Aaron Meskin

The goal of this short paper is to show that esthetic adjectives—exemplified by “beautiful” and “elegant”—do not pattern stably on a range of linguistic diagnostics that have been used to taxonomize the gradability properties of adjectives. We argue that a plausible explanation for this puzzling data involves distinguishing two properties of gradable adjectives that have been frequently conflated: whether an adjective’s applicability is sensitive to a comparison class, and whether an adjective’s applicability is context-dependent.

Berys Gaut has recently articulated and defended a putatively anti-definitional ‘cluster’ theory of art. In the first part of this paper, I argue that Gaut's version of the cluster account is flawed. The key notion of ‘counting toward the application of a concept’ is formulated in such a way that a range of apparently irrelevant properties will count as criterial for the concept of art. Moreover, there does not appear to be any quick fix to this problem. I then turn to an exploration of the relationship between the cluster theory and the possibility of defining art. Gaut has claimed that the truth of the cluster account would provide an independent basis for rejecting the possibility of an adequate definition of art. I argue that this is not the case. But while the truth of the cluster account is consistent with definition, I also argue that it would not entail the definability of art in any ordinary sense.

This dissertation explores the notion of relevance as it appears in debates within the philosophy of art. ;Chapter one begins by exploring the extent to which notions of relevance inform many of the central debates within the philosophy of art. I distinguish some contexts in which questions about relevance arise and show that there are at least two importantly distinct notions of relevance that get referred to in the literature---a metaphysical notion and an epistemological notion. Chapter two addresses a recent challenge posed by Mary Mothersill to the applicability of the concept of relevance in the aesthetic domain. I argue that Mothersill presents no good reasons to think relevance fails to apply in the artistic domain. Chapter three explores and criticizes the main candidate theories of aesthetic relevance. I argue that causal-psychological theories of aesthetic relevance suffer from two flaws: they fail to capture the normative aspect of relevance; and they unreasonably restrict the effects relevant information must have on audiences. The natural successor to psychological theories of aesthetic relevance---an ideal observer account---does a better job of capturing the normativity of relevance but suffers from the difficulty of determining what counts as an ideal observer in the artistic realm. Chapter four is devoted to exploring and criticizing the widespread view that artistic value is a form of instrumental value determined solely by the valuable experiences works of art can provide. I show that the arguments that purport to establish that the non-experiential effects of art are irrelevant to artistic value and evaluation are fatally flawed. The fifth and final chapter focuses on the connection between artistic value and relevance. I argue that both essentialist and anti-essentialist theories of artistic value fail to deal satisfactorily with the issue of relevance. I then argue for a pragmatic and relativist conception of relevance. This leads to a pragmatic and relativist conception of artistic evaluation.