Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-5d59c44645-klj7v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-02-28T16:47:12.333Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

7 - Identifying and evaluating art

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2014

Richard Eldridge
Affiliation:
Swarthmore College, Pennsylvania
Get access

Summary

Why we go on arguing about which works are good

The identification and evaluation of objects or performances as works of art is often a process fraught with passion and difficulty. We care about some favorite works that we regard as successful – certain books or movies or paintings – in the way we care about our friends. They appeal to us both immediately and deeply. We often remember them, revisit them, reread them, or rehear them. We recommend them to others, and we are then pleased if the work engages them and sometimes disappointed or troubled if it does not. Prices in the art market and publishing industry depend on what people respond to, as does support by governments and foundations for work in progress.

We often have trouble, however, saying why we respond to a work in the way we do, especially when we are faced with original work. We worry about being taken in, and we can be hesitant to display our enthusiasms. Yet most of us cannot help giving ourselves over to some objects or performances, even to some new and difficult work. Just how and why are we moved to do this? Are there any procedures for being right (at least more often) about which works genuinely have artistic value? What are the relative roles of feeling (liking) and reason in our responses to art? Does reason even play a role? Are or can there be experts in the identification and evaluation of works of artistic value, authorities whose verdicts deserve our deference?

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2014

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Smith, Barbara Herrnstein, Contingencies of Value: Alternative Perspectives for Critical Theory (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988), p. 30.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, Pierre, Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste, trans. Nice, Richard (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1984), table A3, p. 529.Google Scholar
Meskin, Aaron, Phelan, Mark, Moore, Margaret, and Kieran, Matthew, “Mere Exposure to Bad Art,” British Journal of Aesthetics 53, 2 (April 2013), pp. 139–64 at p. 159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wieand, Jeffrey, “Can there be an Institutional Theory of Art?,” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 39, 4 (summer 1981), pp. 409–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Jerrold’s review of The Art Circle, hilosophical Review 96, 1 (January 1987), pp. 141–46 at p. 145
Levinson, Jerrold, “Defining Art Historically,” British Journal of Aesthetics 19 (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaskell, Ivan, Vermeer’s Wager: Speculations on Art History, Theory, and Museums (London: Reaktion Books, 2000), p. 171.Google Scholar
Mothersill, Mary, Beauty Restored (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984), p. 164.Google Scholar
Savile, Anthony, The Test of Time: An Essay in Philosophical Aesthetics (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982), p. 224.Google Scholar
Korsmeyer, , Savoring Disgust: The Foul and the Fair in Aesthetics (Oxford University Press, 2010), pp. 15–16, 58.Google Scholar
Hume, David, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, ed. Steinberg, Eric (Indianapolis, IL: Hackett, 1977), p. 112.Google Scholar
Cohen, Ted, “Three Problems in Kant’s Aesthetics,” British Journal of Aesthetics 42, 1 (January 2002), pp. 1–12 at p. 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kant, , Kritik der Urteilskraft (Frankfurt-on-Main: Suhrkamp, 1974)Google Scholar
Guyer, Paul’s reconstruction of it in his Kant and the Claims of Taste (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1979),Google Scholar
Kemal, Salim, Kant’s Aesthetic Theory: An Introduction (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1992), p. 82; emphasis added.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Ted, “High and Low Thinking About High and Low Art,” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 51, 2 (spring 1993), pp. 151–56 at pp. 153B–54A, 155B–56A, 156B.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×