[originally posted Monday, February 9, 1998]
To complete our introduction to philosophical consideration of art, we will look at three additional approaches to defining "art." These are not the only ways that this issue has been approached by philosophers and other theorists, but they give us a sampling of the variety of ways that the issues can be considered.
READING ASSIGNMENT: BULLOUGH
Our longest reading for the third week (February 9-15) is "'Psychical Distance' as a Factor in Art and as an Aesthetic Principle".
This well-known article was an early attempt to place the "locus" for what make something "art" and what makes an experience "aesthetic" in the observer/perceiver of the art, not the object itself. His concept of "psychical distance" has become rather famous - indeed, infamous. But, as many of you noted in our discussions last week, contemporary art seems to call for us to look at the observer/perceiver and the context of appreciation, not just the object, in understanding "art." So, even if you conclude that his approach is unsatisfactory in its details, you still might see promise in the general approach.
First, as a good way to get started, let me suggest that you skip to the end of the Bullough article on-line and look at the hyperlink set up to "Aesthetic Experience and Psychical Distance." This is a brief secondary source from the University of Dundee in Great Britain about the Bullough article. This quick overview will give you a sense of what to look for in Bullough's article.
Second, as you are reading, try to get a good sense of what he means by these terms/concepts:
Third, look for Bullough's reasoning strategy: how does he try to persuade you of the worth of his proposals? Look for his use of persuasive metaphors (the "fog at sea"). Look for his use of actual aesthetic experiences which he believes can be best explained using his theory. He is using the test of "explanatory power" to attempt to persuade you that his theory is valid - i.e., that his theory explains our experience of art better than alternative theories do.
For our discussion, let's focus on the strengths and weaknesses
of his proposal. (a) strengths: What works in his theory? What
do you find useful, helpful, persuasive in his ideas as a way
to understand art and aesthetic experiences? (b) weaknesses: What
are the problems with this theory? Are there examples of art and/or
aesthetic experience which it cannot explain well (i.e., are there
counter-examples which cast doubt on his theory)?
READING ASSIGNMENT: Definition of "the Arts" by the United States Congress
This is an example of an "extensional" definition (defining a term by listing the things that are included under the term). In contrast, an "intentional" definition attempts to specify the necessary and sufficient conditions of the term, the properties of the term, or what some might call the "essence" of the term.
For our discussion, consider the advantages and disadvantages
of this extensional definition, which was developed to specify
the allowable areas of funding for the National Endowment for
the Arts. What is satisfying or useful about this approach to
definition and about this particular definition? What are the
problems with this approach to definition and about this particular
definition?
READING ASSIGNMENT: Comments on Andres Serrano by Members of the United States Senate
This excerpt from a debate on the floor of the U.S. Senate illustrates additional types of definition. A descriptive definition of "art" claims to describe the actual usage of the term in public language. A normative definition of "art" sets standards for what an artist ought to achieve to be considered "art," from the perspective of the speaker. A normative definition also impliedly sets standards for what should count as "good" art.
For our discussion, look for examples where Senators seem to be
proposing (1) descriptive definitions of "art" and (2)
normative definitions of "art." Look also for passages
where some Senators seem to say that Serrano's supposed art is
so immoral that it does not even count as "art." What
are the advantages and disadvantages of descriptive and of normative
definitions? Should Serrano's work count as "art," even
if it is immoral or of poor quality?
DISCUSSION GROUP: To assist others in finding comments on certain topics, please put a topic in the "subject" blank of your message - e.g., Bullough, definition, Serrano. Also, to cut down on verbiage, delete out the comments to which you are responding and leave only your own remarks in the message you are posting, except for brief passages you want to highlight in someone else's comments. The advantage of "threading" is that the other person's complete comment is right there to see, so you don't need to repeat the whole thing in your own message. It will save everybody a lot of time if they don't have to scroll through a comment they've already read to find your contribution.
The discussion has been very lively, and (I am happy to say) civilized.
Please remember: it is always appropriate to criticize the argument
presented by someone. But it is never appropriate to attack the
person who made those arguments, whether in blunt attacks
or subtle digs - that is ad hominem reasoning and it has
no place in any college classroom, virtual or otherwise.
SHORT PAPER I: Please take a look at the assignment for Short Paper I, due Tuesday, February 17, if you have not already done so. If you want to practice sending an e-mail attachment this week, please do, so we get that worked out as soon as possible. I'm afraid there aren't enough hours in the day for me to read your rough drafts and send back substantive comments. But if you have questions about the assignment, by all means, send those along, and I'll post answers (as appropriate) to the group.
Continue to Lecture Notes for Week Four (posted 2/17/98)
Return to Lecture Notes Table of Contents
Return to Class Home Page: PHIL 361/599 (Spring 1998)
Questions and comments are welcome: jvancamp@csulb.edu
This page written and maintained by Julie Van Camp
Copyright Julie C. Van Camp 1998
Last updated: February 8, 1998