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
    Natural objects and persons can invite aesthetic experien... — Carmelics
    Home/Aesthetics
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→Defining art solely in terms of aesthetic experience is problematic.

    Natural objects and persons can invite aesthetic experiences without qualifying as art.

    Aesthetics
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

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

    Topics

    Aesthetics

    Related

    A definition of art that includes natural objects and persons as art leads to co...Defining art solely in terms of aesthetic experience is problematic.

    Similar

    Conceptual art does not aim to yield aesthetic experiences.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Aesthetics
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    85%
    Good art may be defined or evaluated in terms of its capacity to yield...83%
    Defining art solely in terms of aesthetic experience is problematic.83%
    If no decisive reason compels the aesthetic view, there is nothing blo...82%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    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

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective