I believe Aquinas was giving a definition of the virtue of art rather than
of the product.
Charles J. Merrill
Departament de Llengues Estrangeres
Mount Saint Mary's College
phone: (301)447-6122; fax: (301)447-5755
[log in to unmask]
On Thu, 1 Jul 1999, Pippin Michelli wrote:
> Thanks to Willis Johnson for his comments -
>
> Aquinas certainly defined beauty and your "recta ratio factabilia" seems
> related to that definition - but beauty and art are not interchangeable
> concepts, and I had not realised that Aquinas addressed the actual
> definition of art. I'd be glad of the reference, if you can lay your hands
> on it.
>
> I know Eco's book. It's very attractive but fails to cite every source that
> interests me. It's tantalising! In any case, he doesn't touch on my early
> medieval definition of art. This one is preserved in a 15th century
> manuscript of an 11th century Irish text. But it clearly pertained long
> before the 11th century because you can trace writers and artists providing
> the exact information this definition demands - from as early as the 7th
> century in Ireland (Cummian's letter on the Easter controversy), and 5th
> century in Italy (Cassiodorus in ref to his texts AND his illustrations).
>
> The definition says (quoting from memory, so the words won't be _exact_)
>
> "Four things are required for a work of art, to whit, a Time, a Place, an
> Author (i.e. primarily the patron, but the maker is sometimes also
> recorded), and a Cause." Then the commentator goes on to explain why, but
> this bit seems to be somewhat garbled.
>
> When you trace it in action, you can see the unwritten assumption that all
> these factors should be as prestigious as possible - i.e. you want your
> patron to be the king, or as high a rank as you can get, and you want the
> Time and Cause to relate to the most important events possible. As an art
> historian, I love it, because it lets me fight back against the
> anti-canonists. I always thought that they were effectively defining my
> specialism out of existence, and now I can prove it: art that does not
> conform to this definition would not have been recognised as art in the
> middle ages. Good, so I can stop trying to study clothes pins, women's art,
> and provincial art and get back to the art of the courts!
>
> Pippin Michelli, Ph.D
> Art Department, St Olaf College
> http://www.stolaf.edu/people/michelli/index4.html
>
>
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|