Response to Jacob:

I often feel the need to reiterate the distinction between art and beauty. I feel that we often get caught up in the moment and are too eager to ascribe the status of art to anything we find beautiful. Can not something be beautiful without being art? Or am I not right to make this distinction?

I agree with you in making this distinction for a few reasons. Elizabeth Telfer touches on this subject when talking about works of art in a classifying sense in comparison to an evaluative sense; "One problem is that the phrase 'work of art' can be used in either a classifying or an evaluative way...[a classifying sense] is to say something about how the object is regarded, whereas [an evaluative sense] is to say something about the extent to which it merits the label 'work of art' (pg. 14)." Many people tend to see things that they consider to be beautiful and say "ahh that is a work of art" as a means of trying to convey how aesthetically pleasing it is. My bones tell me that technically there is no such thing as unintended art, such as with art found in nature. I believe that nature is beautiful but realistically nature is created with biological means for practicality and use.
In addition to this, I believe that to insinuate that beauty and art are interchangeable is to say that all art is beautiful, which doesn't sit right with me. Not all art is beautiful, some art is created out of painful, frightening, or depressing emotions that the artist feels and is not meant to look beautiful to the audience. It still holds aesthetic value because this kind of art is entirely capable of "moving" the observer. To use the two terms interchangeably in my opinion does not encompass the meaning or do justice to either term.

Musicians often borrow riffs and melodies from the music of their fellow musicians and change them around to create sounds and music for their own. Musicians often are heavily influenced by the melodies and sounds already created by those before them. At what point does an "inauthentic"performance lose so much authenticity that it actually becomes valued as a separate work of art?

Authenticity vs. Success

Stephen Davies overall argument about the authenticity of musical performances focuses on sound, and following the assumed intentions of the composer. He makes it clear that this is an important aspect when evaluating the authenticity of a performance when saying "...musical authenticity aims at the creation of a particular sound and not at the production of a particular visual, social, or other effect." (pg. 61) In the bigger scope of things, I don't necessarily agree with this point because I don't think you can gauge authenticity based on the sound produced alone.
James Young takes a slightly different standpoint, arguing that authenticity is heavily based off of audience perceptions and reactions to a performance. Young almost states what I would consider to be common sense that an authentic performance can be judged by its success. However he does state that success can be considered more important than authenticity in a performance because authenticity just doesn't seem like a consistent source to evaluate music. I agree that degrees of authenticity doesn't seem like a reliable way of judging music but I am still left with a question;
If the success of a performance is judged by the subjective perceptions of the audience, could I then asses that this means a piece could be classified as 'art' for one person, and not be classified as 'art' for another?

Response to Betsy's Question:

2a.In other words, should a poorly executed painting of a meaningless object be classified under the category of a "major" work of art simply because it is falls under the "major" art forms category, while a sublimely prepared and artistically-presented sumptuous culinary masterpiece is held to evaluations as a "minor" art because "some" have classified it in the "minor" arts category.


I have often asked myself similar questions when browsing contemporary art museums. I feel that in both Telfer and Korsmeyer's explanations there is no clear statement about what makes a "major" art more important and socially acceptable than "minor" art. Telfer uses an example of a pile of metal pipes lying in the corner of a museum, and the observer may wonder if the pile is meant to be an exhibit, or if it was left there for some other reason. My question to this is, if you have to wonder whether or not a pile of pipes in a museum is meant to be an exhibit or not, then does the answer really matter? Is there aesthetic value placed on art congruent to the celebrity status of the artist? I would like to think that a famous Monet is admired widely because of the great artistic abilities that Monet was capable of which produced beautiful work, not siply because it was done by Monet. I have a difficult time grasping Telfer's conclusion because I would think that the art of food, being one that involves a variety of different sensations and combinations in order to experience it as art, could be considered "minor". I would go as far as to call the art of food an applied art, in which it also serves functional purposes as well. However I would not consider it to be unable to provide meaning or importance to those who experience it artistically.

Questions raised:

1. Is there aesthetic value placed on art congruent to the celebrity status of the artist?