Abstract
What is the definition of art? Not too long ago, this might have been properly said to be the central issue in philosophical aesthetics. Not anymore.1 But philosophers of art are unlikely to give up on the pursuit of definition that easily. Most of us have invested far too much time and energy learning how to go about the game of definition and counterexample to simply let it go just like that. Might there not be some other questions of definition that could structure the field in this new century? What, after all, is a comic book? Or a film? Or a poem? Or a dance? Perhaps if we pursued definitions of the individual arts or art forms we might get somewhere. In this essay, I shall offer some sceptical thoughts about that pursuit—sceptical thoughts inspired by the paper that inadvertently triggered interest for more than five decades in the definition of art, namely, Morris Weitz’s ‘The Role of Theory in Aesthetics’.KeywordsNatural KindGeneral ArgumentInductive ArgumentComic BookClassical AccountThese keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
