A naturalist definition of art

Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism

Volumn 64, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 367-377

  Dutton, Denis ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CANTERBURY   (New Zealand)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 61049441097     PISSN: 00218529     EISSN: 15406245     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-594X.2006.00217.x     Document Type: Review

References (25)

1. Noël Carroll, "Identifying Art," in Institutions of Art-Reconsiderations of George Dickie's Philosophy, ed. Robert J. Yanal (Pennsylvania State University Press, 1994), p. 15
2. E. J. Bond, "The Essential Nature of Art," American Philosophical Quarterly 12 (1975): 177-183
3. published in response to Morris Weitz, this is a pioneering article. Richard L. Anderson, Art in Primitive Societies (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1979)
4. and Calliope's Sisters: A Comparative Study of Philosophies of Art (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1990); while these books do not present an explicit list, they bring together most of the items included here
5. Julius Moravcsik, "Why Philosophy of Art in a Cross-Cultural Perspective?" The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 51 (1993): 425-436
6. H. Gene Blocker, The Aesthetics of Primitive Art (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1994)
7. Berys Gaut, "'Art' as a Cluster Concept," in Theories of Art Today, ed. Noël Carroll (University of Wisconsin Press, 2000), pp. 25-44
8. Denis Dutton, "But They Don't Have Our Concept of Art," in Theories of Art Today, ed. Noël Carroll (University of Wisconsin Press, 2000), pp. 217-240
9. "Aesthetic Universals," in The Routledge Companion to Aesthetics, ed. Berys Gaut and Dominic McIver Lopes (London: Routledge, 2001), pp. 203-214. These two somewhat different lists of characteristic criteria for art across cultures differ somewhat from my present list, which is now explicitly refined to include only recognition criteria for art
10. David Novitz, "Art by Another Name," The British Journal of Aesthetics 38 (1998): 19-32
11. Ellen Dissanayake, What Is Art For? (University of Washington Press, 1988)
12. and Homo Aestheticus (New York: Free Press, 1992)
13. Paul Ekman, Emotions Revealed (New York: Henry Holt, 2003), is a good introduction to "generic" emotions. The distinction I make here is perhaps parallel to the Sanskrit distinction between bhava, the basic emotions of life, and rasa, the peculiar emotions, something like unique flavor, expressed in works of art
14. Jerrold Levinson, "Defining Art Historically," in his Music, Art, and Metaphysics (Cornell University Press, 1990)
15. Arthur Danto, "The Artworld," Journal of Philosophy 61 (1964): 571-84
16. and many books and articles following; Terry Diffey, "The Republic of Art," in his The Republic of Art and Other Essays (New York: Peter Lang, 1991)
17. George Dickie, Art and the Aesthetic, an Institutional Analysis (Cornell University Press, 1974)
18. Blocker, The Aesthetics of Primitive Art, p. 148
19. Brian Boyd has urged me in a personal communication to expand my list of recognition criteria to include separate items for (a) artifactuality and (b) having been made for an audience. I resist for the reasons given, but his may be the wiser view
20. Berys Gaut, "The Cluster Account of Art Defended," The British Journal of Aesthetics 45 (2005): 273-288
21. John Searle originated the notion of cluster descriptions in his 1958 paper, "Proper Names," Mind 67 (1958): 166-173
22. Stephen Davies, "The Cluster Theory of Art," The British Journal of Aesthetics 44 (2004): 297-300. All quotations in this paragraph are from this source
23. Govt, "The Cluster Account of Art Defended," p. 280
24. Thomas Adajian, "On the Cluster Account of Art," The British Journal of Aesthetics 43 (2003): 379-385
25. In urging me to include artifactuality and audience in the list, Brian Boyd pointed out the usefulness of these criteria to the soccer example: "If you view a work of art as an intentional object (and something done for an audience) then you have a very good criterion for dismissing the soccer match: the two sides are not cooperating to achieve something together that will move an audience (that would be a Harlem Globetrotters display, not an actual match) but are competing: the various 'performers' are at counter-purposes, whereas even in collective works of art with competing interests, like a studio film, all involved are striving to create the work of art, although perhaps according to different values; or a jazz combo, where all spontaneously react to one another's play but for the sake of the work and the audience, not for the sake of a victory and the support of part of the audience."