Goodman was a little different from other philosophers, in the sense that he asked "when is art?" rather than "what is art?" This may seem a little strange at first, until you actually understand his theories. He believes that everything has an original purpose, but that this can change when it is used differently. His example is a rock is just a rock until it is picked up and displayed as a work of art. He believed that defining how and when something is art in turn defines what art is.
Do you believe that this is a proper stance, though? How can you replace "what" with "when", when the object never actually transforms with its new function?
No comments:
Post a Comment