Another artworld is possible

There’s no doubt, Leibniz was wrong: this is not the best of all possible worlds. In the past, men found consolation in artworks which, with their beauty, profundity and inventiveness, made it possible to imaginatively escape from, or discover a deeper meaning in, the real world. But in our current troubled times, art no longer comforts us. Damien Hirst’s diamond encrusted skulls and Maurizio Cattelan’s child-like mannequins are supposed to embody the best contemporary artistic reflections on life and death, while Jeffrey Koons’ balloon dogs or Michelangelo Pistoletto’s Third Paradise claim to offer intelligent amusement or prompt spiritual elevation. And the worst thing is that such poor (in terms of the formal imagination employed and, as a consequence, of the meaning conveyed) works are featured in the most important exhibitions, sold at crazy prices, celebrated in critical reviews and philosophical books. What might we do, as aestheticians, to reverse this trend, to make the world we inhabit, if not the best of all possible worlds, at least artistically better than now? I’ll try to show that only an aesthetic definition of art, properly re-shaped in light of recent discussions, can do this job, by offering us criteria of classification that also have normative force