Art, definition of

References and further reading

These readings are not introductory in style, though none is forbiddingly technical or formal.

	Anderson, J. C. (2000) ‘Aesthetic Concepts of Art’, in N. Carroll (ed.), Theories of Art Today, Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 65–92. (Defines art functionally as intended to yield aesthetic pleasure.)
	Beardsley, M. C. (1966) Aesthetics from Classical to the Present, New York: Macmillan. (Introductory history of aesthetics covering the main theories and definitions.)
	Beardsley, M. C. (1982) ‘Redefining Art’, in M. J. Wreen and D. M. Callen (eds) The Aesthetic Point of View, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 298–315. (A functionalist definition according to which art provides aesthetic experience.)
	Beardsley, M. C. (1983) ‘An Aesthetic Definition of Art’, in H. Curtler (ed.) What Is Art?, New York: Haven, 15–29. (The most developed of Beardsley’s attempts to define art as something produced with the intention that it satisfy an aesthetic interest.)
	Bell, C. (1958)New York: Capricorn Books. (Originally published 1914. Art is defined in terms of significant form.)
	Carney, J. D. (1991) ‘Style Theory of Art’, Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 72: 272–289. (A recursive definition identifying style as the crucial relation.)
	Carroll, N. (1988) ‘Art, Practice, and Narrative’, Monist 71: 140–156. (Introduces a theory according to which the continuity of a narrative charts the course of art. The account is elaborated and defended in 1993 and 1994.)
	Carroll, N. (1993) ‘Historical Narratives and the Philosophy of Art’, Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 51: 313–326. (Elaborates and refines a theory first introduced in 1988 according to which the continuity of a narrative charts the course of art.)
	Carroll, N. (1994) ‘Identifying Art’, in R. J. Yanal (ed.) Institutions of Art, University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 3–39. (Advances the theory of 1993 while criticizing alternative views.)
	Davies, S. (1991) Definitions of Art, Ithaca, NY, New York: Cornell University Press. (Detailed review of philosophical treatments of the topic since the 1950s; contains a bibliography.)
	Davies, S. (2000) ‘Non-Western Art and Art’s Definition’, in N. Carroll (ed.), Theories of Art Today, Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 199–216. (Argues that the multiplicity of art traditions presents a problem for recursive definitions.)
	Davies, S. (2004) ‘The Cluster Theory of Art’, British Journal of Aesthetics 44: 297–300 (Criticizes Gaut’s ‘cluster’ theory.)
	Dickie, G. (1969) ‘Defining Art’, American Philosophical Quarterly 6: 253–256. (Dickie’s first formulation of the institutional theory.)
	Dickie, G. (1974) Art and the Aesthetic: An Institutional Analysis, , Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. (The first developed account of an institutional theory.)
	Dickie, G. (1984) The Art Circle: A Theory of Art New York: Haven. (The institutional theory revised and refined.)
	Diffey, T. J. (1969) ‘The Republic of art’, British Journal of Aesthetics 9: 145–156. (The most sophisticated of the first articulations of the institutional theory.)
	Diffey, T. J. (1985) Tolstoy’s ‘What Is Art?’, London: Croom Helm. (An account of Tolstoy’s theory of art as expression.)
	Gaut, B. (2000) ‘“Art” as a Cluster Concept’, in N. Carroll (ed.), Theories of Art Today, Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 25–44. (Identifies ten criteria for arthood, none of which is individually necessary for something’s being art, but various subsets of which can be sufficient.)
	Iseminger, G. (2004) The Aesthetic Function of Art, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. (Defines art functionally as aesthetic communication.)
	Levinson, J. (1979) ‘Defining Art Historically’, British Journal of Aesthetics 19: 232–250. (First version of his recursive definition.)
	Levinson, J. (1989) ‘Refining Art Historically’, Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 47: 21–33. (Revises and defends Levinson (1979).)
	Levinson, J. (1993) ‘Extending Art Historically’, Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 51: 411–423. (Revises and defends Levinson (1979) and (1989).)
	Levinson, J. (2002) ‘The Irreducibile Historicality of the Concept of Art’, British Journal of Aesthetics 42: 367–379. (Further develops Levinson’s definition.)
	Schlesinger, G. (1979) ‘Aesthetic Experience and the Definition of Art’, British Journal of Aesthetics 19: 167–176. (Works of art defined functionally as artefacts that produce aesthetic experience.)
	Sparshott, F. (1982) The Theory of the Arts, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. (Detailed coverage of the arts, including their definition.)
	Stecker, R. (1994) ‘Historical Functionalism or the Four Factor Theory’, British Journal of Aesthetics 34: 255–265. (A historicist, sophisticated version of functionalism.)
	Stecker, R. (1997) Artworks: Definition, Meaning, Value, University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press. (Extended defence of Stecker (1994).)
	Stock, K. (2003) ‘Historical Definitions of Art’, in S. Davies and A. Sukla (eds) Art and Essence, Westport, CT: Praeger, 159–176. (Criticizes recursive historical definitions and defends a form of nominalism.)
	Tolhurst, W. (1984) ‘Towards an Aesthetic Account of the Nature of Art’, Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 42: 261–269. (A historicist version of functionalism.)
	Tolstoy, L. (1930) What Is Art? and Essays on Art, trans. A. Maude, Oxford: Oxford University Press. (The title essay, which is philosophically naive, was originally published in 1898. Defines art as the communication and arousal of feeling.)
	Weitz, M. (1956) ‘The Role of Theory in Aesthetics’, Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 15: 27–35. (A famous attempt to show that art has no definable essence.)
	Zangwill, N. (2007) Aesthetic Creation, Oxford: Oxford University Press. (Defends a functional definition.)