In Dr. Thomas' History of Philosophy class, we just finished reading about Aristotle's idea of the "being-at-work" (to use the Sachs translation) of an object. According to Aristotle, a house is not truly a house unless there are people living under its roof; indeed, if there is no one there, the house is simply a collection of bricks, lumber, and mortar.
The idea of "being-at-work," specifically how an object is not TRULY the object unless it is filling its function, is a fascinating idea to me, and I think it has possible applications in a variety of other fields. In particular, I think it can prompt some interesting discussions in the art world.
First of all, let's not get into a discussion about the nature of art or the qualities that something has to possess before it is "art." That's a much longer debate for another day. Instead, let's talk about functional art, or how putting something in a museum might be the worst thing you could do.
If I was to create a painting, the "being-at-work" of the painting would be hang on a wall; maybe there's something about observation or interpretation, but, at the core, I painted it so it would hang on a wall in a gallery or a museum. Now, if I was to create a chair, then isn't it the case that the "being-at-work" of the chair is to have someone sit on it? In other words, the "being-at-work" of the chair is to be used. If it was put in a gallery or museum--perhaps in an exhibit featuring Chairs from Around the World--then not a one of those chairs would be art. Right?
I don't know the implications of this, save that if Aristotle's right, we'll have to start renaming exhibits, or at the very least, take off those "Don't Sit on the Chair" signs.
I don't quite remember Aristotle's ideas about this but in my opinion the chair becomes art when it is put in the museum. The only difference to the chair, pre vs. post museum, is that you take one of the secondary qualities of the chair and make it the main quality. The chairs purpose is no longer that of something which holds people off the ground. But the chair always had artistic merit. Some craftsman put many hours into that chair, or in a more modern context a designer came up with the idea and then sent for it to be made, and many chairs can bring as much joy to the viewer as a piece of more traditional 'art'.
ReplyDeleteI think that putting something like a chair in a museum is not the worst thing that you can do, I don't even think it is a bad thing. In fact I want everything in my life that is functional to be interesting or beautiful enough that it deserves a place in a museum just as much, if not more so, than a painting.
Yeah, the chair had artistic merit, but, in my opinion, it's always more of a chair. No matter what, the "chairness" of the chair will far outweigh the "artness" of the chair.
ReplyDeleteI'm not saying that the functional can't be beautiful, just that the art of the chair is tied up intimately in the sit-ness of the chair.
No disrespect to Charlie Thomas but I would add the qualification that with artifacts like chairs or houses the functionality (at least in potency) is just as key as whether the object is "at work." For instance if sitting is what it was made for and it still could provide that function then it is a chair providing we assess it that way. Even if it's in a museum and nobody is sitting on it.
ReplyDeleteThe difficulty with my claim (and the merits of what CT said) is that being-at-work obviously is essential for, say, a human being. Something that's potentially a human but not actively being one (e.g. corpses, zygotes) aren't people in the proper sense.