University of St Andrews: Journal Hosting Service
Not a member yet
1414 research outputs found
Sort by
\u27When a Song Catches Fire\u27: Individual and Collective Experiences of Singing Religious Choral Music
Get PDF  
"Doubts will become the reason for your failure": The Imagined Futures of Graduating Artists
Get PDF  
Overcoming the Ethical, Methodological and Analytical Challenges of Digital Anthropology
Get PDF  
Mutedness and Marginalisation: An Analysis of the Experiences of LGBTQIA+ Christians
Get PDF  
\u27More Than a Teacher\u27: Experiencing Obligation in an American Title 1 Elementary School
Get PDF  
Is It Reasonable For ‘Art’ To Have No Definition?
Get PDFThe concept ‘art’ has no definition. It is open to interpretation and change; what is constituted as art is based on a range of rational reasons, contextually different between individuals and situations. I will show that Wittgenstein’s theories about aesthetics (different from family resemblances) were on the right path, and that Morris Weitz’s open concept view was flawed, but can be revived by cluster accounts, such as Berys Gaut’s. However, I will also show that Gaut was mistaken to give set criteria that constitute a highly disjunctive concept (definition) of art, but that rational reasons in an epistemic field can provide individual concepts of art, allowing for an explanation to the vagueness in defining art. Thus, I shall begin with the anti-essentialists and move onto cluster accounts, finally finishing with a reason-based cluster account of art