Urmson\u27s Art

The most fundamental problem in the philosophy of art is finding an adequate definition for the term ‘art’. One common criterion is that a definition of art should be able to accommodate future, avant-garde works, as well as acknowledge the many accepted works from the past, which in all likelihood these newer additions do not resemble. Some philosophers also believe that a definition of art should align reasonably well with our intuitions about what counts as art. I would agree, except my intuitions about what counts as art are apparently off from what most other people think qualifies as art. At least today, many people take a relatively liberal approach, opening their arms to many instances of all kinds of works. I tend to conceive of art more narrowly. I am much more skeptical of the idea that things like movies, architecture, and music often count as art. I would claim that many instances of these kinds of works, among others, should not and most likely do not qualify as art. I believe that the definition of art described by J.O. Urmson might be used to winnow what I perceive to be today’s overcrowded field of art. Under the definition provided by Urmson, for a work to qualify as art, it must be primarily intended for aesthetic consideration. I argue that many works of film, architecture, and music, among others, are not primarily intended for aesthetic consideration, and thus do not qualify as art