Furthermore, it is clear that even the basic meaning of the term “art” has changed several times over the centuries, and has continued to evolve during the 20th century as well. Thus, the first purpose of art is to reproduce nature and life, and this applies to all works of art without exception. Their relation to the corresponding aspects and phenomena of reality is the same as the relation of an engraving to the picture from which it was copied, or the relation of a portrait to the person it represents. “Art is the reproduction of reality? And journal articles have been published arguing over even the basics of vatu we mean by the term “art”. Theodore Adorn claimed in 1969 “It is self-evident that nothing concerning art is self-evident. ” Artists, philosophers, anthropologists, psychologists and programmers all use the notion of art in their respective fields, ND give it operational definitions that vary considerably. Furthermore, it is clear that even the basic meaning of the term “art” has changed several times over the centuries, and has continued to evolve during the 20th century as well.Order now
The main recent sense of the word “art” is roughly as an abbreviation for creative art or “fine art. ” Here we mean that skill is being used to express the artist’s creativity, or to engage the audience’s aesthetic sensibilities, or to draw the audience towards consideration of the “finer” things. Often, if the skill is Ewing used in a functional object, people will consider it a craft instead of art, a suggestion which is highly disputed by many Contemporary Craft thinkers.
Likewise, it the skill is being used in a commercial or industrial way it may be considered design instead of art, or contrariwise these may be defended as art forms, perhaps called applied art. Some thinkers, tort instance, have argued that the difference between fine art and applied art has more to do with the actual function of the object than any clear definitional difference. ] Art usually implies o function other than to convey or communicate an needed] Even as late as 1912 it was normal in the West to assume that all art aims at beauty, and thus that anything that wasn’t trying to be beautiful couldn’t count as art.
The cubists, Dadaists, Stravinsky, and many later art movements struggled against this conception that beauty was central to the definition of art, With such success that, according to Dante, “Beauty had disappeared not only from the advanced art of the sass’s but from the advanced philosophy of art Of that decade as well. ” Perhaps some notion like “expression” (in Crock’s horses) or “counter-environment” (in Macaulay’s theory) can replace the previous role of beauty.
Brian Massif brought back “beauty” into consideration together with “expression” Another view, as important to the philosophy of art as “beauty,” is that of the “sublime,” elaborated upon in the twentieth century by the postmodern philosopher Jean-François Leotard. A further approach, elaborated by And© Malaria in works such as The Voices of Silence, is that art is fundamentally a response to a metaphysical question (Art’, he writes, ‘is an ‘anti- destiny’).
Malaria argues that, while art has sometimes been oriented towards beauty and the sublime (principally in post-Renaissance European art) these qualities, as the wider history of art demonstrates, are by no means essential to Perhaps (as in Kenning’s theory) no definition of art is possible anymore, Perhaps art should be thought of as a cluster of related concepts in a Wittgenstein fashion (as in White or Buys).
Another approach is to say that “art” is basically a sociological category, that aftershave art schools and museums and artists define as art is considered art regardless Of formal definitions. This “institutional definition of art” (see also Institutional Critique) has been championed by George Dice. Most people did not consider the depiction Of a Brills Box or a store- bought urinal to be art until Andy Warhol and Marcel Decamp (respectively) placed them in the context Of art (i. E. , the art gallery), Which then provided the association of these objects with the associations that define art.
Procedurally often suggest that it is the process by which a work of art is created or viewed that makes it art, not any inherent feature of an object, or owe well received it is by the institutions of the art world after its introduction to society at large. If a poet writes down several lines, intending them as a poem, the very procedure by which it is written makes it a poem. Whereas if a journalist writes exactly the same set of words, intending them as shorthand notes to help him write a longer article later, these would not be a poem.
Leo Tolstoy, on the other hand, claims in his What is art? (1837) that what decides whether or not something is art is how it is experienced by its audience, not by the intention of its creator. Functionalists like Monroe Beardsley argue that whether or not a piece counts as art depends on what function it plays in a particular context; the same Greek vase may play a non-artistic function in one context (carrying wine), and an artistic function in another context (helping us to appreciate the beauty of the human figure). What should art be like? Many goals have been argued for art, and aesthetics often argue that some goal or another is superior in some way. Clement Greenberg, for instance, argued in 1960 that each artistic medium should seek that which makes unique among he possible mediums and then purify itself Of anything Other than expression of its own uniqueness as a form. The Dadaist Tristan Tsar on the other hand saw the function Of art in 1918 as the destruction Of a mad social order. We must sweep and clean. Affirm the cleanliness of the individual after the state of madness, aggressive complete madness Of a world abandoned to the hands Of bandits. ” Formal goals, creative goals, self-expression. Political goals, spiritual goals, philosophical goals, and even more perceptual or aesthetic goals have all been popular pictures of what art should be like.