No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Those of us in the field of dance may encounter difficulties discussing the many facets of dance among ourselves, but most of us take for granted that dance can be an art form. Currently, however, there are many approaches to dance including chance choreography, the dance happening, non-dance, and minimal dance which are in radical contrast to what has generally been accepted as the art of dance. It is reasonable to raise questions about how the new dance forms fit into the established scheme of things. It is reasonable to also raise questions about the defining properties of art in general. The purpose of this paper is to point out very briefly, some of the thoughts of respected aestheticians on the concept of art. An examination of pertinent aesthetic theory will indicate there can be no simple answer to the question, “What is art?”. There is no one theory of the artistic which offers a comprehensive explanation. A cross section of references chosen for their readability, accessibility, and relatedness bears this out. Although there are no articles devoted specifically to dance, one can sift through the material and find what pertains not only to art in general, but also to dance.
Because the world of art is always changing, the phrase, “work of art,” is bound to be used in varying ways. Paul Ziff has pointed out the difficulties in arriving at a definition of art. Disputes occur simply because of what critics mean when they refer to something as being a work of art. Ziff maintains that these disputes must always be examined in the social context in which they occur.
1 Ziff, Paul, “Defining a Work of Art,” Philosophical Review, 62: 58–78, 1953 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
2 Weitz, Morris, “The Role of Theory in Aesthetics,” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 15: 27–35, 1956 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Reprinted in Weitz, Morris, Problems in Aesthetics. New York: Macmillan Company, 1959, pp. 145–156 Google Scholar; also in Beardsley, Monroe C. and Schueller, Herbert M., eds. Aesthetic Inquiry: Essays on Art Criticism and the Philosophy of Art. Belmont, California: Dickenson Publishing Company, Inc., 1967, pp. 3–11 Google Scholar.
3 Ibid., Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, p. 32.
4 Kahler, Erich, “What Is Art?” in Weitz, Morris. Problems in Aesthetics, pp. 157–171 Google Scholar.
5 Ibid., p. 171.
6 Kennick, William E., “Does Traditional Aesthetics Rest on a Mistake?” Mind, 67:317–334, 1958 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
7 Ibid., pp. 321-322.
8 Bywater, William G., “Who's in the Warehouse Now?” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism. 30: 519–527, 1972 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
9 Saw, Ruth, “What Is a ‘Work of Art’?” Philosophy, 36: 18–29, 1961 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
10 Ibid., p. 23.
11 Ibid., pp. 26-27.
12 Beardsley, Monroe C., Morgan, Douglas N., and Mothersill, Mary, “On Art and the Definitions of Arts: A Symposium,” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 20: 175–198, 1961 Google Scholar.
13 Meter Ames, Van, “Is It Art?” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 30:39–48, 1971 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
14 Ibid., p. 42.
15 Ibid., p. 47.
16 Jessup, Bertram, “Crisis in the Fine Arts Today,” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 29:3–10, 1970 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
17 Danto, Arthur, “The Artworld,” Journal of Philosophy, 61:571–584. 1964 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
18 William Kennick has commented briefly on Danto's paper. See Kennick, William E., “Theories of Art and the Art World,” Journal of Philosophy, 61:585–587, 1964 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
19 Danto, op. cit., p. 581.
20 Dickie, George, “Defining Art,” American Philosophical Quarterly, 6:254, 1969. Italicized in the originalGoogle Scholar.
21 Sclafani, Richard J., “Art as a Social Institution: Dickie's New Definition,” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 32:111–114. 1973 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
22 Weitz, Morris, “The Role of Theory in Aesthetics,” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 15:35, 1956 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
23 Brunius, Teddy, “The Uses of Works of Art,” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 22:123–133, 1963 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Reprinted in Beardsley, Monroe C. and Schueller, Herbert M., eds. Aesthetic Inquiry: Essays on Art Criticism and the Philosophy of Art. Belmont, California: Dickenson Publishing Company, Inc., 1967, pp. 12–25 Google Scholar.