If I asked you to show me some art, you'd probably be able to do it. You might have
some favourite pieces or know something about the history of art. But if I was an alien from
another planet and I asked you to define art - could you do it?
Philosophers have been attempting to define art for a long time, and it turns out it's actually
really bloody difficult to do. There are lots of different types of theories and each
one has its own pros and cons. So we're
gonna take a quick whistle-stop tour of some of the options.
First up, Essentialism. If you are an essentialist you believe that
all art has some feature, call it Feature X. So the definition of art is just "Everything
with Feature X." And depending on what kind of essentialist you are you might have different
ideas about what that feature is. The trouble is, there's so many different kinds
of art, and people are always making new kinds of it
that it might be difficult to find one feature that all artworks have in common.
To illustrate this problem I've brought along a few examples.
So these are some song lyrics in a frame that a friend gave to me because the song has a particular meaning to us.
This is a sign that says, "Mike's "Drive In" Hot Dogs: 5 cents"
This is a drawing that someone did in pen of a town in Scotland.
This is a painting that I did, actually, it's a painting of some flowers.
And this is a map of my home county that I display on my wall.
This is a bull made of glass that I got in Spain.
This is a model of a saxophone that somebody - ooo!
That somebody made of scrap metal. Ooh, that's gonna fall apart...
This is a book of poetry that my friend Carly wrote.
And this is a copy of Mary Shelly's "The Last Man."
All of these are very, very different things - so what's the one feature that they all supposedly have in common?
Next up, Functionalism. As you might have guessed from the name -
Functionalists think that all art has some function, call it Y, and so the definition of art is just, "Everything that does Y."
And, a little bit like Essentialism, the problem is that art is so varied it might be difficult to find just one function.
You'd also have to think about bad art. If it fails to achieve its function, does it still count as art?
Changing tack slightly, there's also Institutional Theories. These say, surprise surprise, that art is defined by
an institution. The most famous example of this theory comes from George Dickie, who said
that art is whatever "the artworld" says it is. That's why there's so much variation in art,
because the artworld could point to literally anything and go, "Yeah, that counts."
Trouble is though is, who are the artworld? Who are these shadowy figures who get to decide
what counts as art? And on what basis do they make their decision? If they have no reasons
for picking the things that they do, well then concept of art is kindof arbitrary. Is that a major problem?
And if they do have some reasons for their choices well then it's not their choice that makes it
art; it's whatever it is about the art that that reason relates to.
Then there's Historical Definitions. People like Jerrold Levinson, who says that something is
art if it fits into a recognised historical artistic tradition. Again
though, a little bit like with the Institutional Definitions, how do we decide what counts
as an artistic tradition without presupposing some other definition of art?
And what about the first ever works of art? They weren't part of a historical tradition: they were brand new. And if we found art that was made by aliens,
would it not count as art because it doesn't fit any recognised earthly historical tradition?
Just so we're clear, nobody's saying that any of these problems are impossible to solve.
The philosophers who defend these various theories engage with these problems all the time. In fact, the definition
of art that I defend is an essentialist one and I think it works. But if you're gonna defend any of these theories, these are the
questions you need to be answering.
And if you're writing exams or essays on these subjects, these are useful things to bear in mind. And
in fact, there's one other major approach worth considering, and that's just giving up.
I say giving up, but Anti-Essentialism is the position that
art can't really be defined using traditional methods, so it's not so much giving up as rejecting the question.
Anti-essentialism was very popular in the late 20th Century.
And it took a lot of clues from the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein. Wittgenstein famously examined the concept
of 'games,' and said there isn't really one thing that all games have in common.
Football, Poker, "Knights of the Old Republic;" these are all games but you'd lose your
mind trying to find the common feature. He said that some games resemble each other, like
golf kindof resembles football because they both use a ball. But there isn't one essential feature of games.
So the anti-essentialists said that art is kindof the same. Some artworks resemble each
other, like painting and tattooing both involve using pigment, but there isn't one feature that all artworks have in common. There isn't
one unifying thread. It's more like a web of family resemblances. Anti-essentialism has
fallen out of fashion though because it does have some big problems. First
of all, anything resembles anything if you just look hard enough. Like Plutonium resembles Oxygen
because they're both made of atoms. How do you decide which are the important
resemblances? And Can you even do that whilst still maintaining as an anti-essentialist that there
is no one thing that all art has in common?
Also, try this one on for size. A resembles B, and B is a work of art, so A must also be
a work of art. OK grand. But how do you know B is a work of art? How did you decide that?
You can't just keep going and say well because it resembles C, which resembles D, which resembles E, and so on forever! Or can you?
Uggghhh, so we can't even give up without encountering problems! Ok Ok, last one, last one.
Pluralism: there are lots of different definitions of art, and we dip in
and out of them as it suits us. Maybe the definition of art is a little bit like the definition of
the word 'species.' When you get right down to it, biologists use different definitions of 'species' depending on
what field of biology they work in, because it's actually really difficult to come up with a definition
of the word 'species' that fits all organisms all the time. But biologists still manage to do their jobs
despite that. So maybe the definition of art is similar.
This is kindof similar to a thought by the philosopher William Kennick, who said that trying to
define art was pretty much a pointless task. We have enough of an idea of what art means
to be able to get on with our lives. Like if the art warehouse was burning down, and someone said to you, "Oh my
God! Run in and save all the art!" You would know what they meant and you would know
what you were supposed to do So, whatever the definition of art "really is" we kinda don't need to know it.
But although that's a nice idea, when it comes to modern art it might not actually be true, because
in 2004 that actually happened. The Momart Warehouse in London burned down, and if you and I
had been there and somebody said, "Run in and save the art!' we might not have known what we
were supposed to get because the Momart warehouse contained all kinds of weird and esoteric art pieces. There's also that famous tweet that did the rounds ages
ago about someone dropping a glove in the Museum of Modern Art and nobody was sure whether or not they were supposed to look
at it! And there are lots of modern art pieces where people go, "Mmm, does that really count
as art or not? I could have done that!" So there are occasions when having
a robust definition of art might be really useful.
In this video we've covered six different ways of trying to define art: we've discussed Essentialism, Functionalism,
Definitions, Anti-Essentialism, and Pluralism.
And we looked at the pros and cons of each. Patreon.com/Philosophy Tube is where you can
help me give away more free education on the Internet; leave me a comment telling me what your favourite theory is, or maybe you can come up with your own.
And, as always, don't forget to subscribe.