Ali Akbar Ahmadi Aframjani; Ahmad Rahmanian
Abstract
This paper examines Nelson Goodman’s position on the ontological problem of value of art, in other words, the question of ‘what kind is the relation between valuable feature(s) of artworks to them, in Goodman’s aesthetic cognitivism. In the first place, by examining several issues ...
Read More
This paper examines Nelson Goodman’s position on the ontological problem of value of art, in other words, the question of ‘what kind is the relation between valuable feature(s) of artworks to them, in Goodman’s aesthetic cognitivism. In the first place, by examining several issues about (1) the types of the relations between valuable feature of an object to it, (2) the types of the relations between valuable feature of a work to it, and (3) Goodman’s position on the normative problem of value of art, provides the rudiments to solve the above question. In the next place, it suggests that although Goodman is a cognitivist, in the normative issue of value of art, and cognitivism is an anti-essentialism position, it is not that his anti-essentialism is entirely consistent with cognitivists’ anti-essentialism. Goodman and cognitivists are partners in the beliefs that cognitive value attributed to art is (1) plural and (2) is not unique to art. But, do not share the biliefs that (3) the value is common in all works of art and (4) the relation between the value to artworks is intrinsic. However, he does not violate anti-essentialism, although 3 and 4 makes him close to essentialism, Because Goodman’s common cognitive value is not unique to works of art.
ahmad rahmanian; shamsol moluk mostafavi
Abstract
While the ancient Greek never had a specific term for what we know today as art, they used poiesis and techne to refer to concepts broader than contemporary fine arts. Poiesis meant "to make" and "to bring forth". It was a verb, an action that transformed and continued the world. This transformation ...
Read More
While the ancient Greek never had a specific term for what we know today as art, they used poiesis and techne to refer to concepts broader than contemporary fine arts. Poiesis meant "to make" and "to bring forth". It was a verb, an action that transformed and continued the world. This transformation was done through techne and physis. In physis, now translated as nature yet having a broad connotation then as it covered the gods, the creatures came into being by themselves. In techne, they were, however, created by technites. Plato changed not only the Greek thinking but also its attitudes towards the art. According to Heidegger, eidos (idea) is innate and equal to ekphanes and ekphanestaton (what properly shows itself as the most radiant of all is the beautiful). By way of the idea, a work of art comes to appear in the designation of the beautiful as ekphanestaton. Heidegger goes on to consider this a main component of the aesthetic attitude towards the art. One would also recognize two other events in Platonic thinking which could be considered the origins of other components of aesthetics: separation of art and truth as well as separation of beauty and truth. As to on should necessarily be divided into aletheia (truth) and phainomenon (image), the artist is an on phainomenon, and the art and truth become separated. Following his ancestors, Plato draws similarities between to kalon (beauty), to agathon (good) and to alethes (truth) and considers beauty to belong to the realm of on phainomenon and truth to the realm of alatheia in Phaedrus. Therefore, the three mentioned aesthetic components are all rooted in the Platonic Idealism.
