The structure of Clowney essay
- The modern system of arts is a recent western invention, with an ideological function in modern capitalist society.
- Accepting this view : definition and conceptual analysis of the modern system’s fundamental categories should be replaced by critical analysis of their function in modern society.
- Clowney suggest : This view is no great loss to philosophers of the arts
1-The philosophers are participating in such by critical analysis.
2-Thay have plenty of other interesting work to do in the philosophy of music, dance,etc.
- Definition Projects in Aesthetics and the Historical Origins of Fine Art.
“Fine art” is of recent origin and it originated in the 18th century west.
The biginnings of “fine art” parallel the emergence of modern economic and class structures in 18th century.
The key elements of modern art :
1- Artist as Free and Visionary Genius
2- The art work as valuable for its own sake
3- Aesthetic as an autonomous realm of value
Description of the “historical origins” or ADT: ADT implies that Art as we in the
westernized word now think of it is an historically contingent and culturally specific invention, not a human universal.
Exploration of ADT implication projects and their relatives in philosophy of the arts.
- Implications of the Art Divided thesis (ADT) for the philosophy of the arts
Is Art definable?:
1- No, there is no definition that will work for “art” into the distant past and around the word, because there is no one thing there to define.
2- Yes, Defining art within the context of the modern system may be possible, though because of the way that system was constituted and because of the ways it has developed since.
We can see the emergence of the modern system of arts as a kind of cultural maturation.
The modern system is inconsistent:
1- It claims that art is independent from utility, and most especially from commerce; but it arose as the art market replaced patronage.
2- The modern system presupposes that all the fine arts have a common nature, in that they are all forms of Art, But it downplays the significant differences between music, painting, sculpture, architecture, poetry, dance, fiction, theater, and so on.
3- The modern system arbitrarily divides Art from craft, but then goes on, in effect, to include certain craftwork as Art.
4- The modern system separates art from entertainment, but certain films and graphic novels now garner attention as fine art.
5- The modern system inherently separates Art from the rest of life, so that it cannot readily accommodate the “aesthetic of the everyday” that characterized traditional Japan. Rather it must select out certain products of that aesthetic as art works, and take the rest to be fashion, decoration, or style.
For all of reasons, we cannot believe that the emergence of the modern system of the Arts represents a culmination of universal human arts practice, but the Art for Art’s sake idea has made possible the creation of some amazing works that almost certainly would never have come into existence otherwise.
- The Aesthetic, Aesthetic disinterest, and the Artist
ADT has similar implications for the notions of the aesthetic and the artist.
Aesthetic Disinterest remains a powerful category, The Aesthetic not only in the philosophy of art, but in the arts in the west and in western culture more generally.
The Aesthetic is an autonomous realm.
All sensitive people agree that there is a particular kind of emotion provoked by works of visual art, and that this emotion is provoked by every kind of visual art, by pictures, sculptures, buildings, pots, carvings, textiles, etc. This emotion is called the aesthetic emotion.
The range of such experiences is not coextensive with our experience of artworks.
Some artist rejected the use of the word “aesthetic”.
The isolation of the aesthetic from other sorts of value or experience is notoriously problematic. But the term “Aesthetic” remains useful.
- Philosophy of the arts after definition projects
The historical origins of the modern system of the arts, and its function as ideology, give compelling reasons to abandon efforts at defining Art and the aesthetic, and to replace such efforts with historical and critical inquiries about the origins and function of that system.
The field of philosophy of the arts would not become any less rich.
Abandoning the effort to provide abstract definitions of “the concepts” of art and the aesthetic will not leave us unemployed.