January 2009
·
102 Reads
In the preceding chapters we have been introduced to four classical theories of art. In spite of their mutual differences these theories nevertheless have one characteristic in common. They tell us how we should consider or define art. Time and again they assume that the own point of view reveals the essence of art in an unproblematic way. The theories give us a decisive answer to the fundamental question “what, actually, is art?”. This also explains why they are so exclusive. They identify art respectively with “imitation”, “expression”, and “form” and/or “a synthesis of form and expression”, without leaving any room for nuance or ambiguity. The theories previously discussed can also be considered as providing us with a well-defined norm art should meet. These theories thus have very specific normative implications. We have already seen how each of these theories has served certain artists as a guideline in their artistic quest, but their normative implications, however, reach much further. On close inspection, these theories offer us different criteria for judging individual works of art. In this respect, they are relevant for the critical appraisal of artworks, especially within art criticism.