Dewey: Is Art, Art Without a Receiver?

One of Dewey's many assertions about art is that there must be a creator and a receiver. This theory, I think, is incredibly accurate. It brings to mind the infamous question, "If a tree falls in a forest and on one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" This age old question has never had a definitive answer but my answer would be no and yes. I think that art has the potential to be art but is not art as of yet. The concept of art and the art world is completely human made. It does not exist in any other way except that humans have put a label on books and poems and paintings and sculptures; that those things are somehow special, purposeful, and necessary to our everyday lives as sophisticated and domesticated animals. So if a human creates a piece of something or smears some paint on a piece of canvas and there is no other human to deem it as art and appreciate it as art, then I do not believe it is truly art. Just as Dewey said, all art needs a creator and a receiver, to have both aesthetic and esthetic value. Humans put labels on everything and try to define everything that we interact with. There are hundreds of words to describe one thing and a million different interpretive definitions for a word, an action, or a thought. No other animal is like us. We feel the need to do this because the unknown scares us. So if there is no one there to extend and precipitate this definition and word that is art, then it is not art. Art is not art without humans because art is a completely made up concept. To every other instinctual animal, it is just a piece of rock carved into a shape or a piece of canvas smeared with colors or a couple hundred pages. But this is simply my opinion, what do you think, does art have a purpose and is it art if there is no receiver, viewer, or reader of the art?