Well, for the case of non-human made things being called art, people can get aesthetic pleasure from pretty much anything. Art falls under aesthetics, not vice versa, so for someone to refer to something in nature as "a piece of art" is not so far fetched. If one gets aesthetic pleasure from it, and truly believes that the thing that they are observing really is a piece of art, why can't it be? One way or another, that object was created, and art is something which is created, and art is something defined by humans and things that are called art are assigned by humans, and can technically be assigned to anything if a person feels so inclined.
However, on the flip side, since "art" is something that humans invented (that is, the concept of art, and the word itself for that matter) then it only makes sense that pieces of art can only be artifacts. It also goes to say that it should be made with effort and intention, so creativity is involved and it is truly something that a person has made, and is not something that was just found in nature and put someplace else and called "art". A piece of driftwood put in a museum is not art; it is a piece of driftwood in a museum. Art takes skill, imagination, creativity, and several other things. While this starts to head toward the idea of a definition of art, which Weitz is very much against, it is the view of art which I shall present here presently.
No comments:
Post a Comment