Art, according to both the Classical and the Romantic points of view, serves an epistemological function. In the Classical view, art reproduces and reveals reality by transcending the particular. For the Romanticist, art reveals reality by transcending appearances. But in either case, the imagination and intuition of the artist enable us to grasp a hidden dimension of the universe.

But recent technological artworks would seem to diverge from these views of art. Walls of strobe lights. glowing plexiglas columns. neon and laser constructions -- such projects are not readily seen as revealing a reality behind the appearances or the One beyond the Many. These artworks are not signs the way conventional works are: they do not stand for, refer to, or represent anything beyond themselves. It would be odd to say that they have a meaning. And so they do not satisfy the standard epistemological function that the traditional theories accord to art.

Consequently, these works have frequently been accused of not being art at all. Snoeyenbos and Acree analyze the argument as a syllogism:

1. The communication of information or meaning is necessary for art.
2. Information is conveyed only by conventional signs.
3. The technological projects in question are not signs.
4. Therefore, they are not art.

Although (1) is arguable. the authors let it pass, and they concede (3). But (2) comes under attack. Citing Anita Silvers. they point out that information can be conveyed in other ways than by symbolism or representation. A patch of color does not symbolize or represent the color, it exemplifies it: it gives us information by acquaintance. Looking at the technological artworks in this light allows us to see them as art. while at the same time elucidating why they do not seem to be so under traditional aesthetic theories. It also. not unimportantly, conforms to what the artists themselves say about the purpose of their work: their emphasis is on the experience itself.

An epistemological role is therefore maintained for such art. But there are ontological implications as well. The authors see their position as compatible with a common sense realism à la James Cornman, which falls between opposing extremes. Classical and Romantic theories of art implicitly posit abstract entities as real while the phenomena we experience are derivative and insignificant. Phenomenological aesthetics. at the other pole. often maintains that works of art are constituted solely by phenomenal properties. The authors reject both of these positions. [incl. summary in Greek]

Contents

Index