140 likes | 169 Views
This course delves into Contemporary Aesthetics, discussing art judgment, Tate Modern works, and traditional theories. Learn about necessary and sufficient conditions in defining art, with insights from Weitz and Bell, exploring open concepts in art definition.
E N D
Aims of the Course • To provide an introduction to Contemporary Aesthetics • To discuss a range of topics that are relevant to the judgment and appreciation of art • To think about a range of topics in relation to works in Tate Modern
Further Information • See www.artandallusion.com • My email: nigelwarburton@aol.com
Week by Week • 1) Against Definition • 2) The Institutional Theory • 3) Identifying Art (change!) • 4) Aesthetic Concepts • 5) Artists’ Intentions • 6) Style and Personality
Traditional Aesthetic Theories • Define art • Give its essence • Spell this out in terms of necessary and sufficient conditions
WEITZ • Focus not on ‘What is Art?’ • But on “What sort of concept is ‘Art’?”
Necessary Conditions • = pre-requisites • E.g. necessary condition of being a fox that a mammal • E.g. necessary condition of being a student that you are studying something
Sufficient Conditions • = guarantees • E.g. sufficient condition of being a student that you are studying at Oxford University • E.g. sufficient condition of being on this course, that you have a ticket.
Art and Nec. And Suff. Conditions • According to Clive Bell a work of art is • 1) An Artifact (necessary but not sufficient) • 2) Has Significant Form (necessary and sufficient)
Weitz on the attempt to define art…. • ‘a logically vain attempt to define what cannot be defined’ (p.411). = treating art as a closed concept when it is an open one…
Open Concepts • Derived from Ludwig Wittgenstein on games – in Philosophical Investigations • No common essence of ‘game’ • Open concepts require a decision with new cases; closed, can state nec. and suff. conditions
Sub-concepts of Art • E.g. is this work a sculpture? • Answer isn’t given by reference to nec. and suff. conditions but by decision of whether or not to extend concept of art to cover it.
Summary (p.413) • ‘the very expansive, adventurous character of art, its ever present changes and novel creations, makes it logically impossible to ensure any set of defining properties.’ • Can close the concept…
BUT… • What is Weitz’s evidence? • 1) Past failures of definitions • 2) Plausibility of family resemblance notion. • Does it follow that it is ‘logically impossible’?