We have seen that the aesthetic object is the work of art in proper disguise. That is, an object properly perceived. Dufrenne begins his discussion of the aesthetic object and the work of art by picking an example. He has already said that he will just rely on the experts in deciding what is a work of art. There is no point to try to deny that there are any. To me, in starting such a discussion

it would seem reasonable to rely on the experts, but it also seems that we should rely on simplicity.  If I were picking a work of art to start my discussion, I might look at the wall and let my eyes fall on one of the paintings there. Of course, most of the paintings on my walls have not been judged by the experts.  My paintings are mostly by local artists, and those that are not are not known to me to be of any great consequence.  I like them, and I think that if one were to tell me that they are not works of art, I could dispute that reasonably.  But I can’t tell you to think with me about these paintings.  I pick one because it seems a simple sort of aesthetic experience.  Something rather simple to begin a discussion.In any case that is not how Dufrenne begins.  “To elucidate the nature of the work, we presuppose an object whose quality as a work has already been recognized and we justify a choice made before reflection"(4).  And Dufrenne continues:  “At first glance nothing is simpler than to say
what the work of art is.” He means here what this particular work of art is.  We should say “. . . it is this statue, picture or opera"(4). 

Okay, so wait a moment.  This statue, picture or opera?  Well, yes, as I said above, I would say, the work of art that will begin our discussion is this picture on the wall before me.  Dufrenne instead, immediately moves to the most controversial item in the list.  We can of course point to the picture or statue.  Can we also point to the opera?  Not so easily, yet Dufrenne wants to take that opera as his object.  I think he wants to do so precisely because it cannot be considered as just a piece of the world. It does not just hang on the wall or sit on the floor.  Now Dufrenne’s point here seems to be that while we might think that these difficulties in “pointing out” the opera mean that it should not play the role of work of art in the beginning, it is actually just the opposite.  We want to consider Kirsten Flagstad and Isolde, and Wagner, and Tristan, and the stage manager, and the crowd in the auditorium watching—the opera [?].  Well, what else are they watching?

This is just the point.  The reason the opera makes a good first example is because of the complexity, and the fact that we must have a performance in order for this oject to be presented.  It will turn out
that all art must in some sense “perform” for us.  This is easier to see in the case of an actual performing art—opera.  “For the performance, which is the presentation of the work, is at the same time the means by which it becomes and aesthetic object; and the moment it becomes an aesthetic object, the work of art is truly a work of art."(16) The essential point here is that a work of art must be a work and must also work.  It must perform, and to have a true performance, it must be before an audience.  That is what is crucial for the work of art and the aesthetic object.  That is actually easier to see in the case of works of art such as the opera. 

So our assignment is not to look at the art on the wall, but to listen to Wagner’s Tristan und Isolde.  It might be nice to listen, but while listening we must know that we are not receiving the entire work.  The opera requires stage, lights, performers in costume, and a crowd to take it all in.  So maybe better to go to an opera.  When we come back, the work of art and its performance.