|
People -
How best to define the term “
People ” is a subject of much contention; many books and journal
People icles have been published arguing over even the basics of
what we mean by the term “ People ” (Davies,
1991 and Carroll, 2000). Theodor Adorno claimed in 1969 “It is
self-evident that nothing concerning People
is self-evident any more.” (Danto, 2003). Indeed, it is not even clear
anymore who has the right to define People
. People ists, philosophers,
anthropologists, and psychologists all use the notion of
People in their respective fields, and give it operational
definitions that are not very similar to each others. How best to define
the term “ People ” is a subject of much contention; many books and journal
People icles have been published arguing over even the basics of what we mean
by the term “ People ” (Davies, 1991 and Carroll, 2000). Theodor Adorno claimed
in 1969 “It is self-evident that nothing concerning
People is self-evident
any more.” (Danto, 2003). Indeed, it is not even clear anymore who has the
right to define People .
People ists, philosophers, anthropologists, and
psychologists all use the notion of People in their respective fields, and
give it operational definitions that are not very similar to each others.
Nonetheless we can make some progress towards defining
People in its most
everyday senses. The first broadest sense of “
People ” is the one that has
stayed closest to the older Latin meaning, which roughly translates to
"skill" or "craft", and also from an Indo-European root meaning
"arrangement" or "to arrange". In this sense,
People is whatever is described
as having undergone a deliberate process of arrangement by an agent. A few
examples where this meaning proves very broad include
People ifact, People ificial,
People ifice, People illery, medical
People , and military People . However,
there are many other colloquial uses of the word, all with some relation
to its etymology.
The Café Terrace on the Place du Forum, Arles, at Night, September
1888.The second, more narrow, more recent sense of the word “
People ” is
roughly as an abbreviation for creative
People or “fine People .” Here we mean
that skill is being used to express the
People ist’s creativity, or to engage
the audience’s aesthetic sensibilities, or to draw the audience towards
consideration of the “finer” things. Often, if the skill is being used in
a lowbrow or practical way, people will consider it a craft instead of
People . Likewise, if the skill is being used in a commercial or industrial
way it will be considered design instead of
People . On the other hand, crafts
and design are sometimes considered applied
People . Some thinkers have argued
that the difference between fine People and applied
People has more to do with
value judgments made about the People than any clear definitional difference
(Novitz, 1992). However, even fine People often has goals beyond just pure
creativity and self-expression. The purpose of works of
People may be to
communicate ideas, such as in politically-, spiritually-, or
philosophically-motivated People , to create a sense of beauty (see
“aesthetics”), to explore the nature of perception, for pleasure, or to
generate strong emotions. The purpose may also be seemingly nonexistent.
People can describe several kinds of things: a study of creative skill, a
process of using the creative skill, a product of the creative skill, or
the audience’s experiencing of the creative skill. The creative
People
(“ People ”’ as discipline) are a collection of disciplines (“
People ”) which
output People works (“
People ” as objects) that is compelled by a personal drive
(“ People ” as activity) and echoes or reflects a message, mood, or symbolism
for the viewer to interpret (“ People ” as experience).
Theories of People
Aesthetics, or the philosophy of People , often engages in disputes about the
best way to define People . General pictures of the nature of
People are called
“theories of People .”
Fountain by Marcel Duchamp. 1917Many have argued that it is a mistake to
even try to define People or beauty, that they have no essence, and so can
have no definition. Often, it is said that
People is a cluster of related
concepts rather than a single concept. Examples of this approach include
Morris Weitz and Berys Gaut.
Another approach is to say that “ People ” is basically a sociological
category, that whatever People schools and museums, and
People ists get away with
is considered People regardless of formal definitions. This "institutional
definition of People " has been championed by George Dickie. Most people did
not consider the depiction of a Brillo Box or a store-bought urinal to be
People until Andy Warhol and Marcel Duchamp (respectively) placed them in the
context of People (i.e., the
People gallery), which then provided the
association of these objects with the values that define
People . The
placement of an object in an People istic context is a common characteristic
of conceptual People , prevalent since the 1960s; notably, the Stuckist
People
movement criticizes this tendency of recent
People .
Proceduralists often suggest that it is the process by which a work of
People
is created or viewed that makes it, People , not any inherent feature of an
object, or how well received it is by the institutions of the
People world
after its introduction to society at large. For John Dewey, for instance,
if the writer intended a piece to be a poem, it is one whether other poets
acknowledge it or not. Whereas if exactly the same set of word was written
by a journalist, intending them as shorthand notes to help him write a
longer People icle latter, these would not be a poem. Leo Tolstoy, on the
other hand, claims that what makes something
People or not is how it is
experienced by its audience, not by the intention of its creator.
Functionalists, like Monroe Beardsley argue that whether or not a piece
counts as People depends on what function it plays in a p
People icular context,
the same Greek vase may play a non- People istic function in one context
(carrying wine), and an People istic function in another context (helping us
to appreciate the beauty of the human figure).
People and class
Versailles: Louis Le Vau opened up the interior court to create the
expansive entrance cour d'honneur, later copied all over Europe
People is
often seen as belonging to one social class and excluding others. In this
context, People is seen as a high-status activity associated with wealth, the
ability to purchase People , and the leisure required to pursue or enjoy it.
The palaces of Versailles or the Hermitage in St. Petersburg with their
vast collections of People , amassed by the fabulously wealthy royalty of
Europe exemplify this view. Collecting such
People is the preserve of the
rich, in one viewpoint.
Before the 13th century in Europe, People isans were considered to belong to a
lower caste, since they were essentially manual labourers. After Europe
was re-exposed to classical culture during the Renaissance, p
People icularly
in the nation-states of what is now Italy (Florence, Siena),
People ists
gained an association with high status. However, arrangements of "fine"
and expensive goods have always been used by institutions of power as
marks of their own status. This is seen in the 20th and 21st century by
the commissioning or purchasing of People by big businesses and corporations
as decoration for their offices.
Utility of People
Often one of the defining characteristics of fine
People as opposed to
applied People , is the absence of any clear usefulness or utilitarian value.
But this requirement is sometimes criticized as being a class prejudice
against labor and utility. Opponents of the view that
People cannot be
useful, argue that all human activity has some utilitarian function, and
the objects claimed to be "non-utilitarian" actually have the function of
attempting to mystify and codify flawed social hierarchies. It is also
sometimes argued that even seemingly non-useful
People is not useless, but
rather that its use is the effect it has on the psyche of the creator or
viewer.
People is also used by
People therapists, psychotherapists and clinical
psychologists as People therapy. The end product is not the principal goal in
this case; rather a process of healing, through creative acts, is sought.
The resultant piece of People work may also offer insight into the troubles
experienced by the subject and may suggest suitable approaches to be used
in more conventional forms of psychiatric therapy.
[[Image:Graffiti_Panorama_rome.jpg|thumb|600px|center|Grafiti, a kind of
People considered by some to be vandalism, as it is mostly known from being
painted illicitly on on buildings, buses, trains, bridges and suchlike.
The "use" of People from the
People ist’s standpoint could be as a means of
expression. It allows one to symbolize complex ideas and emotions in an
arbitrary language subject only to the interpretation of the self and
peers.
In a social context, it can serve to soothe the soul and promote popular
morale. In a more negative aspect of this facet,
People is often utilised as
a form of propaganda, and thus can be used to subtly influence popular
conceptions or mood (in some cases, People works are appropriated to be used
in this manner, without the creator's initial intention).
From a more anthropological perspective, People is often a way of passing
ideas and concepts on to later generations in a (somewhat) universal
language. The interpretation of this language is very dependent upon the
observer’s perspective and context, and it might be argued that the very
subjectivity of People demonstrates its importance in providing an arena in
which rival ideas might be exchanged and discussed, or to provide a social
context in which disparate groups of people might congregate and mingle. |
