Comments on: Defining Art, A Dialogue in Letters. Letter I https://musedialogue.org A journal for contemplation and discussion of the arts Sun, 29 Dec 2013 14:34:48 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: themusedialogue https://musedialogue.org/latest-issue/defining-art-a-dialogue-in-letters/defining-art-an-epistolary-dialogue-letter-i/#comment-2019 Fri, 28 Sep 2012 19:56:06 +0000 https://musedialogue.org/?page_id=1435#comment-2019 Yes to circularity, but that is often the problem with dictionary definitions. That is, they keep referring to other words in the book until you come back to the place where you started. As for leaving out music, that was more my editorial decision not to put too much in the quote. What is interesting is that the OED puts the visual and plastic arts in a separate definition from the performing and literary arts, using mimesis (imitation) as part of the defining characteristic of visual arts and expression as the defining quality for the other arts.

I very much agree to your second point. More on that to come.

–Andrew Swensen

]]> By: Edible Arts https://musedialogue.org/latest-issue/defining-art-a-dialogue-in-letters/defining-art-an-epistolary-dialogue-letter-i/#comment-2013 Thu, 27 Sep 2012 19:34:15 +0000 https://musedialogue.org/?page_id=1435#comment-2013 As a philosopher, the first thing I notice about the OED definition is that it is circular. It defines art by employing art in the definition (and then curiously leaves out music).

I think definitions are helpful because evaluting art requires criteria of excellence and definitions can point us to what is worth attending to in developing those criteria.

I’m looking forward to your discussion.

]]>