Johnny Mompou -- Though I think you already believe that "art" has solely what I'll call 'notional status' (that is, it is not a mind-independent entity, like something up in Plato's heaven that determines in some sort of way whether a work IS or IS NOT "a work of art"); nevertheless I think this may interest you.
Years ago we had an officious member of the forum, Bruce Attah, who announced that he had produced, once and for all, THE correct definition of a work of art. I reprint his gloriously arrogant posting below. His attempt collapsed in good part because of someone whose work you seem somewhat familiar with: Benedetto Croce. Attah's definition requires that "to be a work of art" an object has to be accessible to contemplators other than the "artist" (see #7 below, "Appreciation"). But Croce maintained that a "work of art" could be created solely in the mind of the creator -- e.g. a poet walking on the beach composes a poem in his head, a painter imagines with photographic clarity a picture he never gets around to putting on canvas, a composer thinks up a melody etc). Attah asserted that such a solely-mental object IS not a work of art. But Croce says it IS! ISN'T, said Attah. IS! ISN'T! etc. Stuck with no way to prove his assertion right or wrong, Attah stormed off the forum, never to be heard from again. I send this to you as one example (possibly two) of an "aesthetician" who simply took for granted that "art" existed in some absolute platonic realm, and the philosopher's job was merely to see it clearly enough to "define" it. -- Cheerskep Bruce attah writes: "Art" has two meanings: the general meaning is synonymous with the Greek "techne", and the Latin "ars" or "artem" (and the Japanese "geijutsu", for that matter). That's not the sense we're talking about, but it is related, and we'll say a little bit about that relationship in a moment. The second sense of "art" has somewhat adjustable borders is shorthand for "beaux arts", or most commonly (and least inclusively) "fine art" (which is the equivalent of the Renaissance concept of "arte del disegno", or, for that matter, the Japanese "bijutsu" or the Yoruba "ona"). Hand-wavingly, it can be summed up as "painting, sculpture, print-making, and all that stuff". This is the sense that gives so-called "art theorists" (I say so-called, because most of them can't tell their arse from their elbow when it comes to art, and they get caught up in knots over the simplest ideas) the willies. They just can't get their heads around it, and keep asking "What is art? What is art? What is art?" Well, here it is once and for all, a simple, clear definition of art: Art is things (1) made (2) in a free medium (3) for (4) enjoyment (5) through aesthetic (6) appreciation (7) that deserves merit (8) as such (9). The numbers in brackets indicate terms that I intend to unpack. Here is the unpacking: (1) "Things" --- narrowly, solid objects for looking at and possibly touching (sculptures, paintings, etc.) More widely, could include performances of various kinds, or anything that might reasonably be called a "thing". Here's how we get "art" having narrow or wide boundaries as to what arts it covers. (2) "made" --- a person or group of persons working collaboratively (or some other sentient beings) must make the thing by manipulation of materials. Mere pointing does not make art. (3) "free medium" --- this one will probably be new to most of you art theorists. A free medium is a medium that allows a wide range of expression, including representing nature as it is, representing things imagined that are not present in nature, representing abstract forms, and not representing anything at all, depending on the aims and skills of the artist(s). Also, a free medium permits the creation of beauty or ugliness, vibrancy or dullness, etc., and the expression of moods such as happiness and misery, anxiety and calm, etc. all according to the artist's aims and skills. (4) "for" --- there is a specific intent required, namely enjoyment through aesthetic appreciation. (5) "enjoyment" --- this doesn't need to mean frivolous merriment. The satisfaction that can be gained from receiving a deep insight, for instance, can count as enjoyment. Whether the enjoyment be light-hearted or serious, the intent to offer enjoyment is a necessary condition to something's being art. (6) "aesthetic" --- appreciation is aesthetic when attention is paid to the excellence of form, meaning, or craft. So, if we perceive something as beautiful, we're appreciating it aesthetically, if we are delighted to find it poignant, we're appreciating it aesthetically, and if we admire it as something that must have been made by a great talent, we're appreciating it aesthetically. (7) "appreciation" --- appreciation involves evaluating and liking. A successful case of appreciation has three steps: experience, evaluation of the experience and that which provided it, liking that which provided the experience. (8) "merit" --- this introduces the element of subjectivity into the definition. A tolerant person might consider all effort as merit-worthy. A populist might consider what the mass enjoys to be merit-worthy. An elitist might be suspicious of a work if it is popular. An adherent of "expressionism" may consider the effort unworthy if a personal touch is not seen in it. A moralist might consider a thing unworthy if the moral values expressed or promoted in the work are disagreeable. A traditionalist might consider only worthy that which accords with a particular tradition, and so on. All these people will be inclined to make up absurd, patently stupid, obviously nonsensical "definitions" of art, that anyone can see at first glance are not real definitions (e.g., "art is expression" or "art is whatever I, an artist, say it is", etc., etc.) All such pseudo-definitions are actually thinly disguised expressions of a person's opinion as to what is the source of merit that determines whether or not works are worthy of the label "art". The only objective view is, if someone makes it, and someone (perhaps the same person) appreciates it highly, or would if they got the chance to experience it as intended, then it is art. (9) "as such" --- it is no use if the thing is worthy of merit for some incidental reason. For instance, if a painting is worthy of merit solely because it serves well as a temporary shelter from rain, that is not enough for it to be art. It must be worthy of merit as a result of its operation in providing "enjoyment through aesthetic appreciation". Note that there is not just room for subjectivity with regard to the art-status of a thing, but also room for error. It is conceivable that one will think something made, when it is a product of nature or accident, or conversely think something natural when it is made. It is also possible that one may think something is made for "enjoyment through aesthetic appreciation" when it is in fact not. We could also make mistakes about merit. For instance: a Marxist who has a moralist aesthetic theory might say that a work must serve the proletariat, but not realise that a particular work subverts that aim, and thus wrongly evaluate the work "worthy" in Marxist terms. It is possible to mistakenly think that a thing required brilliance to make I know you're skeptical, so test the definition above against all the "hard cases" you can think of: a brilliant drop-kick, an upturned urinal, a well-written scientific paper, a ritual carving, a scribble by a child, etc., etc. It will *always* give you a principled reason for including or excluding the thing, or suggest a tenable account of why it is a hard case (it will even indicate what sorts of theories are likely to put the article on what side of the line). This definition is unbreakable, and it is only eighteen words long! I just sewed up and finished off and, worse, showed to be mainly misguided, roughly a century's worth of theorising about the "meaning of art" in about a hundred lines of text. You people probably thought you had another century of fun to go on that one. Sorry people, but it had to be done. My deepest sympathies go to the Weitzians. The bottom has just dropped out of their world. To unsubscribe or change list options, visit <http://aesthetics-online.org/aesthetics-l>.
