Document Type : Research Paper
Authors
1
PhD Candidate in Philosophy of Arts, Islamic Azad University North Tehran Branch, Tehran, Iran
2
Associate professor, Department of Philosophy, Islamic azad university, north tehran branch
3
faculty member of advanced research institue of art, iranian academy of arts
10.30465/os.2025.50981.2023
Abstract
Introduction
This article investigates Richard Wollheim’s ontological conception of the artwork, focusing on how his view is shaped by the later philosophy of Ludwig Wittgenstein and, in particular, by the notion of ‘form of life’. The central aim is to understand how Wollheim replaces the philosophical quest for an essential definition of art with a model grounded in recognition, possibility, and contextual understanding. Both Wittgenstein and Wollheim critique essentialism: they challenge the assumption that artworks share a single defining property, and instead emphasize heterogeneity, linguistic and cultural practices, and the multiplicity of responses artworks invite. Wollheim’s project is an attempt to expand the horizon of how artworks are understood by resisting the metaphysical desire to capture the essence of art. Thus, the article develops an interpretive pathway from Wittgenstein’s reflections on language, meaning, and the rejection of overarching theories to Wollheim’s reconceptualization of the being of the artwork as something rooted in practices, expectations, and forms of life.
Material and Method
The study employs a ‘descriptive–analytical methodology’, using a close reading of primary and secondary philosophical sources. Its method parallels Wittgenstein’s own anti-theoretical approach: instead of constructing new definitions, it clarifies how concepts function within their linguistic and cultural contexts. The data is gathered through library-based research, beginning with an overview of analytic aesthetics and its historical shift from logical analysis toward more culturally embedded forms of conceptual investigation.
The textual body based on Wollheim’ book ‘Art and its Objects’ and later essays in which he elaborates his views on artistic intention, perception, and the ontology of work of art.
The conceptual method proceeds in three steps:
1. ‘Reconstruction of analytic aesthetics’—examining how twentieth-century philosophers moved from essentialist definitions of art to anti-essentialist or family-resemblance models.
2. ‘Interpretation of Wittgenstein’s impact’ showing how his critique of theory, emphasis on use, and the notion of form of life destabilize classical metaphysical accounts of art.
3. ‘Analytical assessment of Wollheim’s ontology’—exploring how Wollheim transforms Wittgensteinian ideas into a framework where artworks are understood not through definitions but through possibilities, practices, and modes of recognition.
Discussion and Result
Wittgenstein’s later philosophy undermines the hope for a definitive theory of art by rejecting the idea that linguistic or conceptual categories possess a unified essence. His notion of ‘family resemblance’ suggests that what we call “art” consists of overlapping similarities rather than a single core property. More fundamentally, the idea of ‘form of life’ indicates that meaning emerges from human practices rather than from abstract metaphysical structures. These insights form the background for Wollheim’s aesthetic theory.
Wollheim argues that the persistent failure of philosophers to define art reveals not an intellectual shortcoming but a structural impossibility. Instead of asking ‘what art is?’, he suggests that philosophy should investigate how we ‘recognize’ something as art. Recognition, unlike definition, is sensitive to history, practice, and perceptual engagement. For Wollheim, artworks are neither pure physical objects nor purely mental events; they are intentional, historically embedded objects whose mode of existence is realized only through interpretation and perception.
Two major implications emerge from Wollheim’s adaptation of Wittgenstein. First, the artwork cannot be reduced to internal mental states (as in Croce or Collingwood), because artistic intention must be externally instantiated in a medium. Without such externalization, the artwork remains inchoate. Second, the artwork cannot be understood solely from the artist’s standpoint; the viewer’s informed perception is equally constitutive. Wollheim calls this perceptual engagement “seeing-in,” a concept that captures the interplay between the material object and the imaginative capacities of the observer.
Wollheim’s ontology thus becomes a theory of ‘open-ended possibilities’: artworks do not occupy a fixed ontological category but reside within a dynamic field shaped by cultural practices, historical conditions, and perceptual responses. This reflects Wittgenstein’s claim that ‘forms of life’ are not rigid structures but flowing patterns of human activity. As such, artworks belong to no strict essence; they are intelligible only through their participation in forms of life.
A key result of this analysis is that art cannot be governed by a universal rulebook similar to the grammar of language. While languages can exhibit ungrammaticality, art lacks an equivalent notion of “aesthetic incorrectness.” The boundaries of art are historically contingent and continually renegotiated. Thus, Wollheim’s view supports a historically sensitive aesthetic that rejects timeless categorical definitions.
Conclusion
The article concludes that Wollheim, drawing deeply from Wittgenstein’s later philosophy, provides a compelling alternative to essentialist ontology in aesthetics. By foregrounding recognition, practice, and historically shaped perceptual capacities, he reframes the question “What is art?” into an inquiry about how artworks acquire meaning within forms of life. Art, in this perspective, is neither a closed category nor a metaphysical kind; it is an open domain structured by possibilities rather than necessities. Wollheim’s synthesis preserves the philosophical rigor of analytic aesthetics while freeing it from the limitations of theory-building. Ultimately, the ontology of art he proposes clarifies that artworks exist not through fixed definitions but through the infinite possibilities generated by human practices, cultural contexts, and modes of seeing.
Highlights
- اسکوبا، الیان (1401)، زیباشناسی، ترجمه محمدرضا ابوالقاسمی، نشر گیلگمش
- بَرِت، سیریل؛ گری هگبرگ (1399)، بازی با زیبا؛ درسگفتارهای ویتگنشتاین درباره زیباشناسی، گردآوری و ترجمه داوود آجرلو، نشر علم
- دانلان، ک.س. (1374)، «فلسفه تحلیلی و فلسفه زبان»، ترجمه مراد فرهادپور و شاپور اعتماد، نشریه ارغنون، پاییز و زمستان شماره 7 و 8، صفحات 39 تا 68
- دیباج، سید موسی (1377)، «فلسفه، زبان، وجود»، نشریه نامه فلسفه، شاره 3، بهار و تابستان 1377، صفحات 22-5
- دیکی، جورج (1386)، «پیشینه تاریخی فلسفه هنر»، ترجمه ابوالفضل مسلمی، نشریه زیباشناخت، شماره 17 زمستان 86، صفحات 179 تا 206
- کارول، نوئل (1394)، درآمدی معاصر بر فلسفه هنر، ترجمه پریسا صادقیه، نشر پیام امروز
- کیشیک، دیوید (1401)، مفهوم شکل زندگی نزد ویتگنشتاین، ترجمه عادل مشایخی، نشر نگاه
- گایر، پل (1395)، زیباییشناسی در قرن بیستم، ترجمه پدرام حیدری، نشر ققنوس
- گلاک، هانس یوهان (1389)، فرهنگ اصطلاحات ویتگنشتاین، ترجمه همایون کاکاسلطانی، نشر گام نو
- لان، کریس (1395)، ویتگنشتاین و گادامر؛ به سوی فلسفه پساتحلیلی، ترجمه مرتضی عابدینی فرد، نشر کتاب پارسه
- وابرتون، نایجل (1401)، چیستی هنر، ترجمه مهتاب کلانتری، نشر نی
- ویتگنشتاین، لودویگ (1398)، رسالۀ منطقی-فلسفی، ترجمه مالک حسینی، نشر هرمس و کرگدن
- هارتناک، یوستوس (1351)، ویتگنشتاین، ترجمه منوچهر بزرگمهر، نشر خوارزمی
- هنفلینگ، اسوالد (1395)، «دیدگاههای ویتگنشتاین در باب زبان، هنر و انسانیت» در ویتگنشتاین، نظریه و هنر، ترجمه فرزان سجودی، نشر فرهنگستان هنر
- Ahlberg, Lars-olof, (1993), "The Nature and Limits of Analytic Aesthetics", British journal of aesthetics, Vol.33, No.1
- Gier, Nicholas f. (1980), "Wittgenstein and Forms of Life", Philosophy of the Social Sciences, Vol. 10, issue 3, pp. 241-258
- Moyal-Sharrock, Daniele, (2015), "Wittgenstein on Form of Life, Patterns of Life and Ways of Living", Nordic Wittgenstein Review Special Issue 2015
- Shusterman, Richard, (1989), Analytic Aesthetics, BasilBlackwell pub.
- Wollheim, Richard (1980), Art and its Objects, Cambridge university press
- --------------------- (1984), "Art, Interpretation, and the Creative Process", New Literary History, Vol. 15, No. 2, Interrelation of Interpretation and Creation (Winter, 1984), pp. 241-253
Keywords
