Philosophy of Art: A Contemporary Introduction (Routledge Contemporary Introductions to Philosophy)

a bit dense in places, as some philosophy can be, but stick with it and there is a great spread to help with the understanding of what art is or might be

Very challenging conceptual work with insightful exploration of the topic.

BOUGHT FOR A FRIEND

Before you decide whether or not to purchase this book, you should know that it's not really a comprehensive treatment of the philosophy of art. It is solely dedicated to classifying artworks, the definitions of the term "Art" that enable us to differentiate artworks from non-artworks. Which is fine, of course, but you may not be looking for a book about that. You may be in the market for a book about the evaluation of art, one that deals with questions like "what is beauty?" or "is tragedy beautiful?" or "what's the difference between art and entertainment?" This is not that book. Carroll argues in the introduction that the title of "Philosophy of Art" could just as well be "Aesthetics," since these terms are interchangeable, but he's alarmingly off on this point, since the philosophy of art must make room for evaluation in addition to classification. This is why aesthetics as a sub-field of philosophy is distinct from epistemology; epistemology deals with knowledge (e.g. classification, definition of terms) while aesthetics by definition deals with questions of value. But Carroll explicitly and repeatedly dismisses just these questions throughout the book, claiming that we can't evaluate art until we can distinguish the art from the non-art. To be fair, this is a perfectly fine argument (I don't agree with it 100% for complex theoretical reasons that I won't go into here), but in dismissing questions of evaluation, Carroll is probably dismissing the very subject matter you're looking for. If you're into evaluation, I'd recommend finding books that focus more on the specific genre you want to work with, like narrative, music, painting, film, etc.All this aside, though, Carroll does treat his subject thoroughly enough to verge on tedium. There may not be much here that you haven't figured out yourself during careful reflection and consideration of whatever kind of art you're interested in.

This book is primarily concerned with figuring out what makes an object a work of art. The strategy adopted here attempts to find necessary and sufficient conditions which an object must satisfy in order for it to properly be called a work of art. Carroll considers several different traditions which offer answers to this question. Most of the book proceeds by way of finding counterexamples to the proposed definition. While engaging, this book won't be very congenial for philosophers who deny a definitional view of concepts or who deny analyticity. If you are one of these, the project will be doomed to failure at the outset. He does consider family resemblence, but quickly dismisses it. However, you may find value in the later chapters, which consider whether pure fiat confers art-status on an object. Good intro though with plentiful references to works of art.

This is an excellent book, it could not be written more clearly and it is a great place to start. The philosophy of art is a huge and soon in one's reading becomes a very complex subject. There is much more work in aesthetics that he does not cover, but this is enough to begin to think in an organized way on your own. In answer to the reviewer who thought this book was horrible: Please note that this is not a book that will help anyone make art. Or even make better art. This is a book about how to talk about art, how perhaps to recognize difficult art, and what are the difficulties involved in trying to define art. Is art even definable? If that question interests you, check this book out.

For the past few years, I've been looking for a good introduction to the philosophy of art. Noël Carroll provides this missing book.There are several guides, companions and anthologies. But none of them was able to provide me with a clear and elegant tool to tackle this subject. This lack of a reference manual is specifically acute in my own country, France, as the aesthetics analytic tradition is not part of the basic Philosophy curriculum.Most books in the field are focusing on the philosophy works of Goodman, Danto and Cavell. I do see why an academic would consider these works to be crucial to the understanding of contemporary aesthetics discussions. But my impression is that the mention of these authors only turns off students.Mr. Carroll's books focuses on very basic problems and on one basic question: what is art about? Is it about representation? Or expression? Or form? - This choice of simplicity makes this book the only available introduction to a very exciting field.I do not think the book requires any philosophy background - so it could also be of a great interest for a wider audience.The only thing I miss is a more comprehensive discussion of the question of "intention", as it is the problem that surfaces during most discussions on aesthetics issues. I guess the author had to keep the book short and focused.

This is what I packed to the lake this summer. The suspense of following art thinking from verisimitude to conceptualism. The romance of potent examples from the history of art! The tragedy of the Fall of the aesthetic enterprise. The hope of uncovering the as-yet unsolved mysteries in defining a work of Art. All told with, if not humor, at least honsety.

The Philosophy of Art has been contemplated as far back as Plato and Aristotle. Much discussion on the subject is historical, often the ideas of key thinkers explained, Hume, Schopenhauer, Kant, Tolstoy and Nietzsche all have very influential theories.This book is working from a different perspective, ignoring grand historical theories about the significance of art to human life, it takes a more analytical approach looking at this problem from the modern perspective focusing on an all encompassing definition which covers the strange directions of modern and conceptual art (think of Dechamps 'fountain' and John cage's '4.33').The book is structured really well, starting from the most basic question 'what is art?'. I was really impressed that this simple question, could generate such a wide range of opinions and discussion. Carroll is clearly a very logical thinker, and I found his writing style incredible clear, which is actually quite a rare accomplishment for a philosopher. At the same time, at no point did I feel he was over simplifying the subject matter.He covers, amongst others, theories of art - as a way of representing the world (representation, imitation, pictorial representation, neo-naturalist theory of pictorial representation, neo-representation). Art as a way of expressing emotions or ideas (The expression theory of art metaphorical exemplification). Art as defined by its form (Formalism, Neoformalism). Art as aesthetic experience (Aesthetic theories and definitions of art). Theories that suggest art cannot be defined (Neo-Wittgensteinianism, art as an open concept). Contemporary theories (institutional theory of art, defining art historically). As we travel along Carroll explains how each theory builds to cover the weakness of prior theories and brings in concise criticism and opinions.There is a nice series of YouTube interviews with the author Noel Carroll, which you may want to check out before buying this, as you'll get a sense of the his personality and an insight into some of his thoughts - if you already have the book these are still interesting.In summary, I would highly recommend this, for anyone who wants to understand how art is defined, and where the Philosophy of art as arrived at and if you like the analytical approach, as a method to understand the truth of the subject. For anyone that wants a more historical introductions about the 'big philosophers' or anyone after bigger or more unique theories about the significance of art in society, or to the individual (for example a Heideggerian perspective) you will probably need to find another starting point.

A book about art with no entries in the the index on a) religion b) perception c) magic is not going to be a favourite of mine. Endless logical loops about what art can be defined as (representation, expression, symbolism, form, asthetics) fails to address the key point that art is about perception and social cohesion. Why else those cave paintings at Lascaux? And it is not impossible to believe that those paintings were about bringing groups of people together, like religion. Perhaps art today piggy backs off those primal instincts but we still stand in awe in monumental museums; art is still defined by a small group of educated people, and art somehow reflects culture or challenges cultural norms. None of this in Carroll's dry and dull book. Just lots of this:1. x represents y if and only if x denotes y2. if X denotes y then X may not resemble y3. x represents y4. therefore X denotes y5. therefore X may not resemble y....10. therefore resemblance is not a necessary condition for representation

We get an overview of the philosophical approach followed by various routes io a definition of what is art or an artistic object. It's pretty dense arguing, but what do ou expect? At the end the author presents his own view. A good introduction to this area of philosophy'

great thank you!