Sensing the Art Object

  • Paul M. W. HackettEmail author
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Philosophy book series (BRIEFSPHILOSOPH)


Having outlined the scope and terms of reference for this book in chapter one, in the second chapter of my essay I briefly review the work of Rosalind Krauss and Paul Crowther. Both of these scholars have addressed a similar series of questions and subject matter in their research, namely, both have written about how we perceive and understand three-dimensional art. In reviewing Crowther and Krauss’ published work I attempt to illustrate the different perspectives each has taken in their research in this area. Krauss has considered the expanded field in which modernist three-dimensional artwork resides and of which it is an intimate part. She offers a Klein Group model to account for the structural composition of the three-dimensional artwork. Crowther on the other hand addresses the ontological nature of abstract three-dimensional art. He proposes eight distinct ontological elements in his theoretical depiction of this content domain. Both of these approaches are extremely germane to my research and I use the characteristics of Crowther and Krauss’ research to set the scene for my own theorizing on this subject in the form of a structural mereological/ontological account, which I propose and discuss in subsequent chapters.


Rosalind Krauss Paul Crowther Klein group Expanded field Mereology Ontology Abstract art Visual perception 


  1. Bachrach JE (1977) Dickie’s institutional definition of art: further criticism. J Aesthetic Educ 11(3):25–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Crowther P (2007) Defining art, creating the canon: artistic value in an era of doubt. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Dickie G (1974) Art and the aesthetic: an institutional analysis. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NYGoogle Scholar
  4. Dickie G (2000) The institutional theory of art. In: Carrol N (ed) Theories of art today. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, pp 93–108Google Scholar
  5. Feldman EB (1994) Practical art criticism. Pearson, Boston, MAGoogle Scholar
  6. Fokt S (2013) Solving Wollheim’s Dilemma: a fix for the institutional definition of art. Metaphilosophy 44(5):640–654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Greimas AJ (1984) Structural semantics: an attempt at a method. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, NEGoogle Scholar
  8. Guttman L (1991) Louis Guttman in memoriam: chapters from an unfinished textbook on facet theory. The Israel Academy of Science and Humanities and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, IsraelGoogle Scholar
  9. Hackett PMW (2016) Psychology and philosophy of abstract art: neuro-aesthetics, perception and comprehension. Palgrave, BasingstokeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Harrison C, Wood P, Gaiger J (eds) (1998) Art in theory: 1815–1900 an anthology of changing ideas. Blackwell Publishing, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  11. Harrison C, Wood P, Gaiger J (eds) (2001) Art in theory 1648–1815: an anthology of changing ideas. Blackwell Publishing, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  12. Harrison C, Wood P (eds) (2002) Art in theory 1900–2000: an anthology of changing ideas. Blackwell Publishing, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  13. Houston K (2012) Introduction to art criticism, an: histories, strategies, voices. Pearson, Boston, MAGoogle Scholar
  14. Krauss, R. (1979) Sculpture in the expanded field. October 8:30–44Google Scholar
  15. Krauss R (1986) The originality of the avant-garde and other modernist myths. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  16. Krauss R (1994) The optical unconscious. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  17. Krauss RE (2010a) Perceptual inventory. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  18. Krauss RE (2010b) Fact chance. In: Krauss RE (ed) Perceptual inventory. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 21–27Google Scholar
  19. Mitchell WJT (1995) Picture theory: essays on verbal and visual representation. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  20. Oppy G (1991) On davies institutional definition of art. South J Philos 29(3):371–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Simon J (1989) Breaking the silence. Art Am 76:143Google Scholar
  22. Stecker R (1986) The end of an institutional definition of art. Br J Aesthetics 26(2):124–132. doi: 10.1093/bjaesthetics/26.2.124 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Wollheim Richard (1987) Painting as art. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of CommunicationEmerson CollegeBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations