Abstract

It is widely acknowledged that aesthetic judgments of works of art are (often, if not always) category-dependent. In this paper, I argue that the categories in which a work is correctly perceived, judged and appreciated are not necessarily the categories to which it actually belongs. The principle that the adequate appreciation of a work must be made in a category to which it belongs should be rejected because it cannot accommodate the strangeness of some innovative works of art. An innovative work might be correctly judged in an old category to which it does not belong, which supports my conclusion that classification may not really matter in category-dependent aesthetic judgments.