Customer Reviews

Art and its Objects

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

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.

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.

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.

I don't know of Wollheim's claim to fame, other than as a graduate student he helped A. J. Ayer in his writings. Be that as it may, this book (and everything Wollheim has written) is so droll and irrelevant to the philosophy of art. I suspect he is trying so hard to be anglo-analytic in his approach that he forgot that art touches the heart as well as the mind. Wollheim focuses entirely on the mind, and the mind games that ensue do little to enlighten one's understanding of art and its objects, what and why they do what they, and why they're important. This book was used in a course I had with Wollheim as a lecturer; both could not have been more boring and banal. The book was widely resold as many students didn't bother to read it, or began to read it and gave up. The consensus was nearly unanimous in irrelevance to the artist especially, and no less irrelevant to the philosophy students.