Edited for an academia.edu entry on April 1, 2023, and that is no joke...
Photo: Spilled paint, wild flowers (Google)
A Philosophy Of Art
Philosopher Blackburn separates the academic study of the philosophy of art from a wider study of aesthetics by confining the academic discipline to what are deliberately produced works of art. Blackburn (1996: 26). He reasons it is a problem distinguishing academic works of art from works of entertainment and he states this seems to be a pointless quest. Blackburn (1996: 26). A problem is the artist's/creator's intent is not always understood and/or agreed upon by the observer.
Susan L. Feagin explains that an art work's aesthetic or artistic value is generally intellectually separated from simply liking it. Feagin (1996: 11). Deliberately produced works of art is a key intellectual distinction between what is actual primarily academic art and what is primarily produced for other purposes although these may still have secondarily artistic qualities and merits.
Blackburn mentions the concept of separating erotica from pornography (Blackburn 1996: 26) which from a secular perspective may by some be considered art versus commercially made sex for the purposes of profit and lust.
I am not philosophically convinced that erotica is not often just soft pornography, but I admit am not an expert.
How erotica and pornography are viewed and separated will depend on worldview and I admit that my view is Reformed and moderate conservative.
A better comparison may be:
1) Nudes in a fine European art gallery
2) Pornography
1) These would appear to be primarily 'deliberately produced works of art'.
If someone lusted in the process, that would be a secondary result, it was not the primary reason for the existence of the exhibit, the works of art.
2) The primarily purpose would be for the financial profit of the producers of the pornography and the lust of consumers, and perhaps the lust of the producers.
There are many philosophical and moral negatives associated with lust and the sexual use of others in society.
It is sex outside of marriage, sex outside of a deep true love in commitment, sex for money, voyeurism, for examples.
Of course the Bible condemns sexual sin and for example, this is traced back to Exodus 20: 14, 17 in the Hebrew Bible and Matthew 5 and 1 Corinthians 7, in the New Testament.
There may however be secondarily artistic qualities and merit due to beautiful people, so to speak.
This should be no surprise as in a fallen world things God originally made good (Genesis 3) are corrupted but the image of God remains in human beings (Genesis 1; 27).
But it would not qualify as academic art.
A similar argument could be made for a shiny brand new academic textbook, or my used Oxford and Cambridge Philosophy Dictionaries which would primarily be manufactured for the sake of providing academic information.
Secondarily, like my used Oxford Blackburn text for example, it has a well-constructed cover with dark blue and red colours which I personally find artistically appealing and my copy also has an abstract picture on the cover, but its primary function is not to be academic art.
However, this would be more debatable than the nudes in the art gallery versus the pornography example in my view because there are less philosophical, social and artistic negatives associated with philosophy textbooks than pornography!
I reason there is a danger of over-spiritualizing and over-moralizing art in the Christian Church, in particular very conservative circles.
The cautious philosophical approach demonstrated by Blackburn and myself, even though Blackburn is secular, is wise and correct.
Philippians 4:8-9
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
8 Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is [a]lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, [b]dwell on these things. 9 The things you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, practice these things, and the God of peace will be with you.
The Scripture states to dwell on such things, but is not a philosophical text stating what academic art is.
This is key.
Feagin writes that it is a matter of contention whether an art work's aesthetic and artistic values are independent of its moral, political, or epistemic stance or impact. Feagin (1996: 11).
I reason there needs to be much caution when making spiritual and moral evaluations in regard to academic art, as in attempting to devalue them as such.
As academic works of art are deliberately produced works of art they may not always conform to a Christian worldview of what is good and beautiful but still would be academic works of art, regardless.
BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Philosopher Blackburn separates the academic study of the philosophy of art from a wider study of aesthetics by confining the academic discipline to what are deliberately produced works of art. Blackburn (1996: 26). He reasons it is a problem distinguishing academic works of art from works of entertainment and he states this seems to be a pointless quest. Blackburn (1996: 26). A problem is the artist's/creator's intent is not always understood and/or agreed upon by the observer.
Susan L. Feagin explains that an art work's aesthetic or artistic value is generally intellectually separated from simply liking it. Feagin (1996: 11). Deliberately produced works of art is a key intellectual distinction between what is actual primarily academic art and what is primarily produced for other purposes although these may still have secondarily artistic qualities and merits.
Blackburn mentions the concept of separating erotica from pornography (Blackburn 1996: 26) which from a secular perspective may by some be considered art versus commercially made sex for the purposes of profit and lust.
I am not philosophically convinced that erotica is not often just soft pornography, but I admit am not an expert.
How erotica and pornography are viewed and separated will depend on worldview and I admit that my view is Reformed and moderate conservative.
A better comparison may be:
1) Nudes in a fine European art gallery
2) Pornography
1) These would appear to be primarily 'deliberately produced works of art'.
If someone lusted in the process, that would be a secondary result, it was not the primary reason for the existence of the exhibit, the works of art.
2) The primarily purpose would be for the financial profit of the producers of the pornography and the lust of consumers, and perhaps the lust of the producers.
There are many philosophical and moral negatives associated with lust and the sexual use of others in society.
It is sex outside of marriage, sex outside of a deep true love in commitment, sex for money, voyeurism, for examples.
Of course the Bible condemns sexual sin and for example, this is traced back to Exodus 20: 14, 17 in the Hebrew Bible and Matthew 5 and 1 Corinthians 7, in the New Testament.
There may however be secondarily artistic qualities and merit due to beautiful people, so to speak.
This should be no surprise as in a fallen world things God originally made good (Genesis 3) are corrupted but the image of God remains in human beings (Genesis 1; 27).
But it would not qualify as academic art.
A similar argument could be made for a shiny brand new academic textbook, or my used Oxford and Cambridge Philosophy Dictionaries which would primarily be manufactured for the sake of providing academic information.
Secondarily, like my used Oxford Blackburn text for example, it has a well-constructed cover with dark blue and red colours which I personally find artistically appealing and my copy also has an abstract picture on the cover, but its primary function is not to be academic art.
However, this would be more debatable than the nudes in the art gallery versus the pornography example in my view because there are less philosophical, social and artistic negatives associated with philosophy textbooks than pornography!
I reason there is a danger of over-spiritualizing and over-moralizing art in the Christian Church, in particular very conservative circles.
The cautious philosophical approach demonstrated by Blackburn and myself, even though Blackburn is secular, is wise and correct.
Philippians 4:8-9
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
8 Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is [a]lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, [b]dwell on these things. 9 The things you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, practice these things, and the God of peace will be with you.
The Scripture states to dwell on such things, but is not a philosophical text stating what academic art is.
This is key.
Feagin writes that it is a matter of contention whether an art work's aesthetic and artistic values are independent of its moral, political, or epistemic stance or impact. Feagin (1996: 11).
I reason there needs to be much caution when making spiritual and moral evaluations in regard to academic art, as in attempting to devalue them as such.
As academic works of art are deliberately produced works of art they may not always conform to a Christian worldview of what is good and beautiful but still would be academic works of art, regardless.
BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
COURSON, JON (2005) Application Commentary, Thomas Nelson, Nashville.
ELLISON, H.L. (1986) ‘Genesis’, in F.F. Bruce (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.
ELWELL, WALTER AND YARBROUGH, ROBERT W., Third Edition (2013) Encountering The New Testament, Grand Rapids, Baker Academic.
DUNNETT, WALTER M. (2001) Exploring The New Testament, Wheaton, Crossway Books.
FEAGIN, L. SUSA (1996) ‘Aesthetics’, in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
FEE, GORDON D. (1987) The First Epistle To The Corinthians, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
FRANCE, R.T. (1985) Matthew, Grand Rapids, IVP, Eerdmans.
FRETHEIM, TERENCE E. (1994) ‘Is Genesis 3 a Fall Story?’, in Word and World, Luther Seminary, pp. 144-153. Saint Paul, Luther Seminary.
GUNDRY, ROBERT (1981) A Survey of the New Testament, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.
HAMILTON, VICTOR P. (1988) Handbook on the Pentateuch, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.
LA SOR, WILLIAM SANFORD, DAVID ALLAN HUBBARD, AND FREDERIC WILLIAM BUSH. (1987) Old Testament Survey, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
MARSH, PAUL, W. (1986) ‘1 Corinthians’, in F.F. Bruce, (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Marshall Pickering/Zondervan.
MARTIN, RALPH P. (1987) Philippians, Grand Rapids, IVP.
MOUNCE, ROBERT H. (1990) The Book of Revelation, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
HEWLETT, H.C. (1986) 'Philippians' in The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.
The Orthodox Study Bible, New Testament and Psalms, (1993) Saint Athanasius Orthodox Academy,Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, Tennessee.
