The Function of Art

After reading several philosophers’ theories on the definition of art, one thing I have taken notice of is there lack of mentioning an important element which makes art definable as art. This important element which philosophers have seemingly failed to mention in any of their numerous theories is the primary function of the object or form. From my perspective, the primary function of art is to please the viewer. Pleasure, in this case, does not particularly mean enjoyment but rather to bring about emotions or thoughts in such a way that it is admirable. Many great art works have been produced that would be described as gruesome or disturbing, which one would not always consider to be pleasurable, but it is still considered art because it arouses this intense emotion of disgust or is admirable for its detail and ability to convey a certain content. In earlier class periods we discussed how objects made in the image of daily things not considered to be art are considered art. For example, a spoon is not usually considered a work of art, but when a life size sculpture of a spoon is molded and painted in a very realistic way, it is unarguably considered to be art. The primary function of the original spoon is not for aestetically pleasing purposes, but for eating purposes, while the primary function of the sculpted spoon is depicting details and is clearly designed to be aesthetically pleasing. Why do you think philosophers have failed to mention this seemingly important element in their attempts to define art? Do you think that it was purposely left of the definition because it was assumed to be understood or is there another reason which philosophers would intentionally leave it out of their attempted definitions?

Appreciation

Although it was not the main focus of the essay, George Dickie posed an interesting question in his essay What is art? An Institutional Analysis that I thought deserved some attention. Dickie asks on page 433 of the text “is there anything which it is impossible to appreciate?” This philosophical question can be interpreted in many ways, but the way in which I believe Dickie meant to ask the question would be “is there any physical object or other art form which is impossible to appreciate.” I think this interpretation of the question makes most sense because it is best in keeping with the rest of the article. I am sure that Dickie would agree that a punch to the face by your best friend could easily be argued as unappreciated, but from the point of view of interpreting the question in terms of physical objects and art forms I believe that the answer is no, there is nothing that is impossible to appreciate. Although, not every art object or work is appreciated by everyone, the likelihood of finding an artwork which is impossible to appreciate altogether (i.e. no one, including the artist, appreciates the work) seems incredibly unlikely. What are other’s opinions on this question posed by Dickie in the essay? Are there examples of objects or art forms that go unappreciated altogether or do you disagree with my opinion and believe that it is very fathomable that the lack of appreciation of art forms and objects in its entirety is common?

In Response to Brandon's Question

Brandon poses an interesting question as to who or what should be to blame when an artwork is not conveyed in the intentional manner to the viewer. From one perspective it is easily argued that the person who is most at fault for the lack of understanding of the piece would be the creator of the piece him/her self, the artist. If the artist creates an artwork with a specific intention of an emotion to be conveyed or a specific content to be seen he/she must fashion the piece in such a manner that it portrays this intended idea to the viewer. If the viewer does not understand what the artist is trying to convey by looking at the piece, it is then a failure of the artist. On the other hand, it could easily be argued that if a viewer does not understand the artwork it is not the fault of the artist, but rather the viewer is at most blame. Here the assumption is that the artist put his/her all into the work in attempt to convey a specific emotion or content and that other viewers are able to make this recognition when looking at the piece. If one particular viewer looks at the piece but does not understand what the artist was attempting to convey through the piece, it is his/her own fault because the viewer is not educated enough in the world of art to understand the meaning behind the piece and all that the artist was trying to convey. In order to truly understand why an artwork is not successful in conveying what it was intending to, both perspectives need to be taken into consideration. Usually when an artwork is not understood it is a combination of the artist not being able to properly convey his/her intent and the viewer not having a strong background on the subject at hand. Could there be a case where a particular artwork is not understood by anyone? Or would it be argued that so long as the artist him/her self understood the piece, it is still capable of conveying the intended emotion or content?