Art among the Objects

Critical Inquiry 13 (4):677-685 (1987)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

With the emergence of man from nature art emerged among the objects. There was nothing to distinguish or exalt it in the beginning. Art did not separate one kind of thing from the others but was rather a quality common to them all. To the extent to which things were made by human beings, art did not necessarily call for the skill of specialists. All things took skill, and almost everybody had it.This is the way an essayist in the eighteenth century might have begun a treatise on our subject. By now his recourse to a mythical past would sound naïve and misleading, mainly because we have come to pride ourselves on defining things by what distinguishes them from the rest of the world. Thus art is laboriously separated from what is supposed not to be art—a hopeless endeavor, which has more and more disfigured our image of art by extirpating it from its context. We have been left with the absurd notion of art as a collection of useless artifacts generating an unexplainable kind of pleasure.Rescue from this impasse of our thinking is not likely to come primarily from those of us who, established on the island of artistic theory and practice, look around at what else there is in the world to see; rather it will come from those who are curious about what human beings meet, make, and use, and who in the course of their explorations run into objects prominently displaying the property we call art. Psychologists, sociologists, and anthropologists have been driven to view art in the context of nature, ritual, shelter, and the whole furniture of civilization. As a characteristic recent example I mention a thorough interview study, The Meaning of Things, by Mihalyi Csikszentmihalyi and Eugene Rochberg-Halton, in which three generations of families from the Chicago area were questioned about their favorite possessions.1­ Pictures, sculptures, and all sorts of craft work turned up at a more or less modest place in the inventory of the home, and the reasons given for their value make wholesome reading for specialists in aesthetics. 1. See Mihalyi Csikszentmihalyi and Eugene Rochberg-Halton, The Meaning of Things: Symbols in the Development of the Self . Rudolf Arnheim retired from Harvard University as professor emeritus of the psychology of art. He then taught as a visiting professor at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor until 1983. His most recently published book is New Essays on the Psychology of Art. At present he is preparing a new edition of The Power of the Center, a theory of visual composition first published in 1982

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,881

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Thing and object.Kristie Miller - 2008 - Acta Analytica 23 (1):69-89.
Who is afraid of imaginary objects?Gabriele Contessa - 2009 - In Nicholas Griffin & Dale Jacquette (eds.), Russell Vs. Meinong: The Legacy of "On Denoting". Routledge.
On the objects and interpretants of signs: Comments on T. L. short's.Risto Hilpinen - 2007 - Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 43 (4).
Meinongian Objects.David W. Smith - 1975 - Grazer Philosophische Studien 1 (1):43-71.
Vague Objects and the Problem of the Many.Thomas Sattig - 2013 - Metaphysica 14 (2):211-223.
On the Objects and Interpretants of Signs: Comments on T. L. Short's Peirce's Theory of Signs.Risto Hilpinen - 2007 - Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 43 (4):610 - 618.
Objects, Their Parts, and Essences.Karol Polcyn - 2012 - Filozofia Nauki 20 (3).

Analytics

Added to PP
2014-01-17

Downloads
29 (#550,902)

6 months
13 (#194,844)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

The Clever Body.Gabor Csepregi - 2006 - University of Calgary Press.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references