Art and its Objects

Cambridge Philosophy Classics

by Richard Wollheim

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.

Genres: Philosophy, Art, Nonfiction, Theory

288 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1970

Reviews

[James Askari · Rating 4 out of 5]

Wollheim considers two definitions of a work of art, roughly an 'ideal' one, in which the artwork is equated with a conception held by the artist, and a 'phenomenalist' one, in which it is identified with the physical object that purportedly makes it up, and finds both lacking. Both ideas are more 'impoverished' than an ordinary non-reflective understanding of paintings, pieces of music or poems. The first denies that the spectator has no less privileged a relation to artworks than creators. If the idealist account were true, only creators could understand the purport of their artworks; and there would be no need for them to realise them in a medium (a medium with its physicality; its resistance to the artist and requirement of skill, and its historicity, in the sense of presenting the artist with a previous sequence or tradition of works that will shape its reception). In effect, the idealist view overlooks that making art is a Wittgensteinian 'form of life'. The phenomenalist conception is at fault for denying the relevance, in works' interpretation, of other works by the artist and his or her characteristic repertoire of choices, and of the generic identity, and place in art history, of individual works. It is not clear that a phenomenalist view could properly distinguish between the immediately perceptible properties of a work (which it would say are all there is) and mediately perceptible properties, like the semantic qualities of words. Finally, it would have no basis to identify anything as a work of art as such.

The book is sophisticated, subtle and interesting throughout, but also confusingly unfocused and digressive. The most evident questions of the book--what is an artwork? what rules might there be for the generation of artworks in a tradition?--are by no means those most interestingly addressed in the discussion. Wollheim touches on many themes--the unity of individual artworks; the share of interpreters in their making; the similarities between the sister arts; the autonomy of the aesthetic or the different social functions of art--in a way that is hard to follow, and may not even be conceived systematically. Like his friend Bernard Williams, he has antagonists and rival theorists, cruder and narrower than the author, who make more readily graspable points.

[Maria · Rating 4 out of 5]

An interesting and sophisticated book defining the artwork and trying to come up with most logical meaning of art.

[Ella Nixon]

He attempts to advance a philosophical account of the nature of art which will guarantee its central place in human experience

[A. B. · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very clear read, clarifies a lot.

[Sean Simpson · Rating 3 out of 5]

easier to read than cavell's the world viewed but still somewhat hard to follow. the ideas are interesting. horrible summary -- if you create something under the guise of art and it is recognized as art then it is art.

[Molly Brodak · Rating 4 out of 5]

despite horrid sentences (er really just unending strings of anacolutha), good sharp (but intro) ideas about aesthetics. And best preface ever: exactly one pg long.

[Anorhi · Rating 4 out of 5]

I need to re-read this to get it, but I liked it.

[Fabio Molinari · Rating 2 out of 5]

che palle, cristo.