Logan Canada Johnson

What do we mean when we call art timeless? In metaphysics, timelessness can mean either that an object exists at every point in time or that it exists outside of time. So, using this approach as my framing, I suggest two views of ‘timeless art’: fictionalist and hermeneutic. On the fictionalist view, one's claim that an artwork is timeless makes believe as if the artwork exists outside of time in order to track the artwork’s value. On the hermeneutic view, one's claim that an artwork is timeless conveys that the artwork is valuable at every instance of evaluation. Having laid out each theory, I think through timeless art’s distinctive value by talking about its inverse: dated art. What makes dated art dated, I argue, is that our appreciating it depends on knowing the cultural and historical context of its creation. Our appreciation of timeless art, by contrast, doesn’t depend on these epistemic conditions. I also address two worries about my view: i) that it flies in the face of historicism about art and ii) that it resuscitates the high-low distinction in art appreciation.

In this paper we argue that political envy is central to unraveling the racial dynamics in Spike Lee's Do The Right Thing. Building upon Sara Protasi’s taxonomy of envy and, in particular, from her analysis of some DTRT scenes, we conduct a more thorough interrogation of how political emotions, most notably envy, shape race relations in the film. We start by summarizing Protasi’s account of envy and then review two alternative accounts of political emotions. After elucidating what envy is and how it becomes politically valenced, we analyze three key scenes that are the most emblematic of political envy: 1) a discussion between three Black characters on the street corner, 2) an exchange between the film’s main character, Mookie, and his racist co-worker, Pino; and 3) the film’s climactic riot sequence. Our analysis of these three scenes, in addition to complementing previous readings of Do The Right Thing, highlight envy’s potential to either impede or promote political action.

As artforms, film and street art seem incompatible. Contra this incompatibility, I investigate their combination: cinematic street art. Two promising cases are the artworks MUTO and Repopulate, but I argue neither is suitable. MUTO only counts if I accept the transparency thesis, the claim that photographs allow us to literally see their depicta. Repopulate only counts if we reject Noel Carroll’s requirement that a cinematic performance token isn’t itself an artwork. However, these imperfect cases demonstrate what is required in order to have cinematic street art: the artwork is a 1) aconsensual artwork that 2) does not merely use street art as imagery or 3) merely use the street as a performance space. I introduce two hypothetical artworks inspired by this approach and discuss their merits, as well as their pitfalls relevant to my own desiderata. As such, this article serves as the foment for broader discussion within the philosophy of street art.