THAT’S NOT ART!

I’ve found a blog about “The Philosophy of Art”. One of the first posts to catch my eye was an essay about “seeing-in.” I wondered, what is “seeing-in”?

Seeing-in stands in contrast with ordinary seeing. Of course, when I look at a painting I do see it in the ordinary sense. I see a canvas covered by paint that has certain properties: a rectangular shape, a colored surface, and a visible design on that surface. If I truly see all of these things then it follows that there exists a painting that has the various properties mentioned so far, just as if I see a brown cow, there is a brown cow that I see.

What botered me about this article is the same thing that bothers me about certain characters. Allow me to explain these certain characters. They approach a particular work of art, namely “a canvas covered by paint that has certain properties: a rectangular shape, a colored surface, and a visible design on that surface.” This work is not a picture of a cow. In fact it is not a picture of anything at all. There is no “seeing-in” to be done here, and therefore these characters are perfectly willing to dismiss a thing, crying: “THAT’S NOT ART!” Is it that these characters are stuck in a mode of “ordinary seeing”? Or is it that they prefer “seeing-in” to all other modes of seeing? I am grateful to the authors of this article, for giving me terms with which to frame my frustration with this approach. I know that the article was more about the ability to see cows in a painting, rahter than being about the people who prefer that ability, but it is an interesting read nonetheless.