Sunday, September 20, 2009

Commenting on Ed’s question: in the section "Works of Art," Telfer describes the two different ways in which the term "work of art" is commonly used, specifically, as a classifying or evaluative term. Should the term be used in both senses, or is it more appropriate to use one sense over the other exclusively?
It seems that both go hand in hand, that is so stay that in order for something to classify as a work of art a person or persons must have first evaluated them, and thought them worthy enough of being labeled as such. Telfer, shows that the term is considered, I think, since one cannot truly separate both aspects from the term. Whether something merits being called art seems to be of course the more appropriate way in which to use the word and yet something seems to must first be classified as art in order for its merits to come into question.
Posted by at

1 comment:

  1. ETMSeptember 21, 2009 at 7:56 PM

    I'm not so sure. I don't think you necessarily need to classify something as art before you evaluate its merit as a work of art. There is nothing stopping one from, for example, examining the artistic merits of something that may, indeed, have never been intended as, or otherwise never classified as, a work of art. Whether you then go on to classify it as such is another story, but classification does not necessarily need to come before evaluation.

    And on an unrelated note, a comment on my post to let me know you were answering my question would have been appreciated (though as I have no life, I tend to check these every day or two).

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)