نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
عنوان مقاله English
نویسنده English
Introduction: This article addresses the persistent, yet under-theorized, tension between handicraft production and the institutional definitions of fine art. While handicraft objects occupy a central space in cultural heritage, they remain marginalized within aesthetic philosophy, often relegated to the realm of mere utility. This study bridges this research gap by critically evaluating whether three seminal aesthetic frameworks-Kantian transcendental idealism, Deweyan pragmatism, and Dickie’s institutional theory-can accommodate the ontological status of handicrafts.
Methods: This study employs a critical philosophical analysis of three major aesthetic frameworks. Each theory is examined on its own terms through close reading of primary and secondary sources. The evaluation criteria focus on whether each framework can logically and consistently classify handicraft objects as potential candidates for fine art status. Special attention is given to each theory’s treatment of utility, practical ends, aesthetic experience, and institutional recognition. Additionally, the study incorporates a case-based analysis using non-Western craft traditions, particularly Iranian handicrafts, to test the cross-cultural applicability of these Western-centric theories.
Findings: The analysis yields three principal findings. First, Kantian aesthetics, by prioritizing disinterestedness and the rejection of practical ends, inherently excludes handicrafts from the category of fine art, rendering them merely dependent appendages to architecture. Second, while Dewey’s notion of ‘aesthetic experience’ appears ostensibly inclusive, a closer critique reveals fundamental ambiguity: his framework ultimately fails to reconcile the practical, goal-oriented nature of craft with the ideal of beauty. Third, Dickie’s institutional theory, despite its apparent flexibility, relies on a sophisticated ‘artworld’ public that poses a structural barrier for non-Western craft traditions, such as those in Iran, which often lack formalized institutional support systems comparable to Western museums and galleries.
Conclusion: The article concludes that the exclusion of handicrafts from the art domain is not an ontological necessity but rather a limitation of the Eurocentric paradigms that dominate art theory. By highlighting these theoretical failures, the study offers a critical implication: the integration of handicrafts into the realm of art requires a fundamental expansion of current aesthetic theories-one that moves beyond the binary of ‘art vs. utility’ toward a more inclusive, practice-based conceptualization of the artwork. Future research should focus on constructing alternative theoretical models grounded in non-Western craft traditions themselves rather than forcing them into existing Eurocentric categories.
کلیدواژهها English
