Abstract

This discourse on the nature of art is fashioned within the contextualist tradition. At the present stage of my philosophical thinking, it seems to me that the fundamental problem in aesthetics is the establishment of a criterion which distinguishes art from non-art. As I see the matter at present, the problem is: the current practice within the artworld seems to defy the distinction between Fine Art and Craft. Such a distinction, based on aesthetic notions stemming from Renaissance art, seems largely irrelevant to modern work. To intimate that Craft alone serves a function, is to suggest that Fine Art is functionless. ;In summary, it is my intention to propose a philosophy of fine craft which draws upon and extends the traditions of both philosophy and art--to develop a contextual aesthetics that builds upon the current practice within the artworld; utilizing George Dickie's Institutional Theory of Art as a starting point, to promote a view of the nature and scope of aesthetic theory as an integral part of the artworld; relying upon the aesthetic theory of John Dewey, to further describe the nature and universality of aesthetic experience; additionally, through a comparison with Dewey and Alfred N. Whitehead, to provide an explanation of the role of art in the acquisition of knowledge; and to argue that the function of art is to draw upon experience and provide an audience with yet another more organized, vivid and clear experience, that enhances our understanding of the subject matter of concern. ;To argue that all art must serve a function would then support my claim that the conventional distinction between fine art and craft is weak and confused, leaving open their possible combination into my notion of fine craft, and furthermore, I shall urge that fine craft can and must serve a vital role in the course of the greater context--civilization. Finally, I will conclude with a comparison of philosophy and art which suggests that philosophy itself can be included in the larger category of fine craft