a way of expressing important ideas in a way that science, philosophy and religion cannot. Therefore, Art becomes a supra-rational activity: a deeper reality which reason cannot touch, so only madness can touch this supra-rational reality. Artist is some sort of madman/prophet.

‑ The Heart has reasons that reason cannot understand[6].-

Romantic ‑ supra-rational; beyond reason

The Moon, Madness, Love, Candlelight, Death, Magic, Spirit, the Failure of Reason.

Disenchantment with the Enlightenment and the mechanistic view of Human nature and reality. (We're all cogs in some Newtonian Wheel.)

Looking for something else (Pining for something else.)

Prime Examples of Romantic ART:

Frankenstein

Robert Le Diable

Giselle

4. Related notion: The Five Fine Arts

If Art is a vehicle for expression, we must entertain the proposition that not all arts are created equal since some modes of communication that are more central to the humans (image and word).

The Fine Arts; painting, poetry, sculpture, architecture, music; (music is their by the skin of its teeth because it does not support the communication of ideas, as such. It does perform a quasi linguistic function however.

• The notion of the “Fine Arts” places heavy emphasis on communication of important ideas.

• Hence societies need architecture (Pyramids, cathedrals, Notre Dame, palaces- express a LOT), sculpture, music, painting, poetry/literature.

• Notice the hierarchy. Moving from media where materials matter to where they are less and less important and the IDEAS predominate.

The notion of the “Fine Arts” places heavy emphasis on communication of important ideas. Hence societies need architecture like pyramids, cathedrals, Notre Dame, palaces, Greek and roman architecture, etc. These theories started to articulate themselves in the late 1700's. A lot of art was produced either as this as the background theory or quite consciously but artists who accepted that this is what art is supposed to do.

Good art is that which adequately expresses the important cultural ideas. If it did not, it is considered bad art or perhaps, not really “art” at all. This provides a framework for distinguishing between Fine Arts and Pop Art, Decorator Art, Kitsch.

5. Media Formalism:

This is related to Formalism proper. Like formalism, it seeks to find identity criteria and evaluative criteria for works, not by the work’s relation to something external to the art process, but rather internally. This theory suggests that the point of an art work is to expand, develop or comment upon the artistic medium to which it belongs. (Art for art’s sake.) Clement Greenberg was a 20^th century proponent of this view.

It seems to rest on two assumptions. Works of art fall, more or less neatly, into separate artistic media (e.g. panting) and that there is a value unique to the medium which is enhanced and increase by developments and expansions of the medium

This is the self-referential element of the “Art for Art’s Sake,” movement taken to its logical extreme. Art is literally “about” art. (Painting is about painting, dance about dance.) The job of the painter, for instance, it to comment on or expand or innovate the medium of painting.

Pros:

• Explains the value we place on novelty and innovation. (Why we value the original more than the copy.)
• Does give voice to the self-stated goals of certain artists and movements.
• Useful prism through which to see art history as one of evolution and growth.

Cons:

• Hardly seems to be the value most have found or even currently find in art.
• Better used as a measure of “artistic value” rather than aesthetic value.
• Cuts “art” off from the courses of life that give it meaning and importance in human existence.

6. Institutional Theories of Art

Some 20th and 21st Century aestheticians suggest that there is no common “essence” to works of art, that we will find no shared properties, functions or responses by which to group all and only artworks together no matter how hard we try.

Anti-essentialism: Anti-essentialism is the view that denies that there is any single, unifying nature to art objects (sine qua non) by virtue of which they are art objects. This view is held by those who claim that the concept of art evolves and changes over time (in the same way that biological evolution denies a single permanent nature to species), and by those who claim that to be an art object is satisfy one of several different definitions.

They suggest that the only things that artworks have in common is that they have the “social status” of “Art.” This view maintains that what makes artworks art work is that they have status of “arthood” bestowed on them by the Artworld.

Problem:

• This definition is, at least apparently, circular. That is, the “Artworld” is composed, in part, of “Artists,” but artists are the people who produce “art.”

• Those who hold the theory maintain that this is a useful concept nonetheless for sorting our puzzles about the nature of art.

Notice that among other issues, one problem with this account of art is that is see it as completely a creation of particular culture and, potentially, without inherent value.

---

[1] Plato’s Republic Book X http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1497/1497-h/1497-h.htm#2H_4_0008

[2] “The tragic poet is an imitator, and therefore, like all other imitators, is thrice removed from the throne of truth.” The Republic Book X

[3] Parrhasius was a celebrated Greek painter from Ephesus who had a contest with his reveal Zeuxis to see who was the superior artist. Zeuxis, it is said, painted some grapes so naturalistically that birds came to peck at them. This seemed to assure him victory, however, when called on Parrhasius to draw back the curtain covering Parrhassius’s painting he discovered that it was in truth only a painted curtain. Zeuxis conceded the contest: he had deceived the birds, but Parrhasius had deceived him

[4] Dramatic representations come in two varieties; Comedy and Tragedy. Such imitations may represent people either as better or as worse than people usually are, or it may neither go beyond nor fall below the average standard. Comedy is the imitation of the worse examples of humanity, understood however not in the sense of absolute badness, but only in so far as what is low and ignoble enters into what is laughable and comic.

Tragedy, on the other hand, is the representation of a serious or meaningful, rounded or finished, and more or less extended or far-reaching action -- a representation which is effected by action and not mere narration. It is fitted by portraying events which excite fear and pity in the mind of the observer to purify or purge these feelings and extend and regulate their sympathy. It is thus a homeopathic curing of the passions. Insofar as art in general universalizes particular events, tragedy, in depicting passionate and critical situations, takes the observer outside the selfish and individual standpoint, and views them in connection with the general lot of human beings. This is similar to Aristotle's explanation of the use of orgiastic music in the worship of Bacchas and other deities: it affords an outlet for religious fervor and thus steadies one's religious sentiments.

[5] Despite the attention Catharsis now receives, Aristotle himself did not say much about it. Consequently it is not clear whether he meant that strong, emotional art provides a harmless outlet for strong, negative emotions that would otherwise be destructive to the individual and/or society, or whether he meant that it substitutes for them or that it transforms them. The most popular interpretation is the former.

[6] Blaise Pascal Pensees 277. “The heart has its reasons, which reason does not know. We feel it in a thousand things. I say that the heart naturally loves the Universal Being, and also itself naturally, according as it gives itself to them; and it hardens itself against one or the other at its will. You have rejected the one and kept the other. Is it by reason that you love yourself?”