Nigel Warburton is Senior Lecturer at the Open University and author of a number of popular books about philosophy.
Warburton received a BA from the University of Bristol and a PhD from Darwin College, Cambridge and was a lecturer at the University of Nottingham before joining the Department of Philosophy at the Open University in 1994.
He runs a popular philosophy weblog Virtual Philosopher and with David Edmonds regularly podcasts interviews with top philosophers on a range of subjects at Philosophy Bites. He also podcasts chapters from his book Philosophy: The Classics.
Contemporary British philosopher Nigel Warburton, host of the podcast series 鈥淧hilosophy Bites鈥� asks us to consider if the live peacock Belgian artist Francis Al每s recently sent to the Venice Biennale to be entered as a work of art is, in fact, a true work of art. Curiously, this is the same question my philosophy instructor asked our class nearly fifty years ago when he showed us a slide of Alpha-Pi (pictured above) by Morris Lewis - white canvas with wavy lines of color painted on the bottom left and bottom right. In other words, different work, same question.
In an attempt to address this question, 鈥淲hat is art?鈥� Warburton has written his engaging little book, approaching this philosophic conundrum from four specific theoretical angles: 1) Clive Bell鈥檚 significant form, that is, the work鈥檚 line, shape and color possessing the power to produce an aesthetic emotion in the viewer, 2) R.G.Collingwood鈥檚 theory of emotional expression and clarity of feeling needed in the process of artistic creation, 3) Ludwig Wittgenstein鈥檚 focus on the concept of 鈥榝amily resemblance鈥� along with an overview of the nature of language, 4) the 鈥業nstitutional Theory鈥� developed by George Dickie, shifting attention from the work itself to the context of how the work is exhibited by museums and galleries and how it is appreciated by an audience. As by way of a wrap-up, in the fifth and final section of his little book, Nigel himself steps forward to share his views on the art question. I wouldn鈥檛 want to restate the various facets of his position but let me mention one thing he does say: we should move away from general rules and hone our attention back to the individual works themselves.
After reading Nigel鈥檚 book and giving the art question some reflection, I鈥檇 like to share a few of my own thoughts. This art question revolves around the visual arts, particularly painting and sculpture. The other arts, such as theater, dance and music do not face this question in quite the same way. Why is that? I suspect it has to do with recognized quality of performers and performances, for example, when we see or listen to the best of the best 鈥� Royal Shakespeare Company, Imperial Russian Ballet, Philadelphia Orchestra, Cirque de Soleil, Pilobolus Dance -- we know we are in the presence of great art.
So, in my modest view, this is what the visual arts needs in our brave new 21st century world: a breakthrough, that is, an artist or artists creating great art, so great, similar to the above examples of theater, dance and music there would be no question as to its greatness. Of course, I don鈥檛 have a clue respecting the form such breakthrough art would take, nor do I think such art would sufficiently answer the question 鈥榃hat is art鈥� but by such a breakthrough I strongly suspect the public perception of the visual arts would be enormously enhanced.
Anyway, back on the book. Here is a passage I find especially probing, 鈥淲hat you know and believe affects what you see. Your expectations and knowledge don鈥檛 just help you to understand and interpret what you see, they in part help you to construct and categorize what you see.鈥� The example offered is Van Gogh鈥檚 painting of crows flying over a cornfield. We look at the painting a first time. Then we are told this is the last painting Van Gogh painted before killing himself. We take a second look. All of a sudden the crows appear ominous and threatening.
I think this examples underscores how art can be a transforming experience 鈥� the more we open ourselves to multiple viewings, open ourselves to such things as exploring the cultural and historical context of a work along with the artist鈥檚 development, the more we can grow in our understanding of that specific art form and also grow in our overall artistic sensitivity and aesthetic delicacy of taste. Am I overdoing it with all the sensitivity and delicacy? Reading Nigel Warburton鈥檚 little book will undoubtedly help you formulate an opinion. Highly recommended.
This was the first book I read on the philosophy of art and at the end of the book I was satisfied with the choice I made. Although, much to my surprise, it not only didn鈥檛 fulfill my wish to get a clear definition on what art is but on the contrary, also added it to the mysteries of my life in that at the end chapters the author states the absolute definition of art is not possible! It鈥檚 so interesting that there are lots of artists active in the world while there鈥檚 no simple definition and agreement on what the subject matter is at first place! In this regards, art bears a big resemblance to life for me. Everyone is living yet there鈥檚 no agreement on what life is. One should note that in the case of artists the issue is even more prominent and awkward in that one chooses to play a role in the realm of Art and be an artist whereas no one chooses to come to life and be a living person The only reason I deducted a star is I didn't want the book to finish! I mean, I didn't want to believe that was the all major theories on Art. I wanted at least a couple of more reasonable attempt at defining art and then face the final conclusions of the book in accepting that this would lead to nowhere! haha
Teoria formalistica di Bell: la letterariet脿 猫 definita dalla forma. Contesto e contenuto non contano nulla (merdosi relativisti, puah! Sciascia, non vali un fico secco! Hemingway, sei un brocco!)
Espressionismo di Collingwood (e di Croce e di Gentile) L'arte 猫 principalmente espressione di emozioni (Croce 猫 quello che: "I Vicer猫 di De Roberto? Non 猫 arte, manca di poesia!")
Teoria istituzionale di Dickie: 脠 letteratura: 1) un artefatto 2) che la comunit脿 interessata (letterati, critici) ha deciso di proporre come oggetto meritorio di interesse. (si mettessero d'accordo per貌, magari senza cavarsi gli occhi)
Teoria delle somiglianze di famiglia (Wittgestein): Essenza della letteratura? Vera Letteratura? Ancora con queste fantasie metafisiche? Ma siete vecchi! Se applicassimo i criteri seicenteschi, ma anche ottocenteschi, probabilmente niente della contemporaneit脿 sarebbe letteratura. Al massimo possiamo individuare delle somiglianze di famiglia.
Teoria di Weitz: Cos'猫 letteratura? Ehi, se foste sufficientemente "cool" e veramente "up-to-date" vi chiedereste piuttosto: "Che genere di concetto 猫 "letteratura"? Letteratura 猫 un concetto "aperto"! Ehi, perch茅 ingabbiarlo in definizioni asfittiche? Adesso scusate, vado a farmi un t猫. Lisergico. Peace and love.
Libro fantastico. Adoro i saggisti anglosassoni. Se gli italiani espongono concetti semplici in modo astruso, gli anglosassoni espongono concetti complessi in modo semplice.
This book gave me a good view about what's going on in contemporary art and why there are many artworks that I don't understand. It explains the historical process in a philosophical way.
A compact survey of different 20th century approaches by philosophers to defining "art." I found it very helpful for understanding the basics of modern theories and their proponents, and thorough in presenting the merits and drawbacks of each theory.
The five chapters survey five main approaches to the problem that would correspond well to how a modern reader might approach the question. For example, if you think art is about expressing emotion, then chapter two, which focuses on R. G. Collingwood's writings from the 1930s, is for you.
I appreciated the rigorous writing but be warned that, as a result, it is not a very casual read. It's worth it, if you're interested in this topic.
The more that I revisit this text, and use it as a reference, the more that I like it and appreciate its rigorous but very sensible discussion of the topic.
If you want to understand "what is art" from the philosophical/definition point of view (as opposed to understanding what's going on in contemporary art), this is a fantastic book to read.
I'd first heard about this via Warburton's Philosophy Bites. Its a well written and concise book exploring some recent attempts at answering what art actually IS. I felt mildly disappointed that the book didn't give me a definitive answer, but actually Warburton does a very good job of explaining why it's probably an impossible question in the first place.
How do you appreciate 'Art' rather than pointing asking why is and not. Expect no answer but definitely learning something new while you catch up with contemporary art/aesthetic theories
Il libro tenta di rispondere alla domanda "cos'猫 l'arte?" ed 猫 straordinariamente interessante: vengono presentate 4 diverse definizioni con relativi argomenti e controargomenti.
La conclusione 猫 paradossale e non la svelo qui,limitandomi a dire che sono in forte disaccordo: per me l'arte 猫 "l'espressione immaginativa di emozioni" e "chi contempla un'opera d'arte diventa egli stesso un artista".
A good introductory book to the current discussions and theories about art. Accessible, I would say even to a non academic public, but you still have to want to know about it.