Looking back to Dewey's concept that craftsmen aren't appreciated as artists until much later when their objects are placed in museums as works of artistic and historical significance seems to hold a huge relation to Goodman's argument that it is not the question of what is art that matters but "'When is an object a work of art?'"
As Goodman states, "just as an object may be a symbol...at certain times and under certain circumstances and not at others, so an object may be a work of art at some times and not at others." Looking back to the example of Dewey's objects --"bowls, rugs, garments, weapons"--that were only fully accepted as art years after the craftsmen made them, so too can so called 'art' objects be considered in just the same manner. At one point in time or in some instances, these bowls, rugs, garments, art, etc. were used in a practical manner, in every day use; at other times, however, (whether it be under different circumstances or at a different point in time) these objects were seen as works of art.
The example I most enjoy to best understand Goodman's idea is that of dinnerware. Many people have that 'special dinnerware,' the beautifully ornate dishes that are displayed on shelves and in cabinets, only to be taken down for special events like holidays or a visit from an important guest. With the dinnerware, the question of 'what' is art ceases to be of any pertinence--clearly the elaborate designs of the special tableware were meant to be accepted as art, it is not just any old plastic or Styrofoam plate; instead, the question of 'when' this dish/bowl/etc. is accepted as art gains in importance.
Likely all would agree that the fancy tableware is art while on display on the shelf or in the cabinet, but does it decline in artistic stance when it gains in practical (yet still just as artistically beautiful for, the piece itself doesn't change) importance while presenting food upon the table?
No comments:
Post a Comment