Inertie hoort bij Kunst als de Dood bij het Leven
| Abstract | In this article I propose to understand inertia in art as a “disposition to meaning”. I compare inertia in art with that of a face of a person recently deceased. To acquaintances, i.e. to family and friends, it holds a promise of memories (of the deceased); to all the others the corpse offers the possibility of a projection of meanings. Art is made of plain, or extra-ordinary stuff, which is turned into artistic material. The artist is to bring the inert potency of stuff to artistic life, and to turn it into something that is expressive. If she is successful, then the work will offer its audience a concentrated, absorbing experience. Art is autonomous in that the aimed for experience is morally neutral. In the view of many contemporary artists, such experiences fail art’s deeper significance: absorbing experiences are, simply, too easy. If artists want to really move the audience (to emotion), or so they feel, they should also move the audience into action. Wanting to achieve this is not just difficult; it is a paradox | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,679 |
| External links |
  Try with proxy. |
| Through your library | Only published papers are available at libraries |
Similar books and articlesM. H. J. Schoenmaekers (1937). De Emotie Bij Het Oorzakelijkheidsgeloof. Synthese 2 (1):309 - 310.
Jacques Bos (2006). Dichter Bij Het Verleden. Krisis 7 (4):66-71.
Walter Rautenstrauch (1939). De Functie Van Organiastie Bij Het Verkrijgen Van de Gunstigste Productiviteit. Synthese 4 (1):218-218.
D. S. Robertson (1929). De Praedicatieve Plaatsing van Het Adjectief Bij Lucianus. By D. Fokkinga. Pp. 85. Amsterdam : H. J. Paris, 1928. 4s. The Classical Review 43 (06):237-.
A. C. Pearson (1929). De Terminologie van Het Jachtwezen Bij Sophocles, Door Dr W. M. A. Van De Wijnpersse. Amsterdam : H. J. Paris, 1929. 5s. 6d. [REVIEW] The Classical Review 43 (06):235-.
Rob van Gerwen (2004). Ethical Autonomism. The Work of Art as a Moral Agent. Contemporary Aesthetics 2.
Nick Zangwill (1999). Art and Audience. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 57 (3):315-332.
James O. Young (2010). Art and the Educated Audience. Journal of Aesthetic Education 44 (3):29-42.
A. D. Fitton Brown (1968). Elida Catharina Waardenburg: De Verwerking van Het Leed Bij Euripides. (Amsterdam Diss.) Pp. Ix+256. Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1966. Paper, Fl. 20. [REVIEW] The Classical Review 18 (02):234-235.
Josef Schächter (1938). Der Sinn Pessimistischer Sätze. Synthese 3 (1):223 - 234.
Sherri Irvin (2005). Appropriation and Authorship in Contemporary Art. British Journal of Aesthetics 45 (2):123-137.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2011-04-24Total downloads2 ( #232,501 of 549,090 )Recent downloads (6 months)0How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
