Art by Levinson & Dickie
The following is a breakdown of the perception of art held by philosopher Levinson, looking at his definition, perception of how it works, and its advantages and contributions. On the other hand, Dickie’s perspectives on artwork are also weighed, viewing how similar and different his views are.
Levinson’s definition of art
In an attempt to come up with a universal art definition that is not conditioned by Avant-Garde art, Levinson defines something as art if it is deliberately rightfully related to previous artworks (something that has been intended for treatment or regard in overall ways that pre-existing or earlier artworks were rightfully treated or regarded) (Levinson, 1979). His definition of art fundamentally states that arthood is not an intrinsic exhibited property of something but a matter of being associated in the correct way to human thought. This relation is in terms of the independent individual’s intention, referring to art’s history.
How Levinson’s art definition works
According to Levinson, his approach is inclusive towards artworld development as arthood is independent of exhibited candidates’ properties. Levinson’s most recent formulation is that something is art if it was (or is) projected or intended for overall regard as prior art was or is correctly regarded (Levinson, 1979). He argues that theories that define art on the grounds of “intrinsic qualities” are incorrect. They blur the distinction between artworks and natural objects and between good art and per se (Levinson, 1989). Hence, Levinson is opposed to theorizing based on contemporary art. As an institutional definer, he is focused on a situational, relational, or contextual art definition as opposed to a perceivable formal one. Levinson is of the idea that something is only an artwork not only owing to the relation it bears to previous artworks but also for which the status of the art is unproblematic.
Contribution and advantages of Levinson’s theory
According to Levinson, his theory of art attempts to resolve the challenges posed by non-western art and avant-garde. New possibilities are offered by Levinson’s historical approach for a transcultural and Trans historical art theory (Levinson, 1979). He believes that part of his definition’s contribution is that he does not reduce the value and meaning of art, including postcolonial and post-structural approaches. According to him, he provides solutions to challenges of “first art” in this manner; that New art is art due to its association with past art, the latter is art due to its association with not-so-recent past (Dickie, 2008). This is, in turn, art due to association with the distant past. However, Levinson acknowledges that despite these contributions, his definition does not accommodate for ur-arts.
Differences between Dickie’s and Levinson’s definitions
‘Historical definition of art’ by Jerrold Levinson suggests that X is considered an artwork if formulated to promote pleasure and, of more importance, its perception as the artwork within the historical framework of appreciation and making of art (Levinson, 1989). Therefore, the theory allows for the probability that an artifact could be formulated outside social context like the art world, instead emphasizing the maker’s intention instead.
On the contrary, according to the Institutional theory of art by George Dickie, X is a work of art if (and only if) it is an artifact upon which somebody acting in place of the artworld confers the appreciation candidature status (Dickie, 1969). As opposed to Levinson’s theory, conflates self-conscious, declared, and socially situated art. Institutional theories do not incorporate non-western art easily. On the other hand, formalist theories view non-western art on formal qualities’ basis (Levinson, 1979).
Similarities between Levinson’s and Dickie’s perceptions
Though disagreeing on the role played by institutions of art, one similarity is that both definitions concur that art has been essential in the present and past society (Dickie, 2008). A conspicuous similarity between Levinson’s and Dickie’s theories is their continuous reference to works done by Baltimore Zoo and Betsy the chimpanzee as paintings as opposed to works of art without hesitation (Dickie, 1969). Hence their perception done by such individuals is common.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it emerges that while the two philosophers have similar perceptions of art and artworks in some aspects, clear boundaries exist on their perceptions on the majority of the issues concerning art. However, it is interesting that despite these differences, they agree on the significance art plays in the past and present.
References
Dickie, G. (1969). Defining art. American philosophical quarterly, 6(3), 253-256.
Dickie, G. (2008). Defining Art: Intension and Extension. The Blackwell guide to aesthetics, 22, 45.
Levinson, J. (1979). Defining art historically. The British Journal of Aesthetics, 19(3), 232-250.
Levinson, J. (1989). Refining art historically. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 47(1), 21-33.