Derek Matravers on the Definition of Art

What is art? This has become as difficult question to answer since Marcel Duchamp put a factory-produced urinal in an open exhibition, signed it 'R. Mutt' and called it 'Fountain'. Derek Matravers, author of Art and Emotion, explores this question in conversation with Nigel Warburton.

Listen to Derek Matravers on the Definition of Art

Comments

[Gordon Bazsali]

Nigel,
You are always right up to speed with the guest's topic, but I noticed you seemed particularly well-versed on the subject of art in your discussion with Mr. Matravers.

Later, I saw you had authored "The Art Question", confirming my suspicions that you had a vested interest. :)

The show is wonderful! Keep it up!
(and I'm definitely buying your book, Nigel)
-Gordon

[TiddK]

It does seem after all, that "art" is whatever an artist (or anyone remotely connected with the 'art world') defines it to be. Certainly, since the invention of the camera, and more recently, the advent of photo-journalism, film-making, and the digital revolution, old definitions seem more and more precarious. And perhaps, in a way, always have been? This argument probably goes back at least as far as Roman society and their wonderful yet prosaically inspired wall frescoes.

I do have one personal bête noir though, and that is the pretentious bleeding of one class category into another. The particular example I'm thinking of is video : I've seen art exhibitions and installations where video has been presented and described as 'fine art'. No it's not! It's film making, a perfectly good & existing category, which is big enough and flexible enough, to accommodate all forms of artistic expression, without its progenitors and protagonists trying to leap across into another class category.