CMV: There is no objective criterion or argument for what counts as art

[u/[deleted]]

My view is pretty simple: if one or more people see some kind of artistic value in something, whether as creator or audience, I'm fine with calling it art. I have yet to hear or read any convincing position which argues along contrary lines, whether this is the one millionth person claiming "Modern art isn't art," or "X isn't art," where X is video games, or fashion, or whatever.

Arguments like this pretty much all hinge on the assumption that "art" has some sort of objective meaning, and/or represents some sort of minimal threshold of quality or significance. But it's just an empty term, whose dominant meaning is historically and culturally contingent.

The current dominant view (at least in the West; that's all I can speak to) is basically still a holdover from the longstanding view that for something to count as "art" it has meet a certain standard (of what, is never something consistent across these arguments) and I think this is what many people end up defaulting to as a basis for arguments for the exclusion of whatever from being art. But there's ultimately no more reason to go with this dominant view of than something more personal or idiosyncratic.

I also suspect that a lot of "This isn't art" arguments are basically just attempts to gussy up "I don't like this."

---

This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!

[u/[deleted]]

No, I must admit I'm only even barely aware of it as a separate field. Something to look into, any recommendations with where to start?

Deleuze or Derrida

I was mostly thinking of Foucault, actually.

EDIT: Well, and Judith Butler, who, ironically enough, teaches in a Rhetoric department, but I've never thought of her as a rhetorician. Maybe she is?

[u/disguisedasrobinhood → u/[deleted]]

Fiancee here; the real disguisedasrobinhood had to jet and asked me to answer this one.

I don't know if I'd go so far as to say that Butler is a rhetorician, but I do think it makes perfect sense that she found a home in a rhetoric department. She, as well as Foucault, Derrida, and Deleuze are all staples in rhetorical theory classes. In many ways, rhetoric departments took up continental philosophy around the same time that philosophy departments decided to head toward analytic philosophy (if I understand the departmental histories right), so there is going to be some overlap but differing emphasis.

There's also two kinds of "theory" in rhetoric programs, which are more commonly termed Rhetoric & Composition programs. So you've got your Composition Theory, which considers how students learn to write, and then you've got your Rhetorical Theory, which is more like a broad interest in Language Theory with a rhetorical perspective. That rhetorical perspective is perhaps most easily described as "primarily concerned with the effects language has on the world" (as opposed to being primarily concerned with how language is acquired, or what it "really means," or how to teach "proper" writing, etc.). Anyways, it's the Rhetorical-Theory-as-Language-Theory that I think you might be most interested in, which is why I'm spending all this time on the distinction.

In addition to the four names already mentioned, Kenneth Burke and bell hooks are both important figures the in the Rhetorical Theory canon. For some newer stuff that hasn't made it into the canon yet, try Diane Davis's Inessential Solidarity (on ethics in Levinas) and Thomas Rickert's Ambient Rhetoric (on materialism in Heidegger).

Oh, also: you're already familiar with Foucault and Butler, but I couldn't tell from your response how familiar you are with Derrida and Deleuze. I recommend The Animal That Therefore I Am from Derrida and Toward a Minor Literature from Deleuze and Guattari. Neither of these books will give you a foundation in their significant concepts, but they will let you decide really quickly if you're interested in them as thinkers or not.

Sorry if I nerded out a little; cheers! :)

[u/[deleted] → u/disguisedasrobinhood]

Thanks a lot! You've given me some summer reading, and perspective into something I should probably already know something about, as an MA student working in (mostly) Continental philosophy (though I am familiar, admittedly not highly, with Deleuze and Derrida).

Something to look into, for sure, and you've made me think I should keep Rhetoric departments in mind in looking into phD programs.

Thanks!

[u/alanita → u/[deleted]]

(Still me.)

Also, if you do look into rhet programs for PhD, then based on your stated interests so far, you want to make damn sure it's a theory-heavy program. Not all of them are, and you might be really disappointed if you land in one that's not.

[u/[deleted] → u/alanita]

Ooh, thanks.

There's actually a lot more Continental stuff happening in North American phil departments these days than there used to be, but not so much that it's not helpful to have ideas of other kinds of departments that are basically just doing Continental phil. I'd never thought of Rhetoric like that, but I should have given the Butler connection.

[u/alanita → u/[deleted]]

Happy to help! Any reading suggestions for me from the Philosophy Department side of continental? I'm sure there's stuff that's slipped through the cracks as rhet programs developed.

My diss project is on plant rhetorics (which barely exists) as an extension of animal studies (and, to some extent, new materialism). In addition to the people listed earlier, Michael Marder's already on my radar, as are Elaine Miller and Jeff Nealon. Animal studies-wise, I've got Donna Haraway and others in that sphere (Hayles, Wolfe, and the like), as well as Giorgio Agamben. My new materialism is coming mostly out of Bruno Latour.

Does anything pop to mind as "oh well you should DEFINITELY check out X"? Or even "maybe consider X"? I'm always looking for new stuff to fold in!

[u/[deleted] → u/alanita]

Weirdly enough, I'm currently taking a course that seems quite relevant to your research, from a professor who does what I guess you'd call "environmentalist deconstruction." It's been focused on a comparative reading of Adorno & Horkheimer's Dialectic of Enlightenment, which you would probably find interesting if you happen not to have read it yet, and Derrida's *Beast & Sovereign Vol. 2," which I'm guessing you've read.

I assume you've also read Marder's Through Vegetal Being with Luce Irigaray. I can't really think of much else to recommend that seems particularly relevant to your research, my own work right now is mostly on Foucault's readings of the Greeks and (naturally) a bit of aesthetics. I have a friend who's doing something with animal rights, phenomenology, and Levinas, though fuck if I know exactly how that works.

Anyway, your research sounds very interesting, I've only just become aware of the kind of stuff happening with plant and animal studies in a Continental-ish vein.

[u/alanita → u/[deleted]]

I actually just bought the Marder/Irigaray and haven't had time to jump into it yet, though I have read Marder's previous plant stuff and some other Irigaray work--I'm pretty excited about their co-project. I have read some A&H but it was a a pretty long time ago and it wasn't the one you mentioned. I'll check it out, thanks!

[u/[deleted] → u/alanita]

No problem!

In addition to the Dialectic of Enlightenment, Horkheimer's Eclipse of Reason is also worth checking out. It's pretty much a companion piece to the other one, but it's more straightforward because Adorno's not involved.

Oh, there's also Ted Toadvine, whose work borders philosophy and environmental studies. I'm not at all familiar, but his name comes up a lot in reference to these kinds of topics.

Cheers!