PHIL 361/599 Philosophy of Art and Beauty

Spring 1998 - California State University, Long Beach


Lecture Notes: Week Nine: Contemporary Approaches

This week, we complete our introductory survey of "Major Theories of the Arts" by looking at three very recent articles about the state of the discipline. All are on-line at the University of Toronto's on-line aesthetics journal.

To get to the articles:

(1) click "assignments" and then "course syllabus: reading assignments." You'll see the reading for the semester. Hyperlinks are set up there to the Toronto articles.

Alternatively:

(2) click "resources" and then "on-line reading." That also will take you to the list of reading for the semester.

I suspect you are all preoccupied with Short Paper II, due on Monday, March 30, not to mention your mid-terms in other courses. As all three articles are difficult (but short!), let me give you a nutshell summary of points they make:

"Radical Changes in Aesthetics" by Joseph Margolis:

He gives a sweeping overview of trends, not only in art, but in philosophy and science in general in the 20th century. Those of you who have studied any of the arts in other contexts or have taken other philosophy courses will recognize many of these changes.

In the first half of this century, many philosophers aimed for the certainty, clarity, and final "truth" that we once believed characterized the "hard" sciences. Some of those ideals could be found in "logical positivism," which we have touched on briefly in our discussions. As we near the end of the 20th century, we have abandoned this overly-simplistic view, not only of philosophy, but also of the sciences. We are more sympathetic to diverse viewpoints, "relativism" of various sorts, and "subjectivity." These are all loaded terms, of course, and many today would criticize Margolis for over-stating his claims.

Especially for those of you who are skeptical of philosophy, note that these changes have also affected the sciences. In physics, for example, Heisenberg's "uncertainty principle" and the recognition that the very act of making a scientific observation changes the thing which we are observing has led to a break-down in the naive view that we could find absolute or final truths in science. Work by scientific historians such as Thomas Kuhn showed us that progress in science lurches along as "paradigms" shift, not as we uncover "facts." These insights have also changed the way we view the arts, humanities, and especially philosophy.

For discussion, let's consider whether Margolis has summarized things which make sense to you in your own studies in the history of the arts, science, and/or philosophy -- all of you have some background in at least one of those areas. Let's also take a look at his discussion of "postmodernism" and ask what that term might mean. It seems to have entered the vocabulary of many disciplines, but the meaning is hardly clear anywhere. Consider how the term is being used in fields with which you are familiar. What is "postmodern" dance? What is "postmodern" philosophy? What is "postmodern" poetry? etc.

"Works in Progress: Art and the Historical Modalities," by Arthur Danto:

In his first paragraph, he summarizes his interest in the definition of art, the issue we looked at in Week Two with his other article. He introduces another problem in the second paragraph: "The Problem of Historical Modalities." On the one hand, some art seems possible only within a certain time in art-history and our concept of art thus seems to shift continually as the art-historical dialogue moves forward. On the other hand, we still legitimately pursue an essentialist definition of art which is timeless and which enables us to determine whether or not all of the history-specific definitions constitute works of "art."

In other words, he seems to be saying: it's important to recognize historical shifts in what counts as "art" but we still need some "over-arching" concept of what counts as "art" -- otherwise, how would we recognize the different things in these historical shifts as "art" and not as something else?

Danto does not give us any real answers here, but describes this challenge in his current philosophical work. We might ask whether the search for an essence of art seems important to continue pursuing and, if so, why?

"Art, the Mind and the Brain," by Gregory Currie:

Interdisciplinary studies have been increasingly important throughout the arts, sciences, and humanities, including philosophy, in the last several decades. Currie illustrates one type of such interdisciplinary concern, namely, how can insights from psychology help us better understand philosophical problems in art? We have seen how many theorists in this century have looked at aspects of the human mental experience, e.g., by focusing on the "intention" of the artist in creating art and/or by focusing on the "affect" or impact on the observer in viewing art.

We might ask whether work from other disciplines -- e.g., psychology, history, social science, natural science, etc. -- helps us better understand art and, if so, how. The students in our class come from a broad range of disciplines, so let me ask you to consider, from the perspective of your own special interests and training, what other disciplines could contribute to our understanding of art and how.

PARTICIPATION GRADE: The final cut-off for participation for the first half of the course is Sunday, March 22. I'll send out your grade with comments via individual e-mail in the next few days. (I have 33 registered students, so it will take me a few days to go through my files on the participation by each of you so far.) The grade for the second half of the course starts Monday, March 23, so if you got off to a rocky beginning, you have a fresh start for the rest of the course.

SHORT PAPER II: This is due, as you know, next Monday, March 30. Please don't wait until the last minute to start the paper. If you're still shaky on using e-mail attachments, try sending me a "test file" this week.

FINAL PROJECT: I'll post the assignment for the final project on Monday, March 30. You'll be able to start thinking about it over spring break, if you want to.

SPRING BREAK: Once your short paper is submitted March 30, you won't have to do anything for this course until after spring break. Check here on Monday, April 13 for lecture notes to start our third and final unit.


Continue to Lecture Notes for Week Ten (posted 3/30/98)

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: March 22, 1998