Aesthetics: Contemporary Theories

1
Aesthetics Contemporary Theories
2
Aims of the Course

• To provide an introduction to Contemporary
  Aesthetics
• To discuss a range of topics that are relevant to
  the judgment and appreciation of art
• To think about a range of topics in relation to
  works in Tate Modern

3
Further Information

• See www.artandallusion.com
• My email nigelwarburton_at_aol.com

4
Week by Week

• 1) Against Definition
• 2) The Institutional Theory
• 3) Identifying Art (change!)
• 4) Aesthetic Concepts
• 5) Artists Intentions
• 6) Style and Personality

5
Traditional Aesthetic Theories

• Define art
• Give its essence
• Spell this out in terms of necessary and
  sufficient conditions

6
WEITZ

• Focus not on What is Art?
• But on What sort of concept is Art?

7
Necessary Conditions

• pre-requisites
• E.g. necessary condition of being a fox that a
  mammal
• E.g. necessary condition of being a student that
  you are studying something

8
Sufficient Conditions

• guarantees
• E.g. sufficient condition of being a student that
  you are studying at Oxford University
• E.g. sufficient condition of being on this
  course, that you have a ticket.

9
Art and Nec. And Suff. Conditions

• According to Clive Bell a work of art is
• 1) An Artifact (necessary but not sufficient)
• 2) Has Significant Form (necessary and sufficient)

10
Weitz on the attempt to define art.

• a logically vain attempt to define what cannot
  be defined (p.411).
• treating art as a closed concept when it is an
  open one

11
Open Concepts

• Derived from Ludwig Wittgenstein on games in
  Philosophical Investigations
• No common essence of game
• Open concepts require a decision with new cases
  closed, can state nec. and suff. conditions

12
Sub-concepts of Art

• E.g. is this work a sculpture?
• Answer isnt given by reference to nec. and suff.
  conditions but by decision of whether or not to
  extend concept of art to cover it.

13
Summary (p.413)

• the very expansive, adventurous character of
  art, its ever present changes and novel
  creations, makes it logically impossible to
  ensure any set of defining properties.
• Can close the concept

14
BUT

• What is Weitzs evidence?
• 1) Past failures of definitions
• 2) Plausibility of family resemblance notion.
• Does it follow that it is logically impossible?