Theories of Art Today

Rating:
Summary: A great collections of articles!
Review: This is a great collection of articles from esteemed philosophers of art (Dickie and Danto) and from more recent philosophers (Davies, Stecker) who reflect critically on the work of the previous. Every article considers one of the biggest questions in aesthetics, namely the definition of art. But the articles address the issue from different points of view and they disagree with one another so that the reader doesn't get bored.

The book begins by a very good article on contemporary aesthetics by Noël Carroll. He starts by introducing the ideas of the Wittgensteinian philosophers, who denied the possibility of defining art. After this Carroll considers the theories of Dickie and Danto and tries to show how they changed the course of aesthetics. I find this a good choice, because many of the articles in the book are based on their theories.

In the first actual article Berrys Gaut defends some Wittgensteinian ideas but he changes the problematic notion of "family resemblance" to "cluster concept". Art is a cluster concept that has no individual necessary conditions. But if some artefact possess many properties that have been regarded important for artworks then it is very probable that the object is a work of art. Gaut defences the cluster account by showing its utility and the failures of past definitions. Robert Stecker takes up where Gaut leaves the discussion. He asks "is it reasonable to define art", and after a series of good arguments, answers "yes". Stecker sees a consensus emerging on what is required of a definition of art and that therefore we shouldn't be too sceptic about the possibility of defining art. He himself supports a form of historical functionalism and I like his ideas very much. The problem with the Wittgensteinians and Gaut seems to be that they don't emphasize the historical nature of art enough. In the next article James C. Anderson introduces many good arguments for why aesthetic properties should be our focus when we define art. It's nice to see that in the age of conceptual art somebody still tries to show, why beauty matters.

The next three articles are from old classics. George Dickie tries to clarify his institutional theory of art and answer to some criticisms that have been addressed to it. I think people have been a bit unfair towards him and I hope this article will clear many misinterpretations. In his article Margolis continues his criticism towards traditional theories of analytic aesthetics by showing how they have understood the ontology of cultural artefacts totally wrongly. He doesn't say anything new in this article but I think he manages to put forth his basic ideas very clearly.

The starting point of Arthur Danto's article is the criticism towards his aboutness condition. Carroll has argued that this condition isn't enough to differentiate Warhol's Brillo Boxes from ordinary Brillo cartons, because they both possess aboutness. Danto answers that they possess different kinds of aboutness and that they require different kinds of criticism. When we interpret Warhol we have to take into account Warhol's response to Abstract Expressionism and that he regarded the ordinary as aesthetically beautiful. Harvey's criticism would be totally different and therefore it isn't art. This article also shows, why Danto can be considered the most exiting contemporary aesthetician.

Eaton's and Bailey's articles seem a bit barren when they are placed right after Margolis and Danto, but still they introduce many interesting ideas. I've always been a bit of a sceptic when it comes to feminist philosophy but Peggy Brand's article cleared away some of my presuppositions. Brand clearly understand the main theories in contemporary aesthetics and criticizes them with some very good arguments. The history of art plays a crucial role in the theories of Danto, Dickie, Levinson and Carroll, but Brand tries to show how they have construed this narrative too thinly that it excludes some forms of art that have been practised by women. She also clears some misinterpretations that for example Danto has made regarding feminist art. Brand produces some good arguments that I hope will be taken seriously by other philosophers.
The last articles deal with a very interesting question: What role should non-Western art play in definitions of art. Both Dutton and Davies aims at showing that people have usually seen the difference between Western and non-Western art as too big. Both tries to argue that many Western definitions can also accommodate non-Western art.

This book shows how alive the discussion about the definition of art still is and how many different points of view can be taken towards this subject. A must buy for every one who is interested in contemporary aesthetics.