In the following essay I provide a critical discussion of Richard Shusterman’s definition of art. Firstly, I illustrate how Shusterman defines art as experience and dramatization. Secondly, I provide how Danto and George Dickie define art and why Shusterman criticises their wrapper definitions. Lastly, I provide an explanation as to why Shusterman is flawed in claiming that art is ultimately experience.
Richard Shusterman (2012:1) states that it is difficult to point out what is considered to be art and what is not. The problem surfaces when we have to determine how an ordinary object of real life becomes an artwork. According to Shusterman, in order for something to be considered as art it has to be a product of human activity, an artefact. Shoes for example, could be seen as art in aesthetics to a certain someone. For art to be aesthetic it must draw attention or
…show more content…
Shusterman states that even though Dewey’s definition fails to extend to work of art, it does not mean it is not of value, because it serves a purpose, a purpose that Shusterman thinks is very important. Shusterman claims that it is mainly the immense satisfaction brought about by aesthetic experience that makes us attracted to art and its value. It is worthwhile for both the artist and the audience.
Even though many artworks fail to produce aesthetic experience, if such experience were never achieved art would probably have never existed (Shusterman 2002:28). Shusterman seems to believe that Dewey was unclear on how we would begin to define aesthetic experience. He further says that Dewey was not interested in formal definitions of aesthetic concepts.
According to Danto, purpose and intention are what define art. Context is what is most important to him. Something is an artwork if it can be interpreted as giving or offering some sort of perspective about