Philosophy of Art: A Contemporary Introduction

Routledge Contemporary Introductions to Philosophy

by Noël Carroll

Philosophy of Art is a textbook for undergraduate students interested in the topic of philosophical aesthetics.
It introduces the techniques of analytic philosophy as well as key topics such as the representational theory of art, formalism, neo-formalism, aesthetic theories of art, neo-Wittgensteinism, the Institutional Theory of Art. as well as historical approaches to the nature of art.
Throughout, abstract philosophical theories are illustrated by examples of both traditional and contemporary art including frequent reference to the avant-garde in this way enriching the readers understanding of art theory as well as the appreciation of art.
Unique features of the textbook
* chapter summaries
* summaries of major theories of art and suggested analyses of the important categories used when talking and thinking of art
* annotated suggested readings at the ends of chapters.

Also available in this
Epistemology 0-415-13043-3: £12.99
Ethics 0-415-15625-4: £11.99
Metaphysics 0-415-14034- £12.99
Philosophy of Mind 0-415-13060-3: £11.99
Philosophy of Religion 0-415-13214-2: £12.99

Genres: Philosophy, Art, Nonfiction, Reference, Art History, Art Design

288 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1999

About the author

Noël Carroll (born 1947) is an American philosopher considered to be one of the leading figures in contemporary philosophy of art. Although Carroll is best known for his work in the philosophy of film, he has also published journalism, works on philosophy of art generally, theory of media, and also philosophy of history.

As of 2012, he is a distinguished professor of philosophy at the CUNY Graduate Center. He holds PhDs in both cinema studies and philosophy. As a journalist, earlier in his career he published a number of articles in the Chicago Reader, Artforum, In These Times, Dance Magazine, Soho Weekly News and The Village Voice. He is also the author of five documentaries.

Perhaps his most popular and influential book is The Philosophy of Horror, or Paradoxes of the Heart (1990), an examination of the aesthetics of horror fiction (in novels, stories, radio and film). As noted in the book's introduction, Carroll wrote Paradoxes of the Heart in part to convince his parents that his lifelong fascination with horror fiction was not a waste of time. Another important book by Carroll is Mystifying Movies (1988), a critique of the ideas of psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan, Marxist philosopher Louis Althusser and the semiotics of Roland Barthes, which has been credited with inspiring a shift away from what Carroll describes as the "Psycho-Semiotic Marxism" that had dominated film studies and film theory in American universities since the 1970s.

Reviews

[Melika Khoshnezhad · Rating 4 out of 5]

با توجه به این‌که در هنر قرن بیستم، آثاری به وجود می‌آمده‌اند که با تعاریف کمابیش مشخص پیشین تفاوت‌های بنیادین دارند و تشخیص هنر از ناهنر را هر روز دشوارتر از قبل می‌کنند، به نظرم خواندن چنین کتابی برای کسانی که دغدغه‌ی هنر و فلسفه‌ی هنر را دارن الزامی‌ است. نوئل کارول در این کتاب سعی می‌کند تمام نظریه‌هایی را که در باب چیستی و ماهیت هنر در فلسفه مطرح شده‌اند به صورت کامل بررسی کند، نقاط قوت و ضعف‌شان را بیازماید و با ارائه‌ی مثال‌های روشن و آموزنده به فهم بیشترشان کمک کند. او نظریه‌ی بازنمایی هنر، نظریه‌ی بیانی هنر، نظریه‌ی فرمالیستی هنر، نظریه‌ی زیبایی‌شناسی هنر، گرایش نوویتگنشتاینی، نظریه‌ی نهادی هنر، نظریه‌ی مبتنی بر تعریف تاریخی هنر و اسلوب روایت‌های تاریخی را به ترتیب بررسی می‌کند. مشکل هنر آن است که در برابر تعریف شدن شدیداً مقاومت می‌کند و در نهایت هیچ یک از این نظریه‌ها کافی نیستند، اما قطعاً به فهم ما درباره‌ی هنر کمک می‌کنند.
نظریه‌های بیانی هنر، فرمالیسم و زیبایی‌شناسی هنر همه مبتنی بر این پیش فرض‌اند که ماهیت هنر قابل‌تعریف شدن است. اما در نیمه‌ی قرن بیستم فیلسوفانی که طرفدار فلسفه‌ی ویتگنشتاین متأخر بودند با توجه به روند عجیبی که هنرهای آوانگارد در پیش گرفته بودند، به این نتیجه رسیدند که شاید هنر ماهیتی تعریف‌پذیر ندارد و صرفاً بر اساس مشابهت‌های خانوادگی میان آثار مختلف می‌توانیم هنر را از ناهنر تشخیص دهیم. اما بعد از دو دهه، گستردگی مفهوم باز هنر در نظریه‌های نوویتگنشتاینی راه را به سوی بازگشت به سمت تلاش برای پیدا کردن تعریفی ماهوی برای هنر باز کرد. اما نظریه‌های نهادی هنر و تعریف تاریخی هنر هم که به عنوان جایگزین‌های برای نظریه‌های نوویتگنشتاینی مطرح شده بودند، راهگشا نبودند و به نظر نوئل کارول تا زمانی که این کتاب را نوشته است، اسلوب روایت تاریخی بهترین گزینه‌ای است که پیش رو داریم. بر اساس این اسلوب هنر به نحو تکاملی پیش رفته است. این نظریه مرا یاد دیالکتیک هگل می‌اندازد. این که ما می‌توانیم اثری را هنر تلقی کنیم به این دلیل است که سنتز حاصل از نزاع میان تز و آنتی تزی است که پیش از آن وجود داشته است و بر این اساس روند تاریخ هنر روندی دیالکتیکی است و آثار هنری مختلف امروزی، همچون جانواران که در طول زمان تکامل پیدا کرده‌اند تا به شکل امروزی رسیده‌اند – شکلی که شاید هیچ شباهتی به اجداد اولیه‌شان ندارد – ممکن است هیچ شباهتی به آثار اولیه در تاریخ نداشته باشند ولی همچنان عضو خانواده‌ی هنر هستند.

[Conrado · Rating 4 out of 5]

[Scroll down for English review]

Bastante satisfatório, com algumas ressalvas.

O livro de Carroll é uma introdução à filosofia da arte; mais especificamente, é um livro que gira em torno de uma questão central: "o que é arte?", à qual várias teorias foram propostas como respostas.

A exposição de Carroll é centrada em tópicos, no sentido em que tem foco nestas teorias propostas e não na posição particular de um certo autor em um período histórico. Portanto, há pouco interesse em discutir neste livro uma história da filosofia da arte neste sentido (apesar de Carroll oferecer algum contexto histórico a certas teorias). Assim, ao invés de sermos apresentados à concepção de autor X de arte, somos apresentados a versões gerais (às vezes específicas) de teorias à questão central da arte que foram endossadas e argumentadas de maneiras particulares por diferentes autores em épocas diversas na história da filosofia.

As teorias expostas por Carroll (com duas exceções notáveis) seguem a metodologia de análise conceitual: sendo o objeto de discussão filosófica conceitos e suas redes de relações com outros conceitos constituintes, a abordagem preferível para entender um determinado conceito problemático procede buscando as suas condições necessárias e suficientes para a aplicação correta do conceito a um candidato, o que resulta naquilo que Carroll chama de uma "definição essencial" do conceito. Assim, a maioria das teorias neste livro pode ser vista como tentativas de definições essenciais do conceito de arte, capturando as condições que permitem justificar a correta aplicação do conceito a uma obra ou artefato. Devido ao fato desta metodologia ser associada com o que hoje chamamos amplamente de filosofia analítica, pode-se entender melhor este livro como uma introdução à filosofia analítica da arte.

Os capítulos do livro são divididos em duas partes (com exceção do último capítulo): na primeira parte, é analisada a teoria principal em resposta ao problema; na segunda parte, é analisado o conceito central avançado pela teoria. Assim, por exemplo, no primeiro capítulo somos expostos em um primeiro momento à teoria representacional arte; num segundo momento, somos apresentados às teorias sobre o conceito de representação. A estrutura dos capítulos é razoavelmente simples, e costuma seguir este padrão: contextualização histórica do surgimento da teoria; exposição da teoria em alguma forma geral ou específica; apresentação dos argumentos a favor da teoria; vantagens em relação a outras teorias; objeções; resumo do capítulo e recomendações de leitura. (Por vezes a ordem de aparição dos argumentos e da teoria é invertida).

Há coisas que aprecio um tanto neste livro.

(1) A escrita de Carroll é uma das que primeiro vem à minha mente: o autor não mede esforços para ser o mais claro possível sobre os pontos centrais, argumentos, vantagens e problemas de cada teoria, providenciando sempre que possível exemplos famosos (e não tão famosos) da história da arte para ilustrar ao leitor certos pontos específicos e tornar sua leitura mais familiarizada.
(2) A abordagem dupla dos capítulos abre um espaço para discussões específicas de conceitos artísticos que dá uma riqueza e amplitude aos outros debates que ocorrem dentro da filosofia analítica do arte. Eu especialmente fiquei interessado pela breve discussão sobre o status ontológico de propriedades estéticas, assim como os debates sobre propriedades expressivas. Eu também acho que em diversos momentos o livro sugere maneiras interessas de formar interseções de filosofia da arte com outras áreas da filosofia, como epistemologia, ontologia e filosofia da mente.
(3) A abordagem centrada em tópicos ao invés de autores é libertadora, uma vez que não prende as teorias ao esquema conceitual específico de um autor particular e convida o leitor a pensar maneiras de contra-atacar e/ou reformular suas próprias versões de uma teoria, nem torna o livro em uma simples enciclopédia de posições altamente específicas sobre o que um autor determinado pensou. Nesse sentido a abordagem principalmente argumentativa do livro também merece aplauso em dar foco na exposição de razões em favor de uma tese e convidar o leitor a debater com as teorias (e, por vezes, com o próprio Carroll). Este aspecto mais engajador do livro é o que espero de um livro didático de filosofia, e acho que professores podem aproveitar muito seguindo seu modelo argumentativo em suas aulas expositivas.

Dito isso, tenho também alguns problemas.

(1) Carroll é um ótimo expositor, mas também é um filósofo com seu próprio posicionamento em vários desses assuntos. Apesar de tentar parecer neutro, ele claramente favorece algumas teorias sobre outras como a melhor resposta, e fortemente argumenta contra posições específicas (p. ex. projetivismo sobre propriedades estéticas no capítulo 4). Isso por si não destrói a leitura nem diminui o valor do livro, mas é um aviso útil ao leitor interessado.
(2) Carroll gosta de deixar bem claro o ponto de uma teoria. Por vezes no entanto ele vai um pouco além do necessário, e acaba por repetir mais de uma vez o mesmo ponto em vários momentos do mesmo capítulo. Apesar de oferecer vários exemplos diferentes para o mesmo ponto, isso pode tornar a leitura bastante cansativa em alguns momentos do livro. Felizmente, não é algo que ocorre com muita frequência.
(3) Apesar de dar espaço a discussões sobre conceitos centrais em filosofia da arte, eu ainda sinto que Carroll deixa de lado alguns problemas que, mesmo não sendo tão centrais, são de interesse crescente na filosofia da arte. Os paradoxos da ficção e da arte dolorosa, o problema da expressão musical e discussões acerca da relação entre valor artístico e valor moral, assim como discussões sobre a interpretação de obras de arte poderiam ter sido abordados, alguns até mesmo em capítulos já existentes.

No geral a minha leitura deste livro foi ótima e em muitos aspectos esclarecedora e engajadora. Apesar de alguns pequenos defeitos de escrita e de deficiência de conteúdo, acho que é uma ótima introdução a quem está interessado em estética e filosofia da arte, e eu consigo mesmo depois da leitura me ver o utilizando para propósitos além de estudos pessoais. Recomendado.

--

Pretty satisfying, with some reservations.

This book by Carroll is an introduction to the philosophy of art; more precisely, it's a book that revolves around a central question: "what is art?", to which various theories were proposed as answers.

Carroll's exposition is topic-centered, in the sense that it focuses not on specific authors in certain periods but rather the theories themselves. So there's very little interest here in discussing the history of philosophy of art in this sense (even though Carroll does offer some historical context for some theories). So instead of being presented to author X's conception of art, we're presented to general versions of theories to the central question that were endorsed and argued for by different authors in diverse manners throughout the history of philosophy.

The theories presented (with two notable exceptions) follow the methodology of conceptual analysis: since the subject matter of philosophical discussion are concepts and their relation networks with other constituent concepts, the best approach for understanding a problematic concept proceeds by searching the necessary and sufficient conditions for the correct application of the concept to a certain candidate, which results in what Carroll calls an "essential definition" of the concept. So the majority of the theories presented in this book can be regarded as attempts at an essential definition of art, capturing the conditions which permit justification for the correct application of the concept to an object or artefact. Since this methodology is frequently associated with what we broadly call analytic philosophy, the book is best understood as an introduction to the analytic philosophy of art.

The chapters in the book are divided in two parts (with the exception of the last chapter): the first part presents us and analyses one of the main theories that tries to provide a definition of art; the second part analyses the central concept advanced by the theory. So e.g. in the first chapter we're first presented to the representational theory of art, and then we're presented to theories about the concept of artistic (pictorial) representation. The structure of the chapters is fairly simple and usually follows this pattern: historical contextualization; exposition of the theory; arguments in favour of the theory; advantages the theory might have compared to others; objections; summary and suggested readings.

I appreciate quite a bit some things in this book.

(1) Carroll's writing is superb: he tries to be as clear as possible when talking about the crucial points, arguments advantages and problems in each theory, always enriching the exposition with famous (and not so famous) examples from the history of art to illustrate his points.
(2) The double apporach to the chapter structure leaves some space for more specific discussions about artistic concepts which enrich and broaden up the scope of the debates contained within contemporary philosophy of art. I became specially interested in the discussion about the ontological status of aesthetic and expressive properties. I also think that at various points the book suggests some interesting ways in which philosophy of art can overlap with other areas of philosophy, such as epistemologia, ontology, and philosophy of mind.
(3) Carroll's topic-centered approach is liberating, since it doesn't subject the theories to an specific author's conceptual scheme, and invites the reader to think of novel ways he can respond to some of the theories and reformulate some others so they can escape the objections raised against them. It also stops the book from becoming a simple encyclopedic summary of highly specific positions endorsed by certain philosophers throught history. In this sense the approach also merits some applause for its main concern being the exposition of arguments in favour of the theses, and inviting the reader to a debate with them. This is what I expect from a good introductory book to a philosophical subject, and I think philosophy teachers can make good use of the book by following its argument-centered apporach when giving classes.

With all that said, I must also say I have some problems with the book.

(1) Carroll is very good at presenting a theory, but he's also a philosopher with his own position with regard to a lot of the subjects treated in the book. Even though he tries to stay neutral on the topics, he clearly favours some theories over others as the best answer to a problem, and sometimes thoroughly tries to refute some of them (see e.g. his discussion of aesthetic properties, ch. 4). This doesn't really ruin the book or anything, but it might be good for the reader to have this in mind before exploring it.
(2) Carroll really likes to clarify what a theory says. Sometimes, however, he overdoes it and ends up repeating a lot of the points more than once in the same chapter. This can make the reading a bit tedious at times, but fortunately it doesn't occur that often.
(3) Even though he discusses some central topics in the philosophy of art, I still think that Carroll leaves behind some problems that have been receiving increasing attention in the field. The paradox of fiction, the paradox of painful art, the paradox of musical expressiveness and discussion about the relation between artistic values and moral values, as well as discussions about the interpretation of artworks could have been analysed in the book, maybe even in some of the already existing chapters.

In general, I feel my reading of the book to have been clarifying and rewarding. Despite some small problems with the writing and lack of some discussions, I think this is a great introduction to anybody who's interested in aesthetics and philosophy of art, and I can see myself using this book for purposes other than personal studies in the future. Recommended.

[Kevin Tole · Rating 3 out of 5]

Took me a long time to read it and a long time to pontificate about writing it up. And why did I pick it up in the first place? Well, the reason for that is that I was looking for a response to the new Duchampians view that "It's Art because I say it is", which is commonly stated without taking on the equally justified "It's NOT Art because I say it's not Art.

This is an extremely frustrating book in a number of ways. The first and possibly the most annoying is the politically correct right-on-ness of the author as he veers violently away almost scaredey cat like of using the male pronoun or third person masc. singular. I would have thought that someone so right-on and Tefal-headed as Carroll might have decided to just use the plural collective, but no. The bold (or maybe not so bold) Carroll goes ahead banging in 'she' whenever HE can as if to prove his intellectual and gender cred points for redemption at some time in the future. Its so passé, Noël, even if you are trying to make a valid point - just try and stick to the subject in hand which is complicated enough as it is without bringing up issue politics of the 'Culture of Complaint' ilk.

It's also annoying that he can't be pushed to come down on one side or another or to express an opinion not built on a philosophical proposition and that he spends sooooo long defining what an Art Object is rather that what ART is (and this appears to be going against his own credo stated at the beginning, of defining what Art IS, not what we think Art SHOULD BE. There was a whole debate ready to be entered into there, Noël, on whether the 'Art' happens entirely in the head of the artist, and it's exterior expression, the work of art, is a mere distraction translated through the media of craft, technique, efficiency of means etc etc etc. There is a sense that he quite fancies the Neo-Wittgensteinian position .... but he still fancies the odd roll in the hay with the straight in-out of one of his other old squeezes and can't quite give up the ole missionary).

This is also a highly westernised view of the Philosophy of Art but, as we are viewing this from the western world and perspective, I suppose I ought to get off my own right-on-ness and cut the bold Noël a bit of slack. Even so, it is ONE VIEW through conceptual analytics, and this strangles him in some ways, constantly looking for NECESSARY and SUFFICIENT CONDITIONS time and time again when what we're trying to discuss may not have those characteristics. Also the belief that what art is might change through time also appears to be absent in Carroll's analysis. It is and always has been when this, I would suggest, is not the case. At times he loses entirely the sense of CONTEXT (though I seem to remember him making a strong case for context when discussing one of the schools of philosophy of art).

Perhaps the bold Noel would have done better to have stopped at Chapter 1 and the discussion of Plato and Aristotle. In fact we can build on this. This Philosophy of Art is subtitled 'a contemporary introduction' and that's really how we should take it on board. It's a decent Primer. Something that should be used to lead you into other lines and explorations through other sources. Unfortunately most of us don't have that luxury of time and we want something that goes to the heart of the matter. This book is not that beast.

I'm not going to go into this book any more than this really - certainly not into discussing the various pros and cons of various 'schools' as put forward by Noel Carroll - that is unless I find myself really bored one evening and might take it on as an alternative to watching the paint on a canvas dry.

It's worth stating that I didn't find the refutation to the neo-Duchampians position. So I will continue holding my counter-view as valid in that 'IT'S NOT ART BECAUSE I SAY IT'S NOT'.

thankyouverymuchmisterpresident.

Elvis has left the building

[Joao Baptista · Rating 4 out of 5]

Noël Carroll é um dos mais activos filósofos de tradição analítica a dedicar-se à Filosofia da Arte. Neste livro procura analisar, de forma sistemática e relativamente bem desenvolvida, as diversas teorias que foram propondo definições classificatórias de arte e que fossem histórica e universalmente válidas. Ou seja, tentativas de fixar as condições necessárias e suficientes para que determinado objecto seja uma obra de arte, captando e explicitando aquilo que é comum a todas as obras de arte e que faz delas precisamente isso, obras de arte. Trata-se, pois, uma abordagem que estabelece uma distinção muito clara entre arte e estética (ainda que a dimensão estética seja imprescindível em algumas teorias da arte), deixando de lado categorias como o belo e o sublime, critérios de avaliação de obras de arte (por que umas são melhores do que outras) e crítica de arte.
No livro, que é uma tradução de uma série editada pela Routledge destinada a proporcionar uma “introdução contemporânea” de nível intermédio a um tema filosófico, estão bem patentes as marcas da tradição analítica: a abordagem é temática e não histórica – as teorias são identificadas pelas suas designações (como o representacionalismo, o formalismo, o expressivismo, o neo-wittgensteinianismo, etc.), não pelos autores que, historicamente, as propuseram. Para cada teoria são testadas diversas tentativas definitórias, são reconstruídos argumentos, são apresentadas objecções e respostas às objecções e feita uma síntese final com indicação bibliográfica. A linguagem é clara e precisa, ainda que por vezes algo prolixa. Algumas objecções assentam em contra-exemplos que me parecem excessivamente artificiosos, mas permitem perceber a mecânica do funcionamento de cada uma das teses.
Mostrando como Platão tinha razão, ao terminar o Hípias Maior dizendo que “o Belo é difícil”, também o final aporético desta obra mostra como a arte, mercê dos desenvolvimentos algo imprevisíveis que o século XX nos trouxe e que assim prosseguem, se tornou uma categoria cada vez mais difícil de enclausurar nas linhas nítidas de uma definição.

[Dilara Selici · Rating 4 out of 5]

Kitap; Ulysses’in yorumlama gerektiren bir kategoride olduğunu ama mini fırınların olmadığını nasıl bilebiliriz? Ya da Duchamp’ın Çeşme’sini sanat yapan nedir? Yani kısaca sanatın tanımı nedir sorusuyla ilgileniyor. Bu anlamda analitik felsefenin ve diyalektiğin de güzel bir örneği.

Sırayla temsili sanat kuramı, yeni temsilcilik, dışavurumculuk kuramı, biçimcilik, yeni biçimcilik ve estetik sanat kuramının sanatı tanımlama girişimlerini ele alıyor. Bu kuramların sanat yapıtlarını belirleyebilmek için gerek ve yeter koşulları açıklanıyor. Ne yazık ki bu kuramlar bir şekilde hatalı bulunuyor. Bu kuramlara göre ya bazı sanat eserleri dışarda kalıyor, ya da kapsamları çok geniş olduğu için uçan kuşa sanat demeye başlıyorlar.

Ardından bu iş olacak gibi değil sanat tanımlamaz diyen Yeni-Wittgensteincılar sahneye çıkıyor. Sanatı bir çeşit benzerlikle ayırt edebiliriz diyorlar. Ancak onlar da yeterince başarılı olamıyor. Onların ardından kurumsal sanat tanımı ile devam ediliyor. Akabinde tarihsel anlatı kuramı geliyor. Velhasıl elimizde bir tanım yok. Eh felsefe bu, bize gül bahçesi vaadetmedi.

“Böyle bir tanımımız olsaydı, bunu ortaya çıkarmak neden o kadar zor olsun?” cümlesi haklı olabilir.

Güzel bir giriş kitabı, felsefeyle az biraz ilgilenmiş kişiler için okuması zor değil, çevirisi güzel. Ama tekrarı bol.

Yazar son sayfada şöyle diyor:
“Bu kitap, eğer görüşler, teknikler ve konuların karmaşıklığını algılama hissi vermeye yetecek kadar okuyucunun kendi yolunu çizebilmesinde gerekli araçları sağladıysa amacına ulaşmış demektir. İyi yolculuklar!”

Bence, evettir, ulaşmıştır.

[Itamar Livne · Rating 3 out of 5]

A good discussion of the key approaches to defining art, though I think he completely misunderstands Kant's "disinterestedness" argument and therefore deconstructs formalism in kind of an unhelpful way. After spending pages and pages straw-manning the argument he then admits that the term might mean something else and moves on. Overall though a good informative read on how different generations viewed artworks.

[Jeremy Estabrooks · Rating 4 out of 5]

I'm surprised by the lackluster ratings and reviews for this book. This is a comprehensive and clearly-written overview of the philosophy of art in the analytical tradition. Of course you won't come away with any grand metaphysical explanations of the nature and purpose of art (for that, you will need to stick to writers like Hegel or Schopenhauer). Rather, you will gain a lucid understanding of the various definitions of art that have emerged throughout the ages, including their respective strengths and weaknesses. What's more, you will gain a newfound appreciation of just how tricky the business of trying to identify necessary or consistent attributes of human practices like art can really be. I found this book thoroughly engaging.

[VII · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was chosen as the primary textbook for a philosophy of art class from a professor I respect. I certainly learned a lot but liking the first book you read on a new subject says more about the subject rather than the book itself.

Every chapter describes an attempt to define art using a different theme. Art as representation, expression, form or aesthetic experience. Every attempt has some good arguments but also many problems so the last chapter examines whether art really needs a definition.

His writing is maybe a little too analytical and dry at times and he often repeats himself. I think the complexity of the analysis was about right for an introductory book. Easy to read but not trivial, most of the times.

[Syash Sticks · Rating 3 out of 5]

most interesting part was seeing the different theories on what makes art, 'art', and on the initial introduction in chapter one on Aristotle and Plato. Hence, the book makes you consider also the psychology of art, and how all these theories tie into how your life and your 'codes' guide you to a different belief system.

[Pedro Natário · Rating 3 out of 5]

Reasonable overview of the main theories of art, although the internal structure of the chapters is somewhat confusing since the author repeats the same arguments in multiple places. Also a bit too opinionated for a textbook.

[Ünal İpekçioğlu · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is not hard to read but have magnificent introduction with powerful basement. I've read this book with turkish translation and the translation was as magnificent as genuine. I can fell it it even though i didn't read genuine one. Do not think should i read this , just read first chapter and then you will become thankful to writer , Noel Carroll. Thanks Master.

[Jon Richards · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read this book to supplement a Stanford Continuing Learning course, The Philosophy of Art. Carroll does an excellent job of presenting and explaining the several theories of what constitutes art. None is adequate as a universal theory; however, having these several possible ways to approach and to appreciate an artwork is helpful and welcome.

[ross motter · Rating 2 out of 5]

reqt. reading for phil 390 - philosophy of art

this was a very bland read. as a book, it is so chock full of content and it seemed as if it needed to be broken up and simplified. it was trying to cover everything, and it wasn’t doing a great job of it.

[Barış Yıldırım · Rating 4 out of 5]

Sanat teorileri konusundaki temel tezleri argümanlar ve karşı argümanlar şeklinde başarıyla sınıflandıran bir analitikçi estetik çalışması.

[Joshua Finch]

Carroll is clear, but this is not as quick and fun a read as it could be given the repetition. That said, it is a textbook whose repetitions are useful for painstaking clarity, and he's also comprehensive. He goes over the whole terrain of art theory, at least the primary competitors.

Art is very important, and an endangered species. Its defense requires knowing what it is.

Noel Carroll's clarity and comprehensiveness is like a gift of a full theoretical lego kit. I tend to agree with a version of the aesthetic definition (Ch. 4) that contains the others, the functional-formalist account (Ch. 3) and the neo-representationalist account (Ch. 1) side by side, where expression (Ch. 2) is included as a species of representation. With that I can see the primary rival is in the last chapter (Ch. 5), the institutional, non-definitional, or historical accounts.

[Billie Pritchett · Rating 5 out of 5]

Noel Carroll's Philosophy of Art: A Contemporary Introduction is a great book, and it's made me think so much differently about art as a result. It goes through the different big theories of what art is and then tries to recover what is worthwhile within the theories. If you're interested, I've analyzed the different chapters HERE. Please read this book if you're interested in art or philosophy.

[Bjm Index]

1

[Noora · Rating 3 out of 5]

Mielenkiintoinen tenttikirja, jota en ihan ehtinyt lukea loppuun asti.