This essay argues that bullshit art is a meaningful concept that differs from bullshitting about art, although the two may occur in tandem. I defend what I call the social pretense theory of bullshit art. On this view, calling a work of art ‘bullshit’ highlights a discrepancy between the prestige accorded a work of art and its nonsense character. This category of aesthetic criticism plays a unique role that cannot be identified with kitsch but bears only a contingent connection to (...) it. (shrink)

This paper extends the fields of visual and object semiosis, style, and rhetoric by introducing the concept of critical object images. It identifies five of their rhetorical functions in literature and demonstrates the semiotic and rhetorical specificity and force of literary object images. Inter-disciplinary concepts and theories used in the study are introduced before the concept is tested and developed through analyses of object images with critical roles in the Victorian scenes of Virginia Woolf’s novels. The inductive analyses trace the (...) semiosis and stylistic affordances of the selected critical object images, with reference to three categories of kitsch inauthenticity, and their formal and cultural contexts, noting the rhetorical function they serve. Multimodal stylistics and the semiotics of visual images and of objects are used in these analyses, and the unique contribution of critical object images as rhetorical elements in literature is uncovered and explained. The analysis of Woolf’s representation of selected objects shows how the critical object images function rhetorically, through their stylistic connotations, to present unambiguous meanings that are not openly stated in the texts’ verbal discourse. (shrink)

This paper defends an account of forgiveness that is sensitive to recent work on anger. Like others, we claim anger involves an appraisal, namely that someone has done something wrong. But, we add, anger has two further functions. First, anger communicates to the wrongdoer that her act has been appraised as wrong and demands she feel guilty. This function enables us to explain why apologies make it reasonable to forgo anger and forgive. Second, anger sanctions the wrongdoer for what she (...) has done. This function allows us to explore the moral status of forgiveness, including why forgiveness is typically elective. (shrink)

Beginning with de Sousa's question about how my position is related to that of "enactive" theorists, I spell out my emphasis on the unity of affective experience, and say more about my conception of the emotional "a priori." In response to Beisecker, I elaborate by way of a literary example on how a significant fact can exist without yet having 'registered' in one's emotional awareness, and on the basis of this I reject the claim that emotions constitute significance. Finally, prompted (...) by Gallegos, I elaborate on why, on my view, a valuable thing must have indeterminately many axiological qualities, and explain how a multifaceted world can ground a plurality of emotional standpoints. (shrink)

Contrary to the received view according to which the value of works of art consists exclusively or primarily in their aesthetic value I argue that the importance of aesthetic value has been grossly overrated. In earlier publications I have shown that the assumption stipulating that the value of artworks consists exclusively in their aesthetic value is demonstrably wrong. I have suggested a conceptual distinction between the aesthetic and the artistic value arguing that when it comes to evaluation the artistic value, (...) which reflects the significance of innovations exemplified by the work, is no less important than the aesthetic value. Here I take the argument a step further by suggesting that the aesthetic value is considerably less important than the artistic value. To show this I draw attention to a neglected aspect of art evaluation, namely to the monetary value of artworks. Although there is no necessary connection between monetary value of works of art and their aesthetic value or their artistic value, it can nevertheless tell us something important not only about the overall value of works of art but also about the relative importance of the two component values. I show that the enormous differences between monetary values of different artworks cannot be accounted for by the corresponding differences in their aesthetic value but can be explained by the differences in their artistic value. (shrink)

One can read the history of kitsch and the history of kitsch theories by accentuating either everyday aesthetics (knickknacks) or pseudo art/bad art. The authors have divided their introduction to the topic by accentuating first everyday aesthetics (this part includes a detailed history of kitsch research) and then art—especially the wave of contemporary art that has lately been knocking on the doors of kitsch. Three historical stages of kitsch are discussed. The first stage discusses the topic and gives (e.g., bad, (...) sentimental art and interior design) negative attention only. This phase ends with Clement Greenberg’s essay “Avant-Garde and Kitsch” (1939). The second wave discusses kitsch in a curious manner, mainly around the 1960s. And the contemporary stage of the discussion is often positive (starting from the 1990s). In the part where contemporary art is analyzed, art’s kitschy side is traced historically to the Dutch art market of the seventeenth century. But today’s art world, which is strongly invaded by kitsch, gains the main attention. How did kitsch become so central to contemporary art? What forms has it taken there? (shrink)

Philosophy of art presupposes differences between art and other cultural activity. Philosophers have recently paid more attention to this excluded activity, particularly to the range of cultural production known as popular art. Three issues have dominated these discussions. First, there is debate about the basis of the distinction. Some philosophers contend that fine art is essentially different from popular art, but others hold that the distinction is entirely social in origin. Second, philosophers disagree on the degree of continuity or discontinuity (...) that holds between fine and popular art. Third, there is controversy about the relative value of the two, and about the basis for the supposed superiority of fine art. (shrink)