But is It Art?: An Introduction to Art Theory By Cynthia A. Freeland

From Andy Warhol's Brillo boxes to provocative dung-splattered madonnas, in today's art world many strange, even shocking, things are put on display. Thisoften leads exasperated viewers to exclaim--is this really art?

In this invaluable primer on aesthetics, Freeland explains why innovation and controversy are so highly valued in art, weaving together philosophy and art theory with many engrossing examples. Writing clearly and perceptively, she explores the cultural meanings of art in different contexts, and highlights the continuities of tradition that stretch from modern, often sensational, works back to the ancient halls of the Parthenon, to the medieval cathedral of Chartres, and to African nkisi nkondi fetish statues. She explores the difficulties of interpretation, examines recent scientific research into the ways the brain perceives art, and looks to the still-emerging worlds of art on the web, video art, art museum CD-ROMS, and much more. In addition, Freeland guides us through the various theorists of art, from Aristotle and Kant to Baudrillard. Lastly, throughout this nuanced account of theories, artists, and works, Freeland provides us with a rich understanding of how cultural significance is captured in a physical medium, and why challenging our perceptions is, and always has been, central to the whole endeavor.

It is instructive to recall that Henri Matisse himself was originally derided as a wild beast. To horrified critics, his bold colors and distorted forms were outrageous. A century later, what was once shocking is now considered beautiful. And that, writes Freeland, is art.
But is It Art?: An Introduction to Art Theory

Cynthia A. Freeland È 2 Free read

Μια πολύ καλή εισαγωγή στις διάφορες θεωρίες της τέχνης, με πολύ απλή γλώσσα και χωρίς τη σνομπ κι ακατάληπτη ρητορική άλλων βιβλίων του είδους, ιδανικό είτε για εισαγωγή στο θέμα, είτε για να εμπλουτίσει κάποιος τις γνώσεις του. English فصل دختران چریکش برام جالب لود. English Ært 🤌

Great intro to the topic for me! A bit less content than I would hope, but surveys cultural attitudes towards art, art mediums, presentation mediums, the difficulty of art and class structures and what constitutes “good art,” art’s surrounding structures vs. individual purpose and design very well English This book examines the diversity of art and its relevance in the world. Chapters 2 and 6 were interesting as she examined art broadly and historically and the ways in which it's interpreted by theorists and critics. The rest of the book is mostly filler, but it does provide a comprehensive look at how art is an essential part of the social fabric of society. She expresses how human beings are storytellers and creators while echoing philosopher John Dewey's sentiments that art is the best way to understand culture around the world.

On art interpretation, she touches on expression and cognitive theory. Expression theory is the realm of feelings and emotions. Cognitive theory is the intellectual realm of complex thoughts. Both theories hold that art is a means of communication, and that meaning can be derived from context. She explains that a good interpretation must be grounded in reason and evidence, and should provide a rich, complex, and illuminating way to comprehend a work of art. She goes on to say that an interpretation can even transform an experience of art from repugnance to appreciation and understanding. Art theorists draw on philosophy, anthropology, sociology, psychology, etc so it is a full cognitive enterprise to understand and appreciate art.

Lastly, I just wanted to touch upon controversial art which she examines in Chapter 1 as a test to see if she can scare you off or not. She writes:

“Art includes not just works of formal beauty to be enjoyed by people with ‘taste’, or works with beauty and uplifting moral messages, but also works that are ugly and disturbing, with a shatteringly negative moral content”

People who make disturbing, blasphemous, and controversial art via shock value to grab people’s attention reminds me of stand-up comedians, reality TV stars, politicians, etc who do whatever they need to do in order to be in the front of the conversation. They hide behind the guise of being a free spirited and free thinking artist to justify the most repulsive content.   In my opinion, art like that is trash (with some exceptions). I think a degree of grace and decency is essential in all works of art otherwise the moral values of a society are threatened. I understand that progressive ideas will rattle some people, but there needs to be a sense of dignity in art otherwise the message will never be taken seriously.  Also, you should be able to tackle dark things without getting lost in some form of moral nihilism; there are just way too many cowards and pessimists in the art world. Some of the more repugnant artists contribute nothing of value to humanity and are often times just crying out for help.

All in all, this book is a decent primer, but further reading and exploration is needed. Artistic exploration and creativity is more enjoyable than critical analysis, but it may lead to a greater appreciation of art while deepening a personal philosophy as a creative so it's worth a look.


3/5 English This should be 2.5 stars, but I'm going against the grain and giving the lower score because I was constantly aware of how boring this was throughout the entirety of the book. I liked the commentary on the Guerrilla Girls as it's been years since I heard about the work they are doing as well as the segment about Francis Bacon, but most of the book was, Well, yeah, that's obvious, or, I'm tired of hearing about Kant. Just overall kind of negative experience. Seems like a grad thesis written by a not quite altogether person who is, for the most part, pretty bored by the subject matter themselves. Harsh, maybe, but outside of a spare paragraph here and a good point there, this was mush. Certainly nothing new, that's for sure. English

A most accessible short introduction to not only art theory but also the philosophy of art and aesthetics, Cynthia Freeland’s approach is to provide historical and cultural context for the frequently asked question: “But is it art?” As a way of sharing some of the book’s content, below are several highlights:

In the chapter Blood and Beauty we are introduced to modern artists who use blood, piss and other bodily fluids to produce their artwork. The general public finds such works disgusting, as Andres Serrano’s Piss Christ made with the artist’s own urine and a wooden crucifix.

An expert art critic defends Serrano’s work citing 1) how the artist expertly employed a sophisticated but difficult process of photography (the work’s formal, material properties), 2) the artist is Catholic and part Honduran, part Afro-Cuban, with long traditions of blood and bodily fluids as part of religious rituals (the work’s content), and 3) how Serrano is part of a long Spanish tradition with artists such as Francisco Goya painting violent bloody scenes (this art is part of a tradition).

The author counters how we are now living in a modern secular world and the community of museumgoers is much different than a community of, say, medieval Catholics or the ancient Mayan culture. Personally, I agree – people today visit a museum or gallery to see something really worth seeing, works that are visually striking, imaginative and part of a rich artistic tradition; they don’t go to museums to be disgusted, insulted or degraded. So when people witness cans of shit and the like in an art museum and hear the work justified by such reasons noted above, they say: “Yeah, yeah, yeah . . . but is it art, really?”


People today visit a museum or gallery to see something really worth seeing, works that are visually striking, imaginative and part of a rich artistic tradition.

Arthur Danto is cited as saying how in our modern world a work of art is an object that embodies a meaning. Thus, if in some way the art world sees meaning in an artist’s work, then that work is a work of art. Such a pluralist view helps us understand why artwork featuring piss and excrement or Andy Warhol Brillo Boxes or Damien Hirst’s dead shark are now accepted as art. Meanwhile, the average museumgoer listens to such theories and says: “Yeah, yeah, yeah . . . but is it art, really?


Performance artist Milo Moire walks through a gallery nude holding a baby – her performance is her art. But many people ask: “Yeah, yeah yeah . . . but it is art, really?

In 1974, an American anthropologist encouraged members of a western Mexican tribe to stick with their own traditional symbols and not include such western images as Mickey Mouse and Automobiles. Over the last forty years this has become a real issue – the modern art collector wants “traditional” art from traditional tribespeople but those tribespeople frequently love to incorporate the modern world into their art. One of my favorite examples: a New Guinea shaman was leading a lively tribe ritual encircled by many Westerners with their cameras. The shaman was wearing a black Oakland Raiders T-shirt. Westerners asks if he could take off the T-shirt so they could photo a traditional ritual. The shaman refused as he was very proud of his Raiders T-shirt. Go black and silver!


New Guinea tribesman marching as part of an elaborate ritual. Notice the guy on the right with baseball cap, basketball shorts and white sneakers. Like it or not, we are now in one global world culture. Some might ask: “Yeah, yeah, yeah . . . but is it authentic traditional art, really?”

Although many museums have attempted to reach out to a wider audience, the typical profile of a museumgoer remains a person college educated and among the higher income brackets. Some cities and communities have moved beyond the confines of museums, displaying public art for all to see.


I’m proud to say my own city of Philadelphia is the city of murals, with nearly 4,000 - yes, that’s FOUR THOUSAND - murals throughout the city, created on the walls of commercial buildings or residences throughout the city, including all neighborhoods. A great way to make art a part of everybody’s everyday life.

Cynthia Freeland touches a number of other subjects that have triggered much debate over the last years and are even more pressing in our current world, topics such as gender and art in the digital age. Again, such an accessible and enjoyable book to read for anybody interested in the world of art. English The ritual, cultural, feminist, shock-value and other parts were those that I gained the most from; I was already at least somewhat aware of a great deal else. Nonetheless, this is good though I suppose kind of jumpy introduction to the philosophy of art and aesthetics. English rating: 2.5 stars


The title asks: ”But is it art”

In the 250 odd pages I read - I don’t know. I was looking forward to finding out but I am no wiser for reading this book.

The intro says that the book will explore what is art, what it means and why we value it, and adds how these topics touch on art theory.

I found this book was busier collating other people’s thinking, rarely did Cynthia Freeland add her own point of view, so sometimes a chapter would just leave me baffled or I had no context to arrange the information I was told. Maybe it would have worked better if I wanted a catalogue of theories from various philosophers and psychologists. Overall, reading this book was like talking to someone who starts a conversation, dazzles you with high concepts and then changes the subject where your left lost where the conversation is going.

Several times through the book Cynthia Freeland makes the point that art is subjective, pointing to differences in culture, attitude, periods in history. She does this referencing a variety of art forms, including books and movies. To be honest, from the variety of reading and looking at art, I’d already guessed this.

I don’t feel this book answers its own question, so, a disappointing read, and the images in my kindle book are all in black and white, even in the chapter titled end colour plates where the photo quality is okayish. I also discovered that this book is exactly the same as Art Theory: A Very Short Introduction also by Cynthia Freeland. English I had hoped for a lot more ...

Cynthia Freeland's small book (Oxford, $14.95, 208 tiny pages) posed the question but never delivered any kind of satisfactory answer -- though to be fair, no one has ever really come with a satisfactory practical or philosophical definition of art. For many, of course, modern art (whatever that may be) doesn't really qualify, because a) the belief is that anyone can do it; b) it's ugly; and c) it's meaningless. On the other hand, museums are full of art that many don't think of as qualifying, and the artists that make those pieces can do quite well financially.

But if you were looking for some kind of insights that might shed some light on why those questions go unanswered, this book does not contain them. Maybe someday someone will be able to articulate a definition of art that allows for medieval religious paintings, meticulous and gorgeous Hudson River School landscapes and urinals tilted on their side to all fit, but that time is definitely not now, and that book is definitely not But Is It Art? English A very easy to read overview of a few art theories (bad on Kant; okay on Hume; good on feminism/ritual theory), and Freeland's chosen theory is a solid one as far as it goes. She has Dewey's idea that art is somehow metonymic of a 'culture' and can be understood cognitively as well as emotionally or aesthetically + institutional art theory's point that art is just what a community says art is.

But she never deals with the obvious objection: institutional art theory can only exist in modern and post-modern contexts. This is difficult to express without self-contradiction, I apologize: if art isn't cut off from everyday life (e.g., stained glass windows are set in the context of prayer rather than a museum), it makes no sense to have an institutional art theory. Now consider the social and cultural requirements for a theory of this kind, and ask yourself if this is the kind of art theory you want. Maybe it is, but maybe we want a theory that's more aspirational.

For instance, I'm worried about the effect that institutional art theory has on the future production of art: it seems to damn us to endless cycles of critique and recuperation, of shocks that are shocking for about fifteen seconds before they get commodified by those who have the money to tell the rest of us what art might be (and that includes 'shocks' like performance art that supposedly resists commodification, but in much the same way that tie-died T-shirts resisted commodification, i.e., not much). In this situation, Dewey's art is metonymic of culture bit suggests very little about our culture other than the fact that it's decadent, unimaginative, backward looking and slightly pathetic. And I'm pretty sure there's more going on than that.

Anyway, this is a thought-provoking book that you can read after lunch and before afternoon tea. English