Defining Art Historically
From The Art and Popular Culture Encyclopedia
| Revision as of 13:26, 9 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" | ||
| + | | style="text-align: left;" | | ||
| + | "A [[work of art]] is a thing [[Authorial intent|intended]] for regard-as-a-work-of-art: regard in any of the [[art history|ways works of art existing prior to it]] have been correctly regarded." --"[[Defining Art Historically]]", 1979, Jerrold Levinson | ||
| + | <hr> | ||
| + | "By the end of [[Defining Art Historically|Levinson’s article]], is that [[work of art|artworks]] are things that are [[Authorial intent|intended]] to be regarded in the same way that previous artworks have been regarded, something that, I trust it will be agreed, can hardly be called an epiphany."-- "[[Family Resemblances, Relationalism, and the Meaning of 'Art']]" (2007) Daniel A. Kaufman | ||
| + | |} | ||
| {{Template}} | {{Template}} | ||
| - | "[[Defining Art Historically]]"” (''[[British Journal of Aesthetics]]'', 1979, pp.232-250) is a paper by [[Jerrold Levinson]]. | + | "[[Defining Art Historically]]"” (1979) is an essay by [[Jerrold Levinson]] which attempts to [[define art]]. It proposes a variation on the [[Institutional theory of art]] with considerable emphasis on the [[author's intent]]. |
| For Levinson, "a work of art is a thing intended for regard-as-a-work-of-art: regard in any of the ways works of art existing prior to it have been correctly regarded" (1979, p. 234). Levinson further clarifies that by "intends for" he means: “[M]akes, appropriates or conceives for the purpose of'" (1979, p. 236). Some of these manners for regard (at around the present time) are: to be regarded with full attention, to be regarded contemplatively, to be regarded with special notice to appearance, to be regarded with "emotional openness" (1979, p. 237). If an object isn't intended for regard in any of the established ways, then it isn't art. | For Levinson, "a work of art is a thing intended for regard-as-a-work-of-art: regard in any of the ways works of art existing prior to it have been correctly regarded" (1979, p. 234). Levinson further clarifies that by "intends for" he means: “[M]akes, appropriates or conceives for the purpose of'" (1979, p. 236). Some of these manners for regard (at around the present time) are: to be regarded with full attention, to be regarded contemplatively, to be regarded with special notice to appearance, to be regarded with "emotional openness" (1979, p. 237). If an object isn't intended for regard in any of the established ways, then it isn't art. | ||
| + | ==References== | ||
| + | *"[[Defining Art Historically]]"” (''[[British Journal of Aesthetics]]'', 1979, pp.232-250) is a paper by [[Jerrold Levinson]]. | ||
| - | ==Criticism:== | ||
| - | |||
| - | :"It is worth noting that today’s leading New Wavers seem as often confused about the ultimate point of an analysis of ‘ art ’ as they are wrong about it.Levinson, for example, begins his definitive essay on the subject by announcing that he is going to provide substantial understanding into the ‘ artness of an art work ’ ; to tell us ‘ what ties together Dickens’s ''[[Oliver Twist]]'', Tallis’s ''[[Spem in alium]]'', Flavin’s ''[[Pink and Gold]]''. . . ’ , and so on. 26 But, just two pages later, he admits that in fact, his definition only tells us ‘ what it is for an object to be art at a given time ’ . 27 As for giving us any sense of the ‘ artness ’ of an artwork — of the ''substance'' of what it is to be a work of art — beyond that which we may have acquired already, in our experiences of individual artworks, all that we have learned, by the end of Levinson’s article, is that artworks are things that are intended to be regarded in the same way that previous artworks have been regarded, 28 something that, I trust it will be agreed, can hardly be called an epiphany."-- ''British Journal of Aesthetics'', Vol. 47, No. 3, July 2007, "[[Family Resemblances, Relationalism, and the Meaning of 'Art']]", Daniel A. Kaufman | ||
| ==See also== | ==See also== | ||
| + | *[[Art theory]] | ||
| *[[Refining Art Historically]]'' | *[[Refining Art Historically]]'' | ||
| {{GFDL}} | {{GFDL}} | ||
Current revision
|
"A work of art is a thing intended for regard-as-a-work-of-art: regard in any of the ways works of art existing prior to it have been correctly regarded." --"Defining Art Historically", 1979, Jerrold Levinson "By the end of Levinson’s article, is that artworks are things that are intended to be regarded in the same way that previous artworks have been regarded, something that, I trust it will be agreed, can hardly be called an epiphany."-- "Family Resemblances, Relationalism, and the Meaning of 'Art'" (2007) Daniel A. Kaufman |
|
Related e |
|
Featured: |
"Defining Art Historically"” (1979) is an essay by Jerrold Levinson which attempts to define art. It proposes a variation on the Institutional theory of art with considerable emphasis on the author's intent.
For Levinson, "a work of art is a thing intended for regard-as-a-work-of-art: regard in any of the ways works of art existing prior to it have been correctly regarded" (1979, p. 234). Levinson further clarifies that by "intends for" he means: “[M]akes, appropriates or conceives for the purpose of'" (1979, p. 236). Some of these manners for regard (at around the present time) are: to be regarded with full attention, to be regarded contemplatively, to be regarded with special notice to appearance, to be regarded with "emotional openness" (1979, p. 237). If an object isn't intended for regard in any of the established ways, then it isn't art.
References
- "Defining Art Historically"” (British Journal of Aesthetics, 1979, pp.232-250) is a paper by Jerrold Levinson.
See also
