No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

This essay explores the basis of the distinction commonly made between works of art or art objects, and 'mere' artefacts, which are useful but not aesthetically interesting or beautiful. It is argued that if the art object is identifiable as such in the light of the fact that it has an interpretation, as Danto claims, then many artefacts could be exhibited as art objects. The essay shows that animal traps could very well be exhibited as art, because they tend to embody complex ideas and intentions to do with the relationship between men and animals, and because they provide a model of the hunter himself and his idea of the world of the prey animal. It is concluded that an aesthetic definition of the art object is consequently unsatisfactory.