What Is Philosophy of Art?

WHAT IS PHILOSOPHY OF ART?

(…as we understand it here, there is not the one right one!)

Science of Art

History of Art - Why is this Art a piece of history/ historical fact? What does history have to do with art?

Economics of Art - has to take art as a economic fact (value, product) in order to deal with it!

Sociology of Art

Chemistry of Art (takes art as a chemical fact in order to set a date trough certain molecules etc)

Neurology of Art/ Neuroasthetics - Brain function trough art

Sciences produce useful knowledge and have operative character (eg highest price, certain date of origin). BUT is this knowledge also useful for art?

The of reduces art to e.g. the historical sence or the value in the economical market!

What kind of relation do we have between any kind of science and art? What does ‘of’ mean?

-> art is objectified in a certain way in order to become treatable with the methods of a certain science

The aim of objectifying art is that of explaining in terms of its cause and effect.

Art as Art (standing for itself)

If economics (or any other science, even aesthetics as a science) only treats art as an economical term, it does not deal with art as art!

Blind to see; use it as a value (also nature, human being etc) in order of its use.

Any kind of science does not have the awareness of what it is itself, so it can’t know if it is useful for art as art or what it is to art!

Newman says it is irresponsible to deal with art without defining what art is and what not. (UNDEFINABLE WHAT ART IS) -> BUT makes it much more difficult to not just treat it as a value in order to sell it in a economical way.

Philosophy of art (not seen as a science) trains completely other capacities that Eco/ Math

THE FIRST MAN WAS AN ARTIST (Barnett Newman)

Why should we bother if art is treated as art? - Our course is economics in favour of art, but problem: economics blind for art!) Need philosophy of art to help us with the tension between economical goals and art as art in our course. (As soon as you act economically you can’t view art as art, not your job to decide if its art or not). The more aware we are that sciences often treat art as a fact the more useful we can be because we can make the difference and choose to work in favour of art.

Question if economics of art is also FOR art can’t be answered from economical view.

Any science as science has a character of not knowing itself according to its own methods -> this is the answer why economics of art can’t say if its for art or of art

Example: Mathematician can explain all problems and theories about numbers, but not really answer the question what a number generally is -> blindness with regards to itself!

Economics of arts can deal with methods of presenting or selling art, but not with art and its value as itself. (treats art as a value, but can’t answer what a value really is).

Are all our questions (see above) in any way relevant for art as art?

No relevance for art as art at all

Within the community/ polis a relevant part -> therefore it is concerned for the questions above, can’t be separated (needs to be able to speak as art and be welcomed and heared -> we have to create an environment where this is possible, because art is necessary for society); art has e.g. also a political side and it this side the questions are relevant

To what extend can something like philosophy of art help in order to create this space and be useful in the two directions (art as art <-> science)?

Art is self-grounded, autonomous: Art is not determined by anything which is outside of art, own dimension; artist doesn’t need any help of anyone to create art

Why is science relevant for society then? Not useful for community if it is not in favour of art!

Art builds human reality!

Vincent van Gogh is trying to educate his brother to be an art dealer in favour of art.

Philosophy (constantly needs to ask what they are -> it can give a ground to other sciences, because it is self-grounded, autonomous and free), it investigates the phenomen of art and artistic creation by studying the great functions which are responsible for that

Sciences are a product of philosophy, thats why philosophy can question them.

Philosophy has to constantly ask itself what philosophy is (internal part, respect to itself)

Philosophy can help to clarify this ground and can install an awareness for art. -> can help sciences to favour art

Clarify structure of scientific knowledge (help us make the difference between sciences which are for art and ones which are not)

Art itself is a way for the human being to be a human being, therefore it is difficult to look for the origin of art in the human being

On the one hand we take human beings for granted -> look for origin of art in the human being!

On the other hand we could say that we wouldn’t know what a human being is without art! (We said art doesn’t need a ground, because it is art itself!)

Someone who does history of philosophy is not a philosopher, because he looks at philosophy as a historical fact and has maybe never thought a philosophical thought

The first man was an artist text:

Through this text we learn to listen what the artist wants to say and we are looking for indications what philosophy of art is.

Strong start for a speach: he has no prepared statement and came as a normal citizen (but he also is an artist)

aesthetics

...