Abstract

In the present work, I attempt to address the issue of what it means to say that art is a form of communication, that many works of art communicate to us, and that many avant-garde artworks do not communicate to us. These are claim often made by those who are appropriately backgrounded in the arts, and often even by laypersons. ;I focus largely on music and claim that artistic communication is important though not essential to be an artwork, and to be valuable as such. At least four different concepts or senses of artistic communication are identified: artistic communication of messages, artistic communication of information, artistic communication of mental states, and artist-audience communication. A work of art may communicate in one or the other of these senses without necessarily communicating in all of these senses. ;It is also claimed that these different concepts of artistic communication have humanistic, cognitive and other values. At the same time, I reject the view that art should be seen as some sort of language, and that artistic communication should be explicated in terms of art being some sort of language. ;Within the broad framework of artistic communication, I also deal with some central issues in philosophical aesthetics, as well as some issues outside aesthetics, and often offer my own views on these in the light of what others have said. These issues include the role of the artist's intentions in interpreting artworks, artistic expressiveness, the values of art, the allegedly non-communicative and alienating effect of avant-garde art, Tolstoy's theory of artistic communication, and art's contributing to our self-understanding. Other issues discussed include the nature of metaphors and the question of their paraphraseability, and the nature of emotions, moods and feelings