Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    A conception of art that is not necessarily aesthetic is ... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Aesthetics
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    A conception of art that is not necessarily aesthetic is defensible.

    Aesthetics
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.There is no decisive philosophical reason to uphold the view that art must aim at aesthetic value.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The aesthetic definition of art faces serious counterexamples from nature and persons.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If no decisive reason compels the aesthetic view, there is nothing blocking a non-aesthetic conception of art.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Kant's aesthetic theory establishes that disinterested contemplation is constitutive of art's distinctive rational function, not merely incidental to it.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If aesthetic experience is constitutive of art's rational function, then a non-aesthetic conception dissolves the categorical distinction between art and mere artifacts.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A conception of art that cannot ground a principled distinction between art and mere artifacts is not defensible as a philosophical account of art.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Clive Bell and Roger Fry argued that 'significant form' — an irreducibly aesthetic property — is the only property shared across all genuine works of art across cultures and history.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The supporting argument's counterexamples from nature and persons show only that aesthetics is insufficient for art, not that aesthetic value is unnecessary for it.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A conception of art that abandons aesthetic value as even a necessary condition loses the explanatory power to account for why art historically commands the institutional and critical attention it does.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Aesthetics

    Related

    A conception of art that abandons aesthetic value as even a necessary condition ...A conception of art that cannot ground a principled distinction between art and ...Clive Bell and Roger Fry argued that 'significant form' — an irreducibly aesthet...If aesthetic experience is constitutive of art's rational function, then a non-a...
    +5 moreShow less
    If no decisive reason compels the aesthetic view, there is nothing blocking a no...Kant's aesthetic theory establishes that disinterested contemplation is constitu...The aesthetic definition of art faces serious counterexamples from nature and pe...The supporting argument's counterexamples from nature and persons show only that...There is no decisive philosophical reason to uphold the view that art must aim a...

    Similar

    If no decisive reason compels the aesthetic view, there is nothing blo...84%Conceptual art does not aim at having aesthetic value.83%The aesthetic definition of art faces serious counterexamples from nat...83%If art is defined in terms of aesthetic experience, then conceptual ar...82%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: conceptual-art
    View source passageHide passage
    However, not everyone has endorsed such a liberal view about the separation between the aesthetic and the artistic[7]. If art does not aim at having aesthetic value, what, one might argue, will set it apart from non-art? Which view one decides to favour on this point may well end up being an issue about definition. If one wishes to define art in terms of aesthetic experience, the question finds a clear-cut answer, namely that conceptual art simply cannot be considered a kind of art. The down-s
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit