An Alternative to “Rules” in Practice Approaches to Distinguishing Art Kinds

Numerous contemporary philosophers have invoked the idea that art is best understood as a social practice in order to distinguish among art kinds or to distinguish Art from closely related practices such as Design. Many general accounts of social practices and of art practices in particular claim that sets of shared assumptions or norms are a key constituent of practices. But some standard accounts of social practices interpret these shared norms with the concept of “rules” or “agreements.” I argue that the idea of rules or agreements is theoretically inadequate and should be replaced by what the philosopher of science, Joseph Rouse, calls “mutual normative accountability.” I then illustrate the theoretical value of such a replacement by discussing the differences between Art practices and Design practices

Artification, Fine Art, and the Myth of the Artist

I begin by examining three concepts of “artification:” the decoration, transformation, and modification. I argue that the typical business argument for artification claims that since businesses must be constantly innovating and since art and artists are the principal locus of creativity in our society, businesses must be “artified.” I argue that these claims about artists and creativity are based on widely accepted conventional views about art and artists that are false. I illustrate my general argument by examining one of the best statements of the case for business artification, Austin’s and Devin’s book, Artful Making, showing that artful making is closer to the idea of craftsmanship than to the modern, post-romantic image of “the artist,” that seems to enthrall so many people. I conclude that when it comes to finding models and metaphors for innovation, businesses and other organizations could better draw on such fields as science, engineering, design, or craft than on the world of high art

Temptation to Self-Indulgence? Aesthetics and Function

&nbsp

Architecture vs. Art: The Aesthetics of Art Museum Design[1]

Many art critics have complained that the most dramatic art museum designs of the last decade have upstaged or interfered with the art within. This essay examines eight contemporary cases before drawing some lessons for art museum design, and ends by setting the architecture vs. art problem in the context of the philosophy of architecture, focusing on the issues of function and symbolism

Recent advances in smellscape research for the built environment.

The interrelationships between humans, smells and the built environment have been the focus of increasing numbers of research studies in the past ten years. This paper reviews these trends and identifies the challenges in smellscape research from three aspects: methodological approaches, artistic design interventions and museum practices, and odour policy making. In response to the gaps and challenges identified, three areas of future research have also been identified for this field: smell archives and databases, social justice within odour control and management, and research into advanced building materials. [Abstract copyright: Copyright © 2021 Xiao, Aletta, Radicchi, McLean, Shiner and Verbeek.

Opening the Way for an Olfactory Aesthetics: Smell’s Cognitive Powers

The first part of this paper surveys types of olfactory art as well as some of the philosophical denials that odors and the sense of smell can be used for serious art making, raising the paradox that olfactory art seems actual, but the mainstream philosophical tradition has declared that one cannot make genuine artworks from odors. The second and third part of the paper address the primary argument against possibility of an olfactory aesthetics, namely, the claim that the human sense of smell does not have sufficient cognitive capacity to support rational aesthetic discussion and judgment. The second part (The intuitive case for smell’s cognitive powers) examines and answers intuitive philosophical arguments against smell’s cognitive potential and the third part (The empirical case for the cognitive capacity of smell) first surveys evidence from the sciences that could be interpreted as supporting the negative position, before marshalling other empirical evidence in favor of smell’s cognitive powers. I conclude that on balance contemporary neuroscience and psychology support the view that the human sense of smell has the cognitive capacity to sustain rational aesthetic discussion and judgment

Larry Shiner Oral History

Dr. Larry Shiner is Emeritus Professor of Philosophy, History, and Visual Arts at the University of Illinois Springfield. From Shiner’s birth in Topeka, Kansas this oral history interview is a personal account of his familial and academic life covering multiple universities, states and continents. An early faculty member at Sangamon State University, Shiner recounts the organizational, structural and faculty staffing struggles of an emerging academic institution. Additionally, he details the research, motivation and inspiration that led to accomplished publications such as: "Secret Mirror: Literary Form and History in Tocqueville's 'Recollections'”, "The Secularization of History: An Introduction to the Theology of Friedrich Gogarten", "The Invention of Art: A Cultural History and the Psychohistory Review", as contributor and editor. Interviews by Shiner’s colleague, Dr. Cullom Davis, 2009. 14 hrs., 11 min., 197 pp.unpublishednot peer reviewe

Que é artificação? What is "artification"?

Hà um aumento constante na produção de arte na sociedade e na pesquisa sobre arte e cultura dentro das ciências sociais. Conseqüentemente, parece apropriado propor a artificação como um campo novo para a Sociologia da Arte e da mudança social e cultural. A artificação é a transformação da não-arte em arte. Isto consiste em um processo social complexo da transfiguração das pessoas, das coisas e das práticas. A artificação não somente tem a ver com mudança simbólica, deslocamento de hierarquias e legitimidade, mas, implica, também modificações muito concretas nos traços físicos e nas maneiras das pessoas, nas formas de cooperação e organização, nos bens e nos artefatos que são usados, etc. Esses processos redefinem os limites entre a arte e a não-arte, e reconstróem mundos sociais novos. Neste artigo, são utilizados como exemplos de artificação o hip-hop, a fonografia, a gravura, a água-forte, o trabalho industrial e a arte primitiva.<br>There is both a steady increase in the production of art in society and in research on art and culture within the social sciences. Therefore it seems appropriate to propose artification as a new field for the sociology of art and social and cultural change. Artification is the transformation of non-art into art. This consists of a complex social process of transfiguration of people, things and practices. Artification not only has to do with symbolic change, shifting hierarchies and legitimacy. It also implies very concrete modifications in people's physical traits and manners, in ways of cooperating and organizing, in the goods and artifacts that are used, etc. These processes redefine borders between art and non-art, and reconstruct new social worlds. In this article, we refer to examplesof artification in the realms of hip-hop, phonography, etching, industrial labor, and primitive art