What defines a work of art and determines the way in which we respond to it? This classic reflection was written with the belief that the nature of art has to be understood simultaneously from the artist's as well as the spectator's viewpoint.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images?
|
|
Share your thoughts with other customers:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
9 of 11 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Rigorous and rewarding,
By A Customer
Amazon Verified Purchase(What's this?)
This review is from: Art and its Objects (Paperback)
This is a rigorous analysis of the meaning of art. presented by one of the pre-eminent thinkers of our time. It is, as such, a dense work which requires a sustained serious reading. The prior reviewer is correct; while it may seem daunting at first, it is actually thrilling to experience the clarity of the thinking and exposition.
9 of 12 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Academic Classic,
By A Customer
This review is from: Art and its Objects (Canto original series) (Paperback)
An outstanding, conceptually challenging, classic exploration of the ontology of art. It may be daunting at first, but once you become accustomed to the level of abstraction of the text, it is extremely rewarding.
2 of 3 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
What is this essay about?,
By
This review is from: Art and its Objects (Paperback)
In my opinion this essay has almost no content. The thesis is: if you can define what an art object is then you can define what art is. I don't think this was answered. It seems to me that the arguments are so intellectualized and so abstract that they are far removed from the reality of what we call art. I've read several of the writers he mentions: Gombrich, Wolfflin, Ortega y Gassat, Tolstoy. Overall I think the critiques he offers are superficial, and edited to fit his train of thought. For example on page 102 he mentions Tolstoy's critism of the imitativeness of Wagner's art. I think it would be more correct to say that Tolstoy was mostly criticizing the need of something like a secret decoder ring in order to understand it.
Share your thoughts with other customers: Create your own review
|
|
|
Tags Customers Associate with This Product(What's this?)Click on a tag to find related items, discussions, and people.
|
|
This product's forum
Active discussions in related forums
Search Customer Discussions
|
Related forums
|