Well I think many of the problems faced in this discussion are due to what I would consider a misplaced emphasis on sight. Wartenberg mentioned, and I think you have taken the therm aesthetic to mean visual, and therein lies a problem. Aesthetic, I think, applies to more than that which is seen, but that which is perceived.
Edward: "1) Is "Tree Logic" art? Why?"
Yes it is. You mention that it lacks any aesthetic merit, and I would agree with you, but it is obviously aesthetic as you can perceive the trees, yes, even see them. Let us make sure that we are not conflating a lack of aesthetic merit with a lack of aesthetics on a whole. If the trees lack aesthetic merit, then perhaps they are bad art, but they are art nonetheless.
Given this, I do not think it gives more credence to Weitz's claim that we cannot define art. I think it is definable, and that definition is objective.
Edward: "2) Might it be possible to coin a definition of art that has the necessary and sufficient conditions to allow such diverse pieces as, say, "The Mona Lisa," Beethoven's symphonies, and "Tree Logic" to all fall in to the category of art?"
Yes, I think it is absolutely possible. I also believe that the only necessary, and yes sufficient, conditions for something to be art is that it must have been created by the artist (sorry Duchamp), and it must have been created with an artistic intent. The Mona Lisa, Beethoven's symphonies, and Tree Logic, all seem to satisfy these conditions (Yes, I know that there is no way to know for sure, but it is a reasonable assumption).
Question: Is signing an object, say a urinal, enough of a creation to label something as art?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
i am glad to find someone who recognizes the importance of "doubt" in confirming the cogito...
ReplyDeleteduchamp's use of the urinal was not art because he signed it, it was the birth of conceptual art and the found object (readymades) in art. the concept of the urinal is to create the repulsion to his dada or anti-art, but the importance lies in the signature r. mutt is a form of the word "poverty" in german. he was demonstrating that "we are pissing on the poor people"