Advertisement

Conclusions—The Perceptual Structure of Abstract Artwork

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

Abstract

Up until this point in this book I have reviewed previous research and thinking in the area of perception as this relates to how we understand and perceive art. I have singled out the philosophical writing of Paul Crowther as being especially pertinent to my research. I then presented the findings of my own research into the characteristics I used to evaluate and understand twelve pieces of abstract three-dimensional abstract art. In this concluding chapter I summarise the findings from my research, make positive claims regarding theory development and I also offer caveats. I compare and contrast the findings from my research into the perception of two- and three-dimensional art and provide suggestions as to the direction of future research. I conclude that the structural model that I have developed may be thought of as a meta-ontological and meta-mereological account of the experience of abstract three-dimensional art.

Keywords

Abstract art Art Art experience Paul Crowther Ontology Mereology Meta-ontology Meta-mereology Facet theory Mapping sentence 

References

  1. Aristotle, Ackrill JL (1975) Aristotle’s categories and de Interpretatione. Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  2. Benacerraf P (1973) Mathematical truth. J Philos 60(19):661–679CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chisholm R (2010) A realistic theory of categories: an essay on ontology. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  4. Coffey P (2016) Ontology: or the theory of being. Ozymandias Press, MadisonGoogle Scholar
  5. Crowther P (2007) Defining art, creating the canon: artistic value in an era of doubt. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hackett PMW (1995) Conservation and the consumer: understanding environmental concern. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  7. Hackett PMW (2014) Facet theory and the mapping sentence: evolving philosophy, use and application. Palgrave, BasingstokeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hackett PMW (2016a) Facet theory and the mapping sentence as hermeneutically consistent structured meta-ontology and structured meta-mereology. Front Psychol: Philos Theor Psychol 7:471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hackett PMW (2016b) Psychology and philosophy of abstract art: neuro-aesthetics, perception and comprehension. Palgrave, BasingstokeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Harte V (2002) Plato on parts and wholes: the metaphysics of structure. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lowe EG (2007) The four-category ontology: a metaphysical foundation for natural science. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  12. Pelowski M, Markey PS, Lauring JO, Leder H (2016) Visualizing the impact of art: an update and comparison of current psychological models of art experience. Front Human Neurosci 10:160. Published online 26 Apr 2016. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2016.00160
  13. Poli R, Seibt J (2010) Theory and applications of ontology: philosophical perspectives. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Schwarzenbach JB, Hackett PMW (2015) Transatlantic reflections on the practice based PhD in fine art. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Sider T (2005) Four-dimensionalism: an ontology of persistence and time (Mind Association Occasional Series). Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  16. Simons P (1987) Parts. A study in ontology. Clarendon PressGoogle Scholar
  17. Walton KL (1970) Categories of art. Philos Rev 79(3):334–367. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2183933

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of CommunicationEmerson CollegeBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations