The class on the metaphysics of art that didn't exist

Dear Philosophers of Art:

Below are the questions that we would have discussed if our class on Wednesday, May 2nd had existed. Read "Transfiguration of the Commonplace," chapter Four for Monday. If you've already read that chapter and understand it perfectly, go ahead and read chapter 6.

• Consider the following questions as you read Danto. Ask yourself: which question speaks most deeply to me? Which is most relevant to me as an artist? As a human being?

• What happens to an object when it becomes a work of art?

• If an ordinary object like a urinal can become a work of art simply by being declared to be art by the “art world”, then can anything become art? If so, what is the point of making art out of a mere object?

• If anything can become a work of art, then it is not the object, but your perceptual attitude towards an object – call it “having an aesthetic appreciation” for something that makes it a work of art. But you can find something beautiful without turning it into a work of art. So, what is the particular kind of beauty or aesthetic pleasure that turns things into works of art?

• There are representations – imitations - of nature (e.g. scientific pictures) which are not works of art, so art cannot be defined as the mimesis of nature. So what subset of nature representations are artistic nature representations?

• Is the sense of beauty more like the sense of hearing or the sense of humor?

• Is it possible to observe the world without responding to the world, or is perception intrinsically responsive to the world?

• What is the purpose of art?


In The Know: How Can We Make The War In Iraq More Eco-Friendly?