The Modern System of the Arts
From The Art and Popular Culture Encyclopedia
| Revision as of 10:46, 20 May 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;" | | ||
| - | "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]]'' (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.)" | + | "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}} | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
| ==See also== | ==See also== | ||
| *[[Definitions of art]] | *[[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
