000			a
999			_c33407 _d33407
008			241105b xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
020			_a9780571226030
082			_a700.1 _bCAR
100			_aCarey, John
245			_aWhat good are the arts?
260			_bFaber and faber, _c2006 _aLondon :
300			_axiv, 296 p. ; _bill., _c20 cm.
365			_b609.69 _c₹ _d01
504			_aIncludes bibliographical references and index.
520			_aIn What Good are the Arts? John Carey - one of Britain's most respected literary critics - offers a delightfully skeptical look at the nature of art. In particular, he cuts through the cant surrounding the fine arts, debunking claims that the arts make us better people or that judgements about art are anything more than personal opinion. Indeed, Carey argues that there are no absolute values in the arts and that we cannot call other people's aesthetic choices "mistaken" or "incorrect," however much we dislike them. Along the way, Carey reveals the flaws in the aesthetic theories of everyone from Emanuel Kant to Arthur C. Danto, and he skewers the claims of "high-art advocates" such as Jeannette Winterson. But Carey does argue strongly for the value of art as an activity and for the superiority of one art in particular: literature. Literature, he contends, is the only art capable of reasoning, and the only art that can criticize. Language is the medium that we use to convey ideas, and the usual ingredients of other arts objects, noises, light effects - cannot replicate this function. Literature has the ability to inspire the mind and the heart towards practical ends far better than any work of conceptual art.
650			_aArt criticism
650			_aAbstract art
650			_aAesthetic
650			_aArtistic artworks
650			_aConceptual art
650			_aEpigenetic rules
650			_aMass art
650			_aPopular art
650			_aVisual cortex
942			_2ddc _cBK