Yes I believe a functional definition is the only possibility. (Though I would not like one that includes the idea of 'aesthetic experience.')
But of course a functional definition will not satisfy the requirements of Cheerskep, Chris etc. They don't want a definition of what art does - its human function and significance. They want 'reasons' - in effect, a list of boxes to tick which will justify a claim that item X is or is not art. DA On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 3:45 AM, Mike Mallory <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Rather than finding "art" in the collection of qualitative features > associated with a particular artifact, I believe we are much better off with > a functional definition, to wit: > > Art is the intentional communication of an aesthetic experience. > > IMO, it is not the beauty, sublimity, drama or shock that makes something > a work of art, but the way it fits into the patterns of human behavior and > understanding. > > Mike Mallory > > ________________________________________________ > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Derek Allan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 10:13 AM > Subject: Re: Beauty? I think not! > > > > It seems to me that you and Chris and others want a list of criteria. > > (How > > else would one give 'reasons'?) There is no such list. (Or if you think > > so, > > what is it?) You yourself believe that some works are what you call > > cherishable - which is presumably something like what I call art. What > > are > > your criteria? More importantly do you think you cherish those works > > because you have applied criteria - ticked off boxes - or simply because > > they have a certain effect on you? > > > > -- Derek Allan http://www.home.netspeed.com.au/derek.allan/default.htm
