How is Goodman contributing to the definition of art?
Goodman's preference to the asking of when compared to what seems on the surface one of semantics, and I'm sure an eloquent art theorist could argue that point to the grave.
If we do want to plumb the meaning of his theory, though, we must give him some leiway and try to think creatively. When you ask "what is art," you are referring to the object itself. "What" seems more tangible than the temporal "when." When you ask "when is art," however, the question seems to be referring to an occurance rather than an object.
This occurance is the communication of feeling that Tolstoy deemed necessary for art to be successful. Goodman is trying to lift artworks out of the banality in which ordinary objects dwell, and attach to them something extraordinary. I think in this sense, he does in fact make a contribution to the definition of art.
Is the argument just one of semantics? Are there no real differences between "what" and "when"? If so, what is your view on the difference between the two views?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment