At his talk on Wednesday, Tom Wartenberg made a very interesting point about aesthetics and art. In short: "Aesthetics is what's visually pleasing. It's how we aesthetically enjoy nature. Not everything that we appreciate aesthetically is art, and in addition, not all art is aesthetic. Some art we appreciate for what it does for us, how it makes us think, rather than how it looks." I do not purport to claim that these were his exact words, but I believe this was the gist of it, if I recall correctly (anyone who was there, feel free to correct me in a comment if I misrepresented his view).
I find this view to be quite interesting. I had started my considerations of art and aesthetics from the premise that all art objects are aesthetic objects, that art objects are a subset of the category of items that we appreciate aesthetically.
Let us take this view and play it out. Some modern art certainly seems to lack any aesthetic value. I will take as my example Jeremijenko's Tree Logic at Mass MoCA (feel free to debate me on the aesthetic value of this "piece."). There is, to my estimation, no aesthetic value in hanging trees upside down, and yet this is on display in an art museum. Indeed, it may well be considered art despite its lack of aesthetic value (I will leave the contention of good vs bad art for another time).
This, I think, might give yet more credence to Weitz's argument that we cannot define art, that we cannot identify a conclusive list of necessary AND sufficient conditions.
To end on a list of questions:
1) Is "Tree Logic" art? Why?
2) Might it be possible to coin a definition of art that has the necessary and sufficient conditions to allow such diverse pieces as, say, "The Mona Lisa," Bethoveen's symphonies, and "Tree Logic" to all fall in to the category of art?
3) What might be some qualities that would allow a work to be art if it lacks aesthetic considerations, and how might these qualities differentiate the artwork from non-art works that share those qualities?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
To me, she appears to be graphically re-framing the methods, model, and data of a scientific experiment - wherein her study site is physically located on the grounds of an art museum.
Interesting data, perceive it as tree-cruelty, she could have humanely performed this experiment using computer generated models, where no trees would have been harmed in the process. Its like looking at hanged persons. Its provoking, but I wish someone would free those trees and plant them in a forest.
Visually disturbing, agree with you, can't see any art here.
This is interesting indeed. I will respond, most likely, to all three questions.
Post a Comment