The Value of Art

Discuss the claim that art does not imitate or copy reality.

Plato argued that art is an 'imitation' or 'copy' of reality - he believed that the ultimate reality is the Forms and that 'particular things' we detect with our senses are a kind of 'copy' of the Forms; for example, the Form of beauty is perfect beauty and all beautiful things are beautiful because they 'participate' in the Form, therefore 'particular things' (that we can sense) are a kind of imperfect 'copy' of the Forms. In terms of art, Plato believed that pieces of art are simply copies of particular things (i.e. they are copies of copies) - for example, there is the perfect Form of a bed; a carpenter makes a bed, which is a copy of the Form, and an artist paints a copy of the carpenters bed.

Firstly, we can argue against the idea of art being a 'copy' of particular things

[NEED TO COME BACK TO THIS BC I DON'T FULLY UNDERSTAND SOME OF THE AO2/O3 POINTS SO THERE'S NO POINT IN JUST COPYING FROM THE BOOK TO MAKE AN ESSAY BC IDGI]

Give and explain two counterexamples to the view that art is representational.

Firstly, we can argue that art is not representational using the example of abstract art - for example, Kadinsky's abstract paintings clearly do not represent reality. However, it could also be argued that Kadinsky's works is representation in that it represents three-dimensional space through the use of overlapping shapes, therefore, just because the representation isn't entirely recognisable doesn't mean that it isn't representing anything at all.

However, there are some forms of abstract art which don't appear to represent anything at all - for example, Barnett Newman's 'Adam' - in this painting we see three red vertical lines with a dark background; this does not overtly represent reality in the same way other paintings do, but is still considered a piece of art.

We can also use the art form of music to explain that art is not representational - it could be argued that music does not represent a mood or emotion, but rather expresses a mood or emotion; for example, Beethoven's Symphony No. 7 could be described as joyful, however it does not represent joy. Therefore, this supports the view that not all art is supposed to be representational, unless it is the artists intention to be so. Furthermore, music rejects the view that a system of conventions is not the same as representation - classical music has many conventions (the idea of 'key', the types of instruments used), however it doesn't represent anything, but rather 'expresses'.


 Explain why Kant calls aesthetic pleasure 'disinterested'.

Kant describes aesthetic pleasure as being 'disinterested' because it is has nothing to do with gaining pleasure from what we like, or from what is morally good i.e. it is not influenced by personal advantage. This is described in a number of ways - firstly, Kant says that we simply enjoy contemplating art, therefore whether or not what the art piece is representing is fictional is irrelevant to how aesthetically pleasurable it is. Personal approval of what is being represented is also irrelevant (for example, Caravaggio's 'Salome', a painting of a severed head), we can still gain aesthetic pleasure even from, say, a gruesome painting. Also, whether what is being represented is something that we personally want or could use is also irrelevant to aesthetic pleasure. Lastly, the pleasure taken from the piece of art is not the same as any other pleasure coming from an independent desire or practical interest - for example, being pleased for simply owning a painting, or being pleased about owning a painting that will make money is not the same as aesthetic pleasure.

So, Kant says that there is an internal appreciation we have for art in which we can gain aesthetic pleasure; a special kind of pleasure that is simple and independent of all other reasons to value art. ???