be aware of the subject matteras it is experiencedfrom it. This makes it clear that
what is presented in a successful imitation is not justa subject matter“in itself,”
but a subject matter as it matters to and for an experiencing human
intelligence.
The different traditional forms of fine art are then determined by differ-
ences in objects presented and in media. Either what is presented may be a
physical thing or an appearance of a thing, as in painting and sculpture.
Sculpture uses or may use as its means of presentation all three of color, line,
and three-dimensional form. Painting uses or may use only color and line
(with three-dimensional form limited to surface textural effects in presenting
a three-dimensional image on a two-dimensional surface). Or what is pre-
sented may be an action or series of actions, using language, rhythm, and
harmony as means. All three means are used in drama (as Aristotle knew it,
which included song) and in opera. Language only (with at least less emphasis
on rhythm) is used in the novel. Harmony and rhythm alone are used in pure
instrumental music.^6
It is common to object against Aristotle’s account of art objects as imitations
or presentations of a subject matter that many centrally successful works of art
do not present a subject matter at all. Noël Carroll, for example, lists some
abstract paintings, most orchestral music, and some abstract video and per-
formance pieces as things that“stand for nothing, but are presented as occa-
sions forconcentrated perceptual experiences.”^7 Anne Sheppard similarly notes
that“there is nothing in the sensible world which an abstract painting, a lyric
poem, or a piece of music demonstrably represents.”^8 Though a theorist might
then“fall back on the claim”that abstract paintings and works of music
represent emotions or states of mind such as anger or grief, this move stretches
the notions ofrepresentationandimitationbeyond any reasonable limits, Shep-
pard argues, since for some works we can neither see the subject matter
presented in the work (in the way we can see objects in representational
paintings) nor see the work as resembling its subject matter. There is“non-
representational art.”^9(^6) Aristotle,Poetics, pp. 1–2.
(^7) Noël Carroll,Philosophy of Art: A Contemporary Introduction(London: Routledge, 1999), p. 26.
(^8) Anne Sheppard,Aesthetics: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Art(Oxford University Press,
1987), p. 16.
(^9) Ibid., pp. 16–17.
28 An Introduction to the Philosophy of Art