The Limits of Art: On Borderline Cases of Artworks and their Aesthetic Properties

63 Pages·2021·1.307 MB·English

by  Jiri Benovsky

SPRINGER BRIEFS IN PHILOSOPHY
Jiri Benovsky
The Limits of Art
On Borderline
Cases of Artworks
and their Aesthetic
Properties
SpringerBriefs in Philosophy
SpringerBriefs present concise summaries of cutting-edge research and practical
applications across a wide spectrum offields. Featuring compact volumes of 50 to
125 pages, the series covers a range of content from professional to academic.
Typical topics might include:
(cid:129) A timely report of state-of-the art analytical techniques
(cid:129) A bridge between new research results, as published in journal articles, and a
contextual literature review
(cid:129) A snapshot of a hot or emerging topic
(cid:129) An in-depth case study or clinical example
(cid:129) Apresentation ofcore conceptsthatstudents mustunderstand inordertomake
independent contributions
SpringerBriefsinPhilosophycoverabroadrangeofphilosophicalfieldsincluding:
PhilosophyofScience,Logic,Non-WesternThinkingandWesternPhilosophy.We
also consider biographies, full or partial, of key thinkers and pioneers.
SpringerBriefs are characterized by fast, global electronic dissemination,
standard publishing contracts, standardized manuscript preparation and formatting
guidelines, and expedited production schedules. Both solicited and unsolicited
manuscripts are considered for publication in the SpringerBriefs in Philosophy
series. Potential authors are warmly invited to complete and submit the Briefs
AuthorProposalform.Allprojectswillbesubmittedtoeditorialreviewbyexternal
advisors.
SpringerBriefsarecharacterizedbyexpeditedproductionscheduleswiththeaim
for publication 8 to 12 weeks after acceptance and fast, global electronic
dissemination through our online platform SpringerLink. The standard concise
author contracts guarantee that
(cid:129) an individual ISBN is assigned to each manuscript
(cid:129) each manuscript is copyrighted in the name of the author
(cid:129) theauthorretainstherighttopostthepre-publicationversiononhis/herwebsite
or that of his/her institution.
More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/10082
Jiri Benovsky
The Limits of Art
On Borderline Cases of Artworks and their
Aesthetic Properties
123
JiriBenovsky
University of Fribourg
Fribourg, Switzerland
ISSN 2211-4548 ISSN 2211-4556 (electronic)
SpringerBriefs inPhilosophy
ISBN978-3-030-54794-3 ISBN978-3-030-54795-0 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-54795-0
©TheEditor(s)(ifapplicable)andTheAuthor(s)2021.Thisbookisanopenaccesspublication.
Open Access This book is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adap-
tation,distributionandreproductioninanymediumorformat,aslongasyougiveappropriatecreditto
the originalauthor(s)and the source, providealink tothe CreativeCommonslicense andindicate if
changesweremade.
The images or other third party material in this book are included in the book’s Creative Commons
license,unlessindicatedotherwiseinacreditlinetothematerial.Ifmaterialisnotincludedinthebook’s
CreativeCommonslicenseandyourintendeduseisnotpermittedbystatutoryregulationorexceedsthe
permitteduse,youwillneedtoobtainpermissiondirectlyfromthecopyrightholder.
Theuse ofgeneraldescriptivenames,registerednames,trademarks,servicemarks,etc. inthis publi-
cationdoesnotimply,evenintheabsenceofaspecificstatement,thatsuchnamesareexemptfromthe
relevantprotectivelawsandregulationsandthereforefreeforgeneraluse.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the
authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained
hereinorforanyerrorsoromissionsthatmayhavebeenmade.Thepublisherremainsneutralwithregard
tojurisdictionalclaimsinpublishedmapsandinstitutionalaffiliations.
ThisSpringerimprintispublishedbytheregisteredcompanySpringerNatureSwitzerlandAG
Theregisteredcompanyaddressis:Gewerbestrasse11,6330Cham,Switzerland
Acknowledgements
Thisbookandtheideasandargumentsitcontainsevolvedfromanongoinginterest
inthenotionofart,andsomeideaspresentinthisbookalreadyappearedinsomeof
my journal articles, especially “Against aesthetic-sensory dependence” (2016, The
Nordic Journal of Aesthetics, 51) and “The limits of photography” (2014,
International Journal of Philosophical Studies, 22:5). For discussions and helpful
feedback, I would like to thank Laure Blanc-Benon, Laurent Cesalli, Céline
Chevalley, Diarmuid Costello, Fabian Dorsch, Rob Hopkins, Thomas Jacobi,
Baptiste Le Bihan, Robin Le Poidevin, Jerrold Levinson, Dominic McIver Lopes,
Thi Nguyen, Laurie Paul, Mikael Pettersson, Frédéric Pouillaude, Roger Pouivet,
Markus Schrenk, Ted Sider, Pietro Snider, Joel Snyder, Gianfranco Soldati, Cain
Todd, and Dawn Wilson.
Published with support of the Swiss National Science Foundation.
v
Contents
1 Introduction: Different Types of Limits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2 Extending the Limits I: Non-visual and Non-auditory
Artworks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2 Gustatory and Olfactory Artworks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.3 Proprioceptive Artworks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.4 Training, Skill, and Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.5 ‘Private Versus Public’—Some Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3 Extending the Limits II: Intellectual Artworks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
3.1 Aesthetic Properties, Sensory Dependence,
and the Case of Theories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
3.2 The Beauty of Theories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
3.3 Theories as Artworks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
4 Limits and Their Vagueness: The Case of Paintings
and Photographs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
4.1 On Photographs and Other Images . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
4.2 Digital Manipulation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
4.3 Vague Limits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
4.4 The Process of Production and Necessary
Decisions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
4.5 Photographs, Paintings, Vagueness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
vii
About the Author
JiriBenovsky havingbeenstruckbyDescartes’evildemonthought-experiment,he
begantostudymetaphysicstotrytofindaproofthattheworldreallyexists.Hedid
notfindthatproof,butatleasthefoundanacademicwaytolivewherehecannot
onlygoclimbingandskiinginthemountainsbutalsospendhisdaysthinkingabout
existence, reality, time, art, as well as the aesthetics of gastronomic meals, rock
climbing, or photography. He is the author of several books, including recently:
Eliminativism,objects,andpersons.Thevirtuesofnon-existence(Routledge,2018),
Mindandmatter.Panpsychism,dual-aspectmonism,andthecombinationproblem
(2018, Springer), and Meta-metaphysics (2016, Springer). More information on
Benovsky’s work can be found online atwww.jiribenovsky.org.
ix
Chapter 1
Introduction: Different Types of Limits
§1.Thisbookisaboutexploringinterestingborderlinecasesofart.I’lldiscussthe
casesofgustatoryandolfactoryartworks(focusingonfood),proprioceptiveartworks
(dance,martialarts,androckclimbingquaproprioceptiveexperiences),intellectual
artworks(philosophicalandscientifictheories),aswellasthevaguelimitsbetween
painting and photography. Perhaps you’ll find it obvious that some or all of these
cases are genuine cases of art, and that the claims I will be making are trivial. In
that case, I’ll be happy to agree and I hope that this book will still be of interest
as a fruitful discussion of these cases of artworks and their limits. Perhaps you’ll
finditobviousthatsomeorallofthesecasesarenot genuinecasesofart—indeed,
allofthem,individually,havebeendeniedthestatusofartworksatsomepoint.In
thatcase,I’llbehappytodisagreeandI’lltrytoofferreasonstochangeyourmind.
My aim in this short book is thus twofold. First, I hope that the discussion of this
seriesofparticularclaimsabouttheseparticularcaseswillbeofinterestforitsown,
first-level,sake;andsecond,fromthisdiscussion,amoregeneralpictureaboutthe
nature of art and about what counts as an artwork will arise. Indeed, the different
caseswillallowustoconsiderdifferenttypesoflimits.Somelimitswillconcernour
senses(ourdifferentperceptualmodalities),somewillconcernvaguenessandfuzzy
boundaries betweendifferenttypesofworksofart,somewillconcerntheamount
of human intention and intervention in the process of creation of an artwork, and
some will concern the border between art and science. In these various ways, by
understandingbettersuchborderlinecases,wewill—orsoIhope—getabettergrip
onanunderstandingofthenatureofart.
§2. “What is art?” is a very general and cruelly difficult question. Perhaps, it
is so cruelly difficult precisely because it is so very general. Indeed, any precise
answer,thatis,anydefinitionofart,orartwork,whichwouldpreciselydefinewhat
countsasartandwhatdoesnot,isalwaysinprincipleatgreatriskofleavingsome
possibilitiesoutandofbeingopentopossiblecounter-examples.Thenotionofart,
orartwork,isavagueonebutthisisnotonlyaproblemofvagueness.Thedifficulty
ofprovidingadefinitionalsostemsfromthefactthatartevolveswithtime,thatit
isculture-relative,andthatweneedtoadaptourunderstandingofwhatartistothis
©TheAuthor(s)2021 1
J.Benovsky,TheLimitsofArt,SpringerBriefsinPhilosophy,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-54795-0_1
2 1 Introduction:DifferentTypesofLimits
ever-evolving process. A strict definition of what counts as art and what does not
is bound to fail at some point. But not having a definition of something does not
meanthatthissomethingisinexplicable(contraAdajian(2018,§1)).Indeed,ifwe
keepinmindtheever-evolvingnatureofart,wecansimplyrealizethatthereisno
needforadefinition(whywoulditbenecessarytohaveone?)andthatwesimply
should continuously update our understanding of what art is, and allow ourselves
tobesurprisedfromtimetotimewhennew,challengingformsofartemerge.Any
definition that would try, for instance, to identify what is common to all artworks
wouldsimplybeinadequate,perhapspreciselyinthesense—highlyrelevanttothe
overallpurposesofthisbook—thatitwouldbegthequestionagainstnon-standard
typesofartworksandclassifythemasnotbeingart.Inordertoresistsuchapossibly
question-begging stance, we can simply resist the need for a definition.1 Walton
(2007,p.148)evensuggestedthatthequestiondoesnotevenmakemuchsense:“It
isnotatallclear thatthesewords—‘Whatisart?’—express anything likeasingle
question,towhichcompetinganswersaregiven[…]Thesheervarietyofproposed
definitions should give us pause. One cannot help wondering whether there is any
senseinwhichtheyareattemptsto[…]addressthesameissue”.Thisdoesnotmean,
however,thatweshouldsomehowbecomescepticalabouttheverynotionofartand
thatweshouldabandontheveryideaoftryingtounderstandwhatanartworkis.On
thecontrary,thelackofapreciseandfixeddefinitionisallthemorereasontotryto
improveourunderstandingofthenatureofart,whileembracingitsimpermanence
andvagueness.
§3. To this end, let me list some points I propose to take on board as working
criteriaforadiscussionaboutwhatcountsasanartworkandwhatdoesnot.Keeping
inmindwhatIsaidabove,thesedonotconstituteasetofnecessaryandsufficient
conditions. Rather, they are merely indicators or pointers that help us clarify the
discussionaboutthenatureofart.Itakeitthatthislistisratherstandard(although
itis,ofcourse,controversial),2 andIamsimplygoingtousethesepointsasmore
orlessoptionalguidelines,byexaminingwhethertheyapplytothevariouscasesI
amgoingtodiscussbelowandwhethertheyareusefulornot.Asageneralrule,I’ll
workwiththeideathatifsomethingdoesnotsatisfyallofthesepoints,thisisnot
automaticallyareasontothinkthatitisnotanartwork.
(1) Artworkspossessaestheticproperties
(2) Artworksaresubjecttoaestheticjudgements
(3) Artworkshavethecapacitytotriggeraestheticexperiences
(4) Artworkshavethecapacitytotriggeremotions
(5) Artworkshavethecapacitytoconveymeaningsandideas
(6) Artworksarechallenging(bothfortheartistandtheobserver)
(7) Artworksrequireskilltobeproduced
1Adajian (2018) offers an extensive discussion of definitions of art. Discussion concerning the
projectofdefiningartcanbefound,interalia,inKennick(1958),Stecker(1996,2005),Weitz
(1950),Ziff(1953).
2Schrenk(2014)usesasimilarlist.ComparetoGaut’s(2000,2005)discussionofartasacluster
concept.