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?