The Modern System of the Arts
From The Art and Popular Culture Encyclopedia
| Revision as of 15:02, 10 April 2018 Jahsonic (Talk | contribs) ← Previous diff |
Current revision Jahsonic (Talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {| class="toccolours" style="float: left; margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 2em; font-size: 85%; background:#c6dbf7; color:black; width:30em; max-width: 40%;" cellspacing="5" | {| class="toccolours" style="float: left; margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 2em; font-size: 85%; background:#c6dbf7; color:black; width:30em; max-width: 40%;" cellspacing="5" | ||
| | style="text-align: left;" | | | style="text-align: left;" | | ||
| - | "The way that only certain activities are [[art classification|classified today as art]] is a [[Social constructionism|social construction]]. There is evidence that there may be an element of truth to this. ''[[The Invention of Art]]'' is an art history book which references "[[The Modern System of the Arts]]" (1951) by Paul Oskar Kristeller. Larry Shiner finds evidence that the older system of the arts before our modern system ([[fine art]]) held art to be any [[skill]]ed [[human activity]] i.e. [[Ancient Greek society]] did not possess the term art but ''[[techne]]''. Techne can be understood neither as [[art]] or [[craft]], the reason being that the distinctions of art and craft are historical products that came later on in human history. ''Techne'' included [[painting]], [[sculpting]] and [[music]] but also; cooking, medicine, [[horsemanship]], [[geometry]], [[carpentry]], [[prophecy]], and farming etc." --Sholem Stein | + | "I shall not try to discuss any metaphysical theories of beauty or any particular theories concerning one or more of the arts, let alone their actual history, but only the systematic grouping together of the five [[major arts]]. [...] The subject has been overlooked by most historians of aesthetics and of literary, musical or artistic theories (I have come across only two authors who saw the problem quite clearly: [[H. Parker]], ''[[The Nature of the Fine Arts]]''[https://archive.org/stream/naturefinearts00parkgoog/naturefinearts00parkgoog_djvu.txt] (London, 1885), esp. 1-30. [[A. Philip McMahon]], ''[[Preface to an American Philosophy of Art]]'' (Chicago, 1945). The latter study is better documented but marred by polemical intentions.)" --"[[The Modern System of the Arts]]" (1951) by Paul Oskar Kristeller |
| - | + | ||
| |} | |} | ||
| - | |||
| {{Template}} | {{Template}} | ||
| - | "[[The Modern System of the Arts]]" (1951) is an essay by [[Paul Oskar Kristeller]] published in ''[[Journal of the History of Ideas]]''. It proved to be an influential, much reprinted classic reading in [[Philosophy of art]]. | + | "[[The Modern System of the Arts]]" (1951-52) is an essay by [[Paul Oskar Kristeller]] published in ''[[Journal of the History of Ideas]]''. It proved to be an influential, much reprinted classic reading in [[Philosophy of art]]. |
| - | + | ==See also== | |
| + | *[[Definitions of art]] | ||
| + | *[[Art as a social construct]] | ||
| {{GFDL}} | {{GFDL}} | ||
Current revision
|
"I shall not try to discuss any metaphysical theories of beauty or any particular theories concerning one or more of the arts, let alone their actual history, but only the systematic grouping together of the five major arts. [...] The subject has been overlooked by most historians of aesthetics and of literary, musical or artistic theories (I have come across only two authors who saw the problem quite clearly: H. Parker, The Nature of the Fine Arts[1] (London, 1885), esp. 1-30. A. Philip McMahon, Preface to an American Philosophy of Art (Chicago, 1945). The latter study is better documented but marred by polemical intentions.)" --"The Modern System of the Arts" (1951) by Paul Oskar Kristeller |
|
Related e |
|
Featured: |
"The Modern System of the Arts" (1951-52) is an essay by Paul Oskar Kristeller published in Journal of the History of Ideas. It proved to be an influential, much reprinted classic reading in Philosophy of art.
See also
