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
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Defining art solely in terms of aesthetic experience is p... — Carmelics
    Home/Aesthetics
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Defining art solely in terms of aesthetic experience is problematic.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Duchamp's readymades, like 'Fountain' (1917), possess identical aesthetic properties to their non-art counterparts yet differ in arthood.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If aesthetic experience were definitionally sufficient for art, 'Fountain' and an identical urinal in a hardware store would be indistinguishable as art.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Any definition that cannot account for this distinction fails to capture what makes something art rather than a mere aesthetic object.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Dickie's Institutional Theory holds that arthood is conferred by social roles within the artworld, not by perceptual or experiential properties.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Aesthetic experience supervenes on perceptual properties, which are identical in indiscernible pairs like Warhol's Brillo Box and its warehouse counterpart.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Danto's argument from 'indiscernibles' demonstrates that no purely experiential account can differentiate art from non-art without invoking institutional or historical context.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Natural objects and persons can invite aesthetic experiences without qualifying as art.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A definition of art that includes natural objects and persons as art leads to counterintuitive results.
      ?

      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 definition of art that includes natural objects and persons as art leads to co...Aesthetic experience supervenes on perceptual properties, which are identical in...Any definition that cannot account for this distinction fails to capture what ma...Danto's argument from 'indiscernibles' demonstrates that no purely experiential ...
    +4 moreShow less
    Dickie's Institutional Theory holds that arthood is conferred by social roles wi...Duchamp's readymades, like 'Fountain' (1917), possess identical aesthetic proper...If aesthetic experience were definitionally sufficient for art, 'Fountain' and a...Natural objects and persons can invite aesthetic experiences without qualifying ...

    Similar

    Conceptual art does not aim to yield aesthetic experiences.91%Good art may be defined or evaluated in terms of its capacity to yield...87%Conceptual art does not aim at having aesthetic value.87%The aesthetic definition of art faces serious counterexamples from nat...84%

    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 (2 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit