A better Idea

This course has helped me better understand the concept of art as whole. While, theorists have much work to do to appropriately incorporate a definition that doesn't narrow the possible contemporary creative genius that can be found in art, the general idea is a misrepresentation. There are however specific features that have to be adhered to for it to qualify as art. What I suggest is that society adapts a contemporary way of viewing art universally. This way notoriety and and bias opinions can be disassociated with the concept of art.

Beauty not what it seems

The judgement of beauty is supposed to be based purely on the values of aesthetics but our society fails to broaden its narrow views on the conception of art.  This way of viewing art is not fair because art doesn't have a singular universal view. Different cultures have different perspectives on what they view as art so one form of art shouldn't be deemed better or more sophisticated because of its origin. If art is to be so disinterested when engaged in, why does engagement in the arts appeal so much to our interests? I think putting people and stature before pure beauty and conceptual aesthetics is Western societies downfall and to truly appreciate art they need to step outside of the "art being non-functional" bracket and realize that art in itself is function, and should be judged by certain characteristics that help better define what arts function is.

What is Key?

All art has an overall function to evoke some kind of emotion (usually beauty). The misnomer, is mistaking the distinction between function and functionless. Art is supposed to be created for the purpose of being not because of its function, but the beauty of a piece ties into its function. So the matter of distinguishing between the two cancels themselves out and leaves one main principle. The making of such artwork had to be intentionally created for the purpose of being considered art. If it is not, then the matter of it being a function or functionless piece is irrelevant in my opinion.

Who are You ?

I dont understand how the western world sees it fit to define and characterize art on such a narrow scale. If the work isn't up to our standards or dont follow our norm its shunned. Seen as less than art. Dutton gives a list of characteristics that can help maximize the scope of what can be considered to be art. I think his opinion is a better choice rather than hold everything to the standard of fine art. This view adds an international interest.

Is forging a crime?

Should the fact that it has turned out to be a forgery matter to you aesthetically?
Lessing argues no while Dutton argues yes.
Lessing sees no difference between forgery or authentic when dealing with aesthetics. However, a forgery lacks originality as far as Lessing is concerned. The fact in the matter is that there most likely might be no difference between the two.
On the other hand Dutton sees aesthetics to matter as well.
The problem with forgery is that it misrepresents artistic achievement because it gives us misleading information about the origins of the work in question. This hinders us from correctly assessing the achievement it represents. Which is why Dutton suggests it can affect our legitimacy of aesthetically appreciating art.

Fact or Faked

Can a work of art that is not predated be considered a forgery?
Lessing would argue that the origin of origination for the art work doesn't matter because pure aesthetics cannot explain forgery. However because the origin of this work is unknown it cannot be considered a forgery. A critic wouldn't be able to tell what period it was made from. So therefore it would have to be compared to works that are similar in style. But what does forgery matter in art for anyway?

The Relationship is...

Kieran suggests the central relationship between art and morality is the artistic devices that mediate the representation of events portrayed and the state of affairs that are represented be kept at a distance so that we cannot actually intervene. It depends on how the work is meant to be perceived, not what moral principle is relevant in the work. What should be looked at is the arts coherent imagery, complex development of themes and vivid style. An intelligible response to the work is what matters.