Who Should We Trust?

Question:  Wouldn’t it be more accurate to ask someone who actually lives in a culture of “primitive” art what their concept of art is, rather than trusting the theory of someone who just studies the culture?

After our discussions in class, I have realized that this question is not very relevant, because the issue at hand is not who to trust. It is whether or not there are multiple concepts of art. Although I agree with Denis Dutton for the most part, I also believe that Larry Shiner makes some good points. Overall, however, I believe that these "primitive" art objects are just examples of craft, which is a type of art. Although the functionality of these objects may be the most important factor for their creators, they are still crafts, and therefore works of art that are aesthetically pleasing and share certain criteria needed for something to be considered art.

Designs With Functions

Question:   If certain objects were created not to be considered art, but for the sole purpose of their functions, why would the creator bother to make beautiful designs on the objects?


After our discussions in class, I have realized that in the case of some works, such as cave paintings, the designs are crucial to the functioning of the work. For example, if the function of a cave painting was to tell a story, detailed designs would be necessary to adequately achieve that function. The more detailed and beautiful the designs, the better the story will be.

When I came up with my question, I wasn't thinking about works like cave paintings. I was thinking about something like a vase or bowl to hold things, such as water. I was wondering why the creators would bother to put designs on these things if their only function was to carry or hold something. However, I suppose the designs on these objects could be symbolic and therefore have a separate function themselves. While coming up with my question, I no doubt should have considered how it would apply to a variety of objects, such as cave paintings.