The AskPhilosophers logo.

Art

You seem to have to know the cultural context of a piece of art to appreciate it. For example a painting may not be particularly outstanding on its own but it may have been the first in a new style or movement in art. However this means that a piece of art has different asethetic value depending on the past works or future developments. It seems counter-intuitive for the same object to be of differing value due to different outside circumstances.
Accepted:
November 16, 2005

Comments

Oliver Leaman
December 12, 2005 (changed December 12, 2005) Permalink

It is for that reason that many think that the context within which a work of art is produced is of no relevance to its aesthetic value or analysis. Certainly we might for historical or cultural reasons be very interested in the context - what the artist had for breakfast on the day she painted it, how much it was sold for, what impact it made on the local environment, and so on - but many would say that this is irrelevant to its aesthetic value. After all, we can often appreciate objects that we know absolutely nothing about.

  • Log in to post comments
Source URL: https://askphilosophers.org/question/566
© 2005-2025 AskPhilosophers.org