Response to Nick

I am responding to Nick, who asked “is artistic value based on the individual's opinion, on the majority's opinion, or on the transfer of information/communication between the individual and the group?”
This question has been asked in every chapter we have read, so the answer depends on who you agree with.
Hume would say that the human perception of artistic value is based on the individual’s opinion and the majority’s opinion. The actual value for Hume lies in certain objective truths which are known to everyone but are distorted by perceptual defects in the individual viewers.
Danto would support the view that value arises from the opinion of the majority—specifically, the opinion of the artworld.
Tolstoy disagrees with both of these claims and states that artistic value is based on the ability to communicate an emotion. He defines art as “a means of communion among people” (Wartenberg 107). (Adrian Piper may also support this opinion, as I mentioned in the most recent post).
So, the answer to your question depends on which philosopher you support. As we have seen throughout the semester, none of these theories are entirely sufficient. Hume’s philosophy is circular, Danto never defines art (he only defines candidates for art), and Tolstoy’s definition is too narrow.
QUESTION
-It was mentioned today that very few of the philosophers we have read have also been artists. However, of the three who were (Plato, Tolstoy and Piper), two consider art to be communicative. Does this support the communicative theory in any way? Do their opinions mean more as artist/philosophers?

Piper and Tolstoy

A passage from Adrian Piper’s chapter displays similarities to Tolstoy’s theory of art as communication. Piper says, “the aesthetic value of an art object should include recognition of its necessarily functional character as a catalyst of human interaction; as an instrument for achieving human plans; and as a communicator of human ideas, intelligence, and choices” (Wartenberg 269). She further claims we should “think instead much more about whether the object is sparking in us the kind of response we think it ought to” (Wartenberg 269). The first quote clearly states that art functions as a means of communication. The second elaborates on the first, and describes how the audience should observe art carefully to ensure that we are receiving the correct message which the artist is trying to communicate.
Leo Tolstoy considered art to be a means of communicating a specific emotion, and placed all responsibility for successful communication on the artist. Piper differs in this regard, and urges the audience make sure they are receiving the correct message.
Can Piper’s theory therefore be subjected to the same criticism placed on Tolstoy?

Rauschenberg's Bed

“As beds, these sell at singularly inflated prices, but one could sleep in either of them: Rauschenberg has expressed the fear that someone might just climb into his bed and fall asleep” (Wartenberg 210).
This quote, from the Danto chapter, seems to me to be a direct reference to Goodman’s emphasis on the question ‘what is art’? I would further say that this quote supports Goodman. Rauschenberg’s fear can only be based on the knowledge that if anyone decided to use his bed as a bed it would no longer function as art. It would then be a bed, and its function would be as an object to be slept in. As the bed cannot function as both at the same time, Rauschenberg should be afraid.
However, Goodman states at the end of his chapter that “the Rembrandt painting remains a work of art, as it remains a painting, while functioning only as a blanket” (Wartenberg 203). There seems to be a distinction between a Rembrandt painting—which can function as art and as a blanket simultaneously—and Rauschenberg’s bed—which can only be one or the other. So, perhaps Rauschenberg’s bed is not art and a requisite of art should be that it can function as art and as something else simultaneously. Could this be?