It's very interesting to see an object used as a men's toilet deemed as a work of art. By simply just signing his name on it, Duchamp confers the status of art onto the toilet according to George Dickie.
Dickie attempts to define art, but fails miserably. He defines what a candidate for art is as we discussed in class. One condition within Dickie's definition of "art" is appreciation. What is appreciation anyways? Aesthetic appreciation according to Dickie is very simple to define. He calls appreciation the feeling experienced when finding the qualities of an object worthy or valuable. Many criticize Dickie's definition of appreciation. They believe that there are different kinds of appreciation, but Dickie responds that appreciation of art and non-art is all the same, it just is appreciation of different objects. I agree with Dickie's critics.
The feeling I get when viewing a beautiful work of art such as a piece by Monet is totally different from the feeling I get when I volunteered at a transitional house. Appreciation of art objects involves viewing something aesthetically pleasing. Volunteering at a transitional house made me appreciate that I lived in a safe and dependable home. To say that both of these feelings of appreciation are not different, I find to be false and I believe many others would agree.
In response to our Q&A on Dickie and who can become members in the artworld I pose the question; "What do you believe would the effect would be on art appreciation if limitations were put on who could become a member of the artworld?"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment