The Limits of Art: On Borderline Cases of Artworks and their Aesthetic Properties PDF
Preview The Limits of Art: On Borderline Cases of Artworks and their Aesthetic Properties
SPRINGER BRIEFS IN PHILOSOPHY Jiri Benovsky The Limits of Art On Borderline Cases of Artworks and their Aesthetic Properties SpringerBriefs in Philosophy SpringerBriefs present concise summaries of cutting-edge research and practical applications across a wide spectrum offields. Featuring compact volumes of 50 to 125 pages, the series covers a range of content from professional to academic. Typical topics might include: (cid:129) A timely report of state-of-the art analytical techniques (cid:129) A bridge between new research results, as published in journal articles, and a contextual literature review (cid:129) A snapshot of a hot or emerging topic (cid:129) An in-depth case study or clinical example (cid:129) Apresentation ofcore conceptsthatstudents mustunderstand inordertomake independent contributions SpringerBriefsinPhilosophycoverabroadrangeofphilosophicalfieldsincluding: PhilosophyofScience,Logic,Non-WesternThinkingandWesternPhilosophy.We also consider biographies, full or partial, of key thinkers and pioneers. SpringerBriefs are characterized by fast, global electronic dissemination, standard publishing contracts, standardized manuscript preparation and formatting guidelines, and expedited production schedules. Both solicited and unsolicited manuscripts are considered for publication in the SpringerBriefs in Philosophy series. Potential authors are warmly invited to complete and submit the Briefs AuthorProposalform.Allprojectswillbesubmittedtoeditorialreviewbyexternal advisors. SpringerBriefsarecharacterizedbyexpeditedproductionscheduleswiththeaim for publication 8 to 12 weeks after acceptance and fast, global electronic dissemination through our online platform SpringerLink. The standard concise author contracts guarantee that (cid:129) an individual ISBN is assigned to each manuscript (cid:129) each manuscript is copyrighted in the name of the author (cid:129) theauthorretainstherighttopostthepre-publicationversiononhis/herwebsite or that of his/her institution. More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/10082 Jiri Benovsky The Limits of Art On Borderline Cases of Artworks and their Aesthetic Properties 123 JiriBenovsky University of Fribourg Fribourg, Switzerland ISSN 2211-4548 ISSN 2211-4556 (electronic) SpringerBriefs inPhilosophy ISBN978-3-030-54794-3 ISBN978-3-030-54795-0 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-54795-0 ©TheEditor(s)(ifapplicable)andTheAuthor(s)2021.Thisbookisanopenaccesspublication. Open Access This book is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adap- tation,distributionandreproductioninanymediumorformat,aslongasyougiveappropriatecreditto the originalauthor(s)and the source, providealink tothe CreativeCommonslicense andindicate if changesweremade. The images or other third party material in this book are included in the book’s Creative Commons license,unlessindicatedotherwiseinacreditlinetothematerial.Ifmaterialisnotincludedinthebook’s CreativeCommonslicenseandyourintendeduseisnotpermittedbystatutoryregulationorexceedsthe permitteduse,youwillneedtoobtainpermissiondirectlyfromthecopyrightholder. Theuse ofgeneraldescriptivenames,registerednames,trademarks,servicemarks,etc. inthis publi- cationdoesnotimply,evenintheabsenceofaspecificstatement,thatsuchnamesareexemptfromthe relevantprotectivelawsandregulationsandthereforefreeforgeneraluse. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained hereinorforanyerrorsoromissionsthatmayhavebeenmade.Thepublisherremainsneutralwithregard tojurisdictionalclaimsinpublishedmapsandinstitutionalaffiliations. ThisSpringerimprintispublishedbytheregisteredcompanySpringerNatureSwitzerlandAG Theregisteredcompanyaddressis:Gewerbestrasse11,6330Cham,Switzerland Acknowledgements Thisbookandtheideasandargumentsitcontainsevolvedfromanongoinginterest inthenotionofart,andsomeideaspresentinthisbookalreadyappearedinsomeof my journal articles, especially “Against aesthetic-sensory dependence” (2016, The Nordic Journal of Aesthetics, 51) and “The limits of photography” (2014, International Journal of Philosophical Studies, 22:5). For discussions and helpful feedback, I would like to thank Laure Blanc-Benon, Laurent Cesalli, Céline Chevalley, Diarmuid Costello, Fabian Dorsch, Rob Hopkins, Thomas Jacobi, Baptiste Le Bihan, Robin Le Poidevin, Jerrold Levinson, Dominic McIver Lopes, Thi Nguyen, Laurie Paul, Mikael Pettersson, Frédéric Pouillaude, Roger Pouivet, Markus Schrenk, Ted Sider, Pietro Snider, Joel Snyder, Gianfranco Soldati, Cain Todd, and Dawn Wilson. Published with support of the Swiss National Science Foundation. v Contents 1 Introduction: Different Types of Limits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2 Extending the Limits I: Non-visual and Non-auditory Artworks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.2 Gustatory and Olfactory Artworks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.3 Proprioceptive Artworks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 2.4 Training, Skill, and Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 2.5 ‘Private Versus Public’—Some Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 3 Extending the Limits II: Intellectual Artworks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 3.1 Aesthetic Properties, Sensory Dependence, and the Case of Theories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 3.2 The Beauty of Theories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 3.3 Theories as Artworks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 4 Limits and Their Vagueness: The Case of Paintings and Photographs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 4.1 On Photographs and Other Images . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 4.2 Digital Manipulation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 4.3 Vague Limits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 4.4 The Process of Production and Necessary Decisions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 4.5 Photographs, Paintings, Vagueness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 vii About the Author JiriBenovsky havingbeenstruckbyDescartes’evildemonthought-experiment,he begantostudymetaphysicstotrytofindaproofthattheworldreallyexists.Hedid notfindthatproof,butatleasthefoundanacademicwaytolivewherehecannot onlygoclimbingandskiinginthemountainsbutalsospendhisdaysthinkingabout existence, reality, time, art, as well as the aesthetics of gastronomic meals, rock climbing, or photography. He is the author of several books, including recently: Eliminativism,objects,andpersons.Thevirtuesofnon-existence(Routledge,2018), Mindandmatter.Panpsychism,dual-aspectmonism,andthecombinationproblem (2018, Springer), and Meta-metaphysics (2016, Springer). More information on Benovsky’s work can be found online atwww.jiribenovsky.org. ix Chapter 1 Introduction: Different Types of Limits §1.Thisbookisaboutexploringinterestingborderlinecasesofart.I’lldiscussthe casesofgustatoryandolfactoryartworks(focusingonfood),proprioceptiveartworks (dance,martialarts,androckclimbingquaproprioceptiveexperiences),intellectual artworks(philosophicalandscientifictheories),aswellasthevaguelimitsbetween painting and photography. Perhaps you’ll find it obvious that some or all of these cases are genuine cases of art, and that the claims I will be making are trivial. In that case, I’ll be happy to agree and I hope that this book will still be of interest as a fruitful discussion of these cases of artworks and their limits. Perhaps you’ll finditobviousthatsomeorallofthesecasesarenot genuinecasesofart—indeed, allofthem,individually,havebeendeniedthestatusofartworksatsomepoint.In thatcase,I’llbehappytodisagreeandI’lltrytoofferreasonstochangeyourmind. My aim in this short book is thus twofold. First, I hope that the discussion of this seriesofparticularclaimsabouttheseparticularcaseswillbeofinterestforitsown, first-level,sake;andsecond,fromthisdiscussion,amoregeneralpictureaboutthe nature of art and about what counts as an artwork will arise. Indeed, the different caseswillallowustoconsiderdifferenttypesoflimits.Somelimitswillconcernour senses(ourdifferentperceptualmodalities),somewillconcernvaguenessandfuzzy boundaries betweendifferenttypesofworksofart,somewillconcerntheamount of human intention and intervention in the process of creation of an artwork, and some will concern the border between art and science. In these various ways, by understandingbettersuchborderlinecases,wewill—orsoIhope—getabettergrip onanunderstandingofthenatureofart. §2. “What is art?” is a very general and cruelly difficult question. Perhaps, it is so cruelly difficult precisely because it is so very general. Indeed, any precise answer,thatis,anydefinitionofart,orartwork,whichwouldpreciselydefinewhat countsasartandwhatdoesnot,isalwaysinprincipleatgreatriskofleavingsome possibilitiesoutandofbeingopentopossiblecounter-examples.Thenotionofart, orartwork,isavagueonebutthisisnotonlyaproblemofvagueness.Thedifficulty ofprovidingadefinitionalsostemsfromthefactthatartevolveswithtime,thatit isculture-relative,andthatweneedtoadaptourunderstandingofwhatartistothis ©TheAuthor(s)2021 1 J.Benovsky,TheLimitsofArt,SpringerBriefsinPhilosophy, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-54795-0_1 2 1 Introduction:DifferentTypesofLimits ever-evolving process. A strict definition of what counts as art and what does not is bound to fail at some point. But not having a definition of something does not meanthatthissomethingisinexplicable(contraAdajian(2018,§1)).Indeed,ifwe keepinmindtheever-evolvingnatureofart,wecansimplyrealizethatthereisno needforadefinition(whywoulditbenecessarytohaveone?)andthatwesimply should continuously update our understanding of what art is, and allow ourselves tobesurprisedfromtimetotimewhennew,challengingformsofartemerge.Any definition that would try, for instance, to identify what is common to all artworks wouldsimplybeinadequate,perhapspreciselyinthesense—highlyrelevanttothe overallpurposesofthisbook—thatitwouldbegthequestionagainstnon-standard typesofartworksandclassifythemasnotbeingart.Inordertoresistsuchapossibly question-begging stance, we can simply resist the need for a definition.1 Walton (2007,p.148)evensuggestedthatthequestiondoesnotevenmakemuchsense:“It isnotatallclear thatthesewords—‘Whatisart?’—express anything likeasingle question,towhichcompetinganswersaregiven[…]Thesheervarietyofproposed definitions should give us pause. One cannot help wondering whether there is any senseinwhichtheyareattemptsto[…]addressthesameissue”.Thisdoesnotmean, however,thatweshouldsomehowbecomescepticalabouttheverynotionofartand thatweshouldabandontheveryideaoftryingtounderstandwhatanartworkis.On thecontrary,thelackofapreciseandfixeddefinitionisallthemorereasontotryto improveourunderstandingofthenatureofart,whileembracingitsimpermanence andvagueness. §3. To this end, let me list some points I propose to take on board as working criteriaforadiscussionaboutwhatcountsasanartworkandwhatdoesnot.Keeping inmindwhatIsaidabove,thesedonotconstituteasetofnecessaryandsufficient conditions. Rather, they are merely indicators or pointers that help us clarify the discussionaboutthenatureofart.Itakeitthatthislistisratherstandard(although itis,ofcourse,controversial),2 andIamsimplygoingtousethesepointsasmore orlessoptionalguidelines,byexaminingwhethertheyapplytothevariouscasesI amgoingtodiscussbelowandwhethertheyareusefulornot.Asageneralrule,I’ll workwiththeideathatifsomethingdoesnotsatisfyallofthesepoints,thisisnot automaticallyareasontothinkthatitisnotanartwork. (1) Artworkspossessaestheticproperties (2) Artworksaresubjecttoaestheticjudgements (3) Artworkshavethecapacitytotriggeraestheticexperiences (4) Artworkshavethecapacitytotriggeremotions (5) Artworkshavethecapacitytoconveymeaningsandideas (6) Artworksarechallenging(bothfortheartistandtheobserver) (7) Artworksrequireskilltobeproduced 1Adajian (2018) offers an extensive discussion of definitions of art. Discussion concerning the projectofdefiningartcanbefound,interalia,inKennick(1958),Stecker(1996,2005),Weitz (1950),Ziff(1953). 2Schrenk(2014)usesasimilarlist.ComparetoGaut’s(2000,2005)discussionofartasacluster concept.
The list of books you might like
