# Why Art Cannot (Technically) Malfunction  ## Metadata - Author: [[Springer Vieweg]] - Full Title: Why Art Cannot (Technically) Malfunction - Category: #articles - Summary: insert summary - My notes: - Document Tags: [[refereeing]] - Summary: Artworks do not malfunction like technical artifacts because they fail to meet key criteria of technical malfunction. Artistic malfunctions often depend on audience perception and cannot be repaired like technical faults. Therefore, artistic and technical functions cannot be fully unified under the same theory. - URL: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11229-025-05086-4?fbclid=IwY2xjawLH66dleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBicmlkETFVSG9oSTlJMURpSFdOeTJEAR5h9_BT1Fm1U4lF5ozCDQrl32N6Zq7n_6pw5esY_M7EoZX7pYJy_oDWFLCCXg_aem_ziH7YG-Uu-rlAYPHv2Sbew ## LLM Chats ## NotebookLM ## LLM Audio ## Highlights > Focusing on this last view, it can be argued that artworks lack the function that artifacts sometimes described as *technical artifacts* instead have. The notion of *artifact function* is typically understood as the capacity of an artifact, “supposed or actual, which has a preferential status in the context of certain actions and beliefs” (Houkes & Vermaas, [2004](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11229-025-05086-4#ref-CR30), p. 67) and that often defines what the thing “is for.” The notion of *technical function*, in turn, may be understood more specifically as a type of artifact function characterized by being fulfilled solely in virtue of an artifact’s physical properties—unlike social functions, for instance (Vermaas et al., [2011](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11229-025-05086-4#ref-CR60))—and by its “utilitarian” dimension (Preston, [2022b](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11229-025-05086-4#ref-CR47)). According to this view, artworks lack this kind of function. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01k67rd7f8x3ty9mdnt6cr1z41)) > too. We argue ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01k67r2msb1c24ht800kh7ewxw)) > a malfunctioning technical artifact remains a member of its artifactual kind; ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01k6dcrqjg3fncg0xvdgdcaasg)) > 1. **Genus function**: the function of artworks *qua* artworks. This is the function associated with the kind *work of art.* > Several candidates for genus function have been proposed, each of which seeks to define art and grasp its essence by describing its function. These include “the function of embodying or sustaining aesthetic properties such as beauty, elegance, delicacy, daintiness and dumpiness” (Zangwill, [2007](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11229-025-05086-4#ref-CR63), p. 99), the function of embodying meaning that is intended to be interpreted (Danto, [2013](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11229-025-05086-4#ref-CR13)), the function of eliciting an experience of a certain kind, such as an aesthetic experience (Dewey, [2005](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11229-025-05086-4#ref-CR17) [1934]; Beardsley, [1983](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11229-025-05086-4#ref-CR6)) or an experience that is cognitively enriched through a design stance (Terrone, [2024](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11229-025-05086-4#ref-CR56)), and the function to represent—the idea that art “is about” or “stands for” something.[Footnote 6](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11229-025-05086-4?fbclid=IwY2xjawLH66dleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBicmlkETFVSG9oSTlJMURpSFdOeTJEAR5h9_BT1Fm1U4lF5ozCDQrl32N6Zq7n_6pw5esY_M7EoZX7pYJy_oDWFLCCXg_aem_ziH7YG-Uu-rlAYPHv2Sbew#Fn6) ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01k67rs506v6zgc48k8pjk2d3b)) > In each of the following sections, we first explain the motivation for having the criterion and clarify its role in the literature before showing that—with the exception of criterion (3), which is not met solely by genus malfunction—the criteria are not met at any level of artistic malfunction, whether genus, species or particular function. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01k6dctvfeb44e652qqc7tbyye)) > Martin Brest’s romantic comedy *Gigli*—whose species function is to move and amuse—fails to do so. As a result, it qualifies as a bad romantic comedy, giving us a reason not to watch it if we want to be moved and amused while watching the depiction of a love story. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01k67ssrd299cpqgfvhsdthnmn)) > However, we maintain that the audience has a reason to watch the film as a romantic drama—albeit a very unusual one. The reason is that the source of appreciation for the film comes from watching it as being intended *within its original category*, precisely because it attempts—and fails—to deliver the emotional resonance and narrative coherence typical of a romantic drama. Thus, spectators have a reason to watch the film as a romantic drama—not in the conventional sense of seeking emotional depth, but to experience how its failure within this category generates bizarre and unexpected aesthetic rewards. Again, this shows how certain cases of outright artistic malfunction that originate in a mismatch do not provide a conclusive reason not to engage with an artwork and do not lead to negative aesthetic appreciation. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01k67t3kq6zvrvnzxpq3r75b09)) > The idea is that when there are “manufacturing defects, poor design, accident, or simply wearing out as a result of normal use” (Preston, [2009](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11229-025-05086-4#ref-CR44), p. 217), we can talk about malfunction. However, when certain failing circumstances make it such that the artifact fails to function, we do not have a case of malfunction because there is nothing wrong with the artifact itself. These circumstances may involve the artifact not being in the appropriate conditions to fulfill its function or the artifact not being utilized by the proper user. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01k6ddj7yrg55z0gq6yanpr1sg))