Tuesday, November 14, 2006

History of Aesthetics Blog

Hello Good People,
Arthur has posted an invitation to discuss your summaries. Check it out by clicking on "comments" below or "History of Aesthetics Blog" above.

Here's a little art to get your brain juices flowing. I'm big fan of hands (perhaps Rodin & Camille Claudell are to blame). This one is by John Singleton Copley, an American painter (1738-1815). It is a detail from his Epes Sargent, ca. 1760 (National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC; image from www.artstor.org).

5 comments:

Arthur said...

Hey philosopher people,

I thought the exchanging of papers helped out my writing somewhat. How about you?
Anyhow, if anyone wants to exchage ideas or give feedback for this tuesday paper, or over the thanksgivin' break- let me know?
See ya soon,

Arthur

Anonymous said...

Arthur: For some reason I cannot start my own post, so I will do the only thing I can. Here is the final two paragraphs from my summary #4. What do you think?

will caudill

If what Collingwood said is correct, then only non-produced/non-existent pieces could be considered art. Any time a craft-piece or piece of art is created it has to meet the three conditions Collingwood sets forth. What Collingwood is missing is the notion of “use.” Crafts have a function that is defined. A bowl is a dish used to hold food; a vase holds flowers, etc. Paintings have no function except as works of art. Collingwood talks about this distinction but he does not expand on it enough. I would contend that he should make “use” another distinction between craft and art. This will make the distinction between art and craft more solid than Collingwood’s criteria.
Let me address two possible objections: first, sometimes a bowl is not intended to be a food-holding object. When this is the case, then a bowl is art. The same would be true of any craft-object that is used as decoration. But this still does not diminish the idea that art is nonfunctional. If anything, it helps support the notion because the objectors have made the craft-object nonfunctional. Second, sometimes a bowl is painted. This would put the bowl into a subcategory of craft—decorative craft. If it serves a function, it is a craft; if it is solely a decoration, it is art. Adding artwork (painting) to it does not propel the craft-object to art status. If this were the case, then adding a painting to a house would make the house a work of art.

"My-T Masta" Matt Watkins said...

ART WALK THIS FRIDAY (12/1)!

The art students are probably already aware, but for anyone who isn't in the know--the first Friday of the month is the Art Walk, which runs from 6pm-9pm (I believe). There are several galleries, mostly downtown (e.g., Art Depot at 18th & Texas), open to the public so walk about, contemplate, and momentarily flee your existence of eternal strife!

To the blog powers that be: I didn't want to post this as a comment, how do I start a new topic? (Tell me in my dreams)

Travis White said...

Matt:

You can start a new post by going here and logging in. That will bring up the Dashboard, from which you can start a new post.

"My-T Masta" Matt Watkins said...

Thank you Travis. Paradise by the Dashboard Light.