I had the opportunity to attend the meeting featuring Thomas Wartenberg at Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts this past week. The part of the meeting I found most interesting was when a former student of the Art and Philosophy course posed the question; "Why did Warternberg not include other philosopher's views that were like Weitz's view on defining art?" Wartenberg's response was that all the other philosophers that had views similar to Weitz's, had writings that were too similar to Weitz's. I think by not including more chapters that feature ideas similar to Weitz's makes the book seem to try to make the reader think that there must be a definition to art.
Do you think that there should have been more philosophical views included in the anthology that were similar to Weitz's view on art or was just one chapter sufficient?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment