Carroll, Noel- Theories of Art Today.pdf

h-  

Theories of Art Today Ee by

NOEL CRRO

Th Univrsit of Wisconsin Prss

The Universi of Wisconsin Press 190 Monroe Street Madison, Wisconsin 5711 www.wisceduJwisconsinpressJ  Henrietta Street London WC2E 8LU Englad Copyrght © 2000 The Board of Regents of the Universit of Wisconsin System All rights reservd 5

4

3



Printed in the United States of Amrica Libry of Cogress Catalogi-in-Publicaion Data Theoies of art today J [edited] b Nol Carroll 276 pp cm Iclues bibliograpcal references ISBN 0-99-1650-4 (cloth: alk paper) ISBN 09916547 pbk alk paper) 1 estetics. . rtPhilosopy  Caroll Nol (Nol E.) BH9T488 000 701' 17  1dc 99-042502 Pubcation of this book ha been made possible in pat by a grant from the noymous Fud of the Universiy of WisconsiMadison.

nn

1  ntroduction No Carro 2 Art a s a Custer Conc e t er Gau 3.

s t easona be to Att emt to D ene Art?

3 25 45

Rober Secer 4.

Aestetic Concets o f Art

65

Jame C nderon 5 e nstit tiona eor of Art  George Dice

93

6 e Deiant ntoogy of Artworks Joe argoi

10

7 Art and Mea ning

130

rur C  Dano 8  A Sstainabe Denition of Art

141

arcia ueder aon  Art Life after Deat? George W S aie

160

10

aring Omissions in raditiona  eories of Art

175

eg Zegn rand



 Conen 1 1.

Non- Western Art and Art's Defnit ion

1

Stephen Davies

12

But hey Dont Hav e O Concet of Art

21

Deni Duon

Bbograhy

241

Jnee Coi

Contrbutor s ndex

263 266

eoies of At Today

 nrdn NOL CAOLL

Accordng to te canonical accout of te istor of te analtc iloso  of at, a great deal of twentietcentur aestetics as been reoccu ed wt denng art n te erler alf of ts centur, rious formalist and exression teories (aka dentions ouised, eras most notabl tose of Cle Bell and    Coll ngwoo d B mdcent r, often der te infuence of Witgenst en , a series of arguments were adanced  b Morrs Weitz and Willm Kennick, among oters tat aemted to demons trate tat a deition of art (in terms of necessar and sucient condtons was imossble As a result oftese neoWtgensteinan consideratons, a de facto moratorium on dentons eld swa for nearl a decade, toug its nfuence as lasted een longer or examle, wen Monroe Beadsle ublsed is landmark treatise eeic in 58, it contained no deni tio of art, leading man to seculate tat mabe e felt no ressure to sul one, gen te rominence of t e neoWittg enstenian dis ensaton  e neoWitgensteinian brieftat at cannot be denedseemed farl conclusie ntiall But as s te wa of all ilosocal argments, it was soon co ntested  Artur Dantos seminal rtcle e Artworld a eared to argue tat tworks ae at least one necessar condition-tat te be enfrancised b art teories en eorge Dickie deeloed te noton of te artworld wit a dierent emass, and tis resulted in te formulaton of arious ersions of s nstitutional teor of art, culmi natng in s teor of te art crcle e teories of Dickie and Danto, and, ened n a related en , te o f card Ma rgol reo te rosects forwork dening a rt, geWolleim neratng aand largeose literatue in tes, seenties and nto te eigties Certanl dung tat eriod, artcles on ts toic were among te most abudant in te literature of te loso of rt Man of tese articles were crtical, enmerating arous alleged faws 3

4

CRRLL

the theo res of D cke  n th e theore s of Dck e d Danto. B ut inasmuch as

ad Dano aeared to ut o res e sronges objecons of e neo igens ein s, Dckie and Dano aed e way for oers o try er d a denng ar Marca Meder aon, Mo oe Beardsey, erry Df fey, aro d Osborne, Jerrod Leinson, Jerey eand, icard drdge, Luc en rukowsk, Susan eagn, James Carney, card Lnd, iam ours, and ober Secker among oers, beg o ed denons of ar, any of wic ae smmarzed and carefuy examined n Seen Davies' admrable book

Denitions ofArt.4

Snce e eary nnee s (and eras earer), neres n e queson a s ar? as sackened som ewa  no onger commands e dom nan os ion a  ed n e reean onas n e seenes oug e eges Oer oics, suc as e iosoy of musc, ae come o ria an d maybe o srass  Bu e en  f e queson of e denon of a s no onger e bgges ge n own, i is s a ery ey one e neens and cricsms of exisng aroaces connue o be roduced a a reguar ace, new eores are beng formuaed een now, and a better sense of wa s noed n e debae is connuay eong oug no iew commands e ed a resen, rogress on e robe m s beng made   s n s conex a e resen ome came o be n ,  ae assebed conrb osions uons by ison e me of e major ayers and by re of e eadng ongong conersaon abou e esenaesorgna of  B in s anoo e auors do no smy reas non de od eores n addon o re emes and adj usmens of receed ews , e eader w aso d ne w ocs address ed - suc] as e reeance of fenis  and rba a to e deton of a o snce Lars AagaardMogensens Cuure and r as an anoog e s one-deoed o eories of a-been bsed s ome, oweer ders from Cuure d r ereas a book eraded e ebr of e issue of deng ar as a ressing oc fo losoi ca reseac, s ome connues a weesabsed dscusson Now, ore  weny years aer, wa was a sake n e debae drama y osed by Cuure and r is becomng graduay more focused e daecca aena as become more comicaed  e grea bene of indsg ore recise dsncions are beng drawn, suber conceons of e rojec of deion e being roosed, and more deaed agu ens are aed e rogress n edence n s ome s ncremena aer an onena Bu  s o be oed a  n s own way, eori o r odywi rode e sod foong for e nex se n e debae

Inroducion

5

SOME D ALEC CAL BAC KS ORY HE N EO W ENSENAN CHALLENGE As alread ndicated, the ssue of the deniton of art takes shae n large measue as a r eaction to that sec es of midcenu  sketc sm that  have called neoWittgenstenism. Art theor of the end of the centu s stll laborng n the shadows of the fies, since had t not been for the neo Wittgensteinans the temtation to dene art mght never have a eared s o invit ng For noth ng taunts a hilosoh er s o well as the claim tha t some thng i s imossi ble t quckens the hlosohical mnd, tunn g dogmat ic slumber nto insomna According to thinkers like Morris Wetz, Willam Kennick, and Paul Zi, art could not be dened. arious considerations were cted on behalf of this view, for exam le the ast falue o f revous theores of art and th e fact that artworks belong to such dverse genres that the eort to nd a comon featue among them seems ether futle or likel to come u with somethng vacuous Howeer, that ast attemt faled does not guarantee a simlar fate for futue ones. Moreover, though the diversi of art ma tax the wt of rosective deners, that in nowise shows that the task is beond human ngenut No one can ronounce the race over before the lastNevertheless, canddate s assessed and foud faul de eer consderatons than th ese were also sugges ted . And, since  thk that these wre most forcefull ariculated b Morris Wetz n hs classc, muchrernted artcle he Role of heor n Aesthetcs, t s to ths essa that  tun n order to adumbrate the ne oWttgensteinian arguments mounted against art theor  On Weitzs vew, art theor n the rst half of the twentieth centu, n cludng hs own, was rmarl concerned to dene art (b wch Wetz meant to rovde necessar condtions that are conjointl sucient for callng somethng an artwork, i.e, to rovide a real deniton of art). When Clive Bell dentied art with signcant form or when Susanne K Langer clamed that an artwork s a form of feelng, the were, according to Wetz, roosing a re al denition of the con diti ons requi red of anh ing that is called artwork n the classcator sense But, Weitz argued, it s mossble to comose successfull a real denton of art Weitz oered, it seems to me, two major arguments in favor of this con cluson the oen concet argument and the faml resemblance argument Regardng the oen concet argument, Weitz wrote "Art itsef is an open concept. New conditions (cases) have constantly arisen and wll ndoubtedly contantly arse; new art forms, new movements wll emerge which wil demand decisions on the part of those interested, usualy professional

6

CRR

critic a to wter te concept old be extended or not etetcan may lay down condton bt never neceary and ucent one for te correct applcation of te concept Wit art it condition of applcation can never be exatively enumerated ince new cae can away be envaged r created by artt, or even natue wic wold cal for a deciion on omeone' part to extend or to cloe te old or invent a new concept Wat I am arging ten, i tat te ery expanive, adventuu caracter f art, it ever-preent cange and novel creation make it logicaly mpoible to enue any et f denng prpertie8

What Wetz aears to be argung here s that art-the ractce of art s awas, at est n rnce, oen to reoutonar chage hs s not to sa that at mu awas be exase Some artstc tradtons w aue stass oer chage-a cassca Chnese anter ma be aued more for hs aroxmaton of a reexstng, tradtona aradgm tha for hs nno atons n fact, nnoaton ma be dscouraged n certan tradtons Art s not requred to be orgna n order to cout as art. Neertheess, the actce of art-or our concet of the ractce- such that t must accom modate the ermanent ossbt of chage, exason, or noet But f ths s so, Wetz argues, then the attemt to arre at a set of necessar condtons that are conj ont sucent for determnng art status s nco m atbe wthossbt a conceton of the ractce of art as that (snce whchcondtons, aords the ermanent of change, exason, or noet resmab, ace mts on the range of nnoaton Settng out Wetzs argment as a reduco ad aburdum we ma nter ret t rough n the foowng wa9 1  Art ca be exanse 2 herefore, art must be oen to the ermanent ossbt of chage, exason, and noet 3  f somethng s art, then t must be oen to the e rmanent os sb t of chage, exanson, ad noet 4 f somethng s oen to the ermanent ossbt of change, exanson, ad noet, then t canot be deed 5 Suose that can be dened 6 herefore, artart s not oen to the ermanent os sbt o f chage,

exanson, and noet 7 herefore, art s not art Moreoer, snce remse 5 aears to be the curt n ectng the contradcton here, et u s nfer that 5) s fase n other words, the suo st on that art can be dened s ncomatbe wth the c oncet of art n addton to the oen concet argment, Wetz has another arrow n hs qu er As Wam Kennck o nts out, we are abe to t e art from non

Inroducon

7

art n te ordnar corse of aars How do we do ts? s tat we ossess a denton a teor of art, f on mct, tat en ables us t o sort te art from te nonart Her e, su osng tat we ae suc  a denton as exlanator auet exans ow we go about cass ng some tngs as art and oers as nonart So one argment n faor of tere beng a deton of art s tat t as exanator ower  One mgt endorse te noton tat art ossesses a deton on te grounds tat t s a otess to te best exlanaton But s t a good exlanaton at a ad/or are tere beter exanatons? or f t s n mlausbe exanaton and/or f tere are better exlaa tons to be ad, ten e case for ostuatng tat tere s a denton of art w be undermned s s were te fa resemblance noton enters te cture Kennck onts out tat not all concets are ruled b rea dentons, as doe s Wetz wt s aus ons to Wgensten s anass of game So, w ten suose tat te use of art s goerned b a denton? And f t s, w s te denton s o ers stent ard to artcuate? Sure,  t cannot be a er reabe otess tat we sort te art from te nonart b means of a denton, f no one can c onncn fo rmuate wat te denton s  Moreoer, f te acaton of art, ke s o man oter concets, ca n be exlaned to te dubous otess of a deton, w not ot forwtout te suresortng eror exlanaton ? But wat s te sueror otess? Ctng te autor of Wgen ste n, Kennck and Wetz tak about fal resembanc es Wen confro nted wt a new case about wc we want to know weter t s art or not, we consder t n lgt of tngs aread adudged to be art and ask weter or ot te new cand date arecab re sembles aradgmatc exa es of wat we are aread connced are arworks s Sadng Gras Swimming o amboda lke e eme and oter aradgmatc arworks and n ow man resects? And, lkewse, does Yonne aners rio  are cab resembe oknes Le Side and oter aradgms  ? f te onts of smar n cases ke tese mount, we are nclned to decde to cate gorze te new orks as arworks s s utate ow man concets fncton s s ow Wetz and Kennck otesze art works More oer, ts aroac segues nce wt te desderatm tat art s an oen concet tat s, oen to te erm anent oss bl  of cange, ex anson, and noet e fam resembance aroac ders sar from te detona aroac or tere are no smartes beween new canddates and te aradgms and descendants of te aradgms tat are necessar and/or sucent for countng a canddate to be an artwork urtermore, te smlartes reeant to cang one canddate an arwork ma be der

8

CRR

ent from te simiarities tat form te basis for caing anoter cadidate a artwork Swmming o Camboia ma be an artwork because, ike e eme it inoes acting and a narratie, wereas we ma decide tat rio  is at because, ike Le Syide it comes intense concentration on moement for its own sake us, in contrast to te rea deition a roac, eitz maintains If e ctuy ook d see ht e cl "t e ll lso d  o como  prop ertesoy strdsessece of stes. Kog t s s ot pprehedg fest or tet bt beg be to ht recogze descrbe nd explsoe those thgs e c " t  vr te of these slrtes1

at is, te deitiona aroac rests on trackg nique common roerties e fami resembance idea deends uon noticing strads discontinuous but inteweaing stradsof resembances e fami re sembace aroac reeas ow it is ossibe for us to sort te art from te nonart witout inoking te uta tie, but aguab  aaiab e, notion of unique  common features n te ast, te oen concet agument and te fami resembance agu ment ae seemed formidabe to ma Howeer, subected to scrutin, te aear ess ersuasie toda tan te did in te fties Moreoer, it is te waning tese arguments in deing artofistorica ossibetat as made te contemorar interest A maor robem wit eitzs oen concet argment aears to be tat trougout is discussion of traditiona teories of art, eitz is tak ing about te attemt to craft necessar ad sucien conditions for wat counts as an arwor but to sow tat tis is imo ssibe, e ten aderts to te rae of art, te er concet of wic e sas must be oen to te ermanent ossibii of exansion us, eitz is arguing tat a cosed concet of arwor is incomatbe wit a oen concet of te raie of art, tat is, wit our ractices of creating artworks oer timefrom gen eration to generation, so to seak But ere te ees of generai of te two concets of art (art as artwork, art as ractice), toug reated, ae ard te same   must an aege d co sed concet of art in te rst (atwork) sense be inc omatibe wit te utatie oen concet of art  te second (ractice) sense? eitz doesnt reall sa exicit Moreoer, is faire to kee tese two concets of at aart suggests tat a equio cation ma be afoot in is argment One wa to inoint te robem ma be to refer back to m artia quasifo rmaization of eitzs oen concet agument e concusion is tat art is not art But art is not being used uioca ere, so tere is no genuine contradic tion at issue  o rea incomatibii  is being demon strated

Inoduon



n remse 3 , wen we sa tat sometng s a on  t s oen to te ermanent ossbt of cange, exanson, and noet, we are takng about the ae oa But n remse 5 wen we suose , n accordace wth the conte of Wetzs artce, tat a ca be dened, we are tang about artworks e, e ssue s weter te concet of wo o a ca be deed) So, f we a ts nsgt to te conc uson of the argent, re mong te am bgu t n Wetzs text and or earer  nterretaton tereof , there s no formal contradcton n 7 or there s no nconsstenc n sa ng tat an artwork s not te ractce of artor tat te concet of art s not te concet of te ractce of art he condtons tat derentate art works from non artworks ma der consstent from te condtons that derentate te ractce of art from oter ractces lke regon) W suose, as Wetz do es, tat tere  s a real tenson ere ? Let us grant tat te ractce of art s oen to the ermanent ossbt of cage, exanson, and nnoaton Wat does that hae to do wt the condtons requ ste fo r te status of artwork ? alk of te ermanent oss blt of ex ason makes sense on wt referene to te ractce of art t makes no sense to sa of cometed artworks tat te need to be oen to the er manent oss b of cange and noaton  f anthng s oen n Wetzs sense, t s te ractce of art n genera, t woud be a categor error to mantan artworks must beartworks) oen to cange saeoen eras secatat casecoeted of enronmentarocess hus, te con n te cet argment fas becaue t equocates on te reeant concets of art n la t fas to d a ogca connecton between detons of art and of te co ncet of te ractce of art hs s a abstract couterargment Some ma reman uersuaded, ated b te resdua suscon that so meow f we la down necessar a sucent condtons for artworks, we ma be stuatg mtatons on the knds of thng s tat ar tsts can do  on the knd s of exerments and nnoatons the ma ntroduce nto te ractce But tere s no reason n rnce to suose ths at orks mgt ossess denng ro ertes does not ogca recude te nenton of new works that nstantate the reeat condtons n nnoate, unexected, and uforeseeable was A deton of scence woud not recude nnoate, unexected, and  foreseeabe researc Moreoer, ts ogca ont s borne out n te theores of art that hae been roosed b Artur Danto ad eorge Dcke or athoug  te roose detons of art, ter detons are comatbe wth art sts resentng a knd of tng as an artwork or them, artworks can be ndscernble from ter reaword couterarts tng coud be tras ged nto a artwork n te roer crcmstances, gen ther theores hs s not to agree that ther teores are true, but on to make te og

10

CRRLL

cal obseration that if anthing-an kind of thing-ca be an artwork and their (Dickies and Dantos theories are real denitions of art, then it is hard to see logicall ho w the mere suggestion of necessar and sucient conditions for the concet of work o ar ca limit the ractice of art or the scoe of artistic actiit ad imagination hus, a real deition of art, ace Weitz, is comatibe with the utatie oenness of the ractice of art to chage, exasion, and noet he examles of the theories of Dickie and Danto hae shown at least tha t Sti, it might be argued that necessar ad sucient conditions must lace certain limits on what ca be a artwork een if no imits are laced on the knd of thing that ca be a artwork Seeral oints need to be made here Necessar and sucient conditions are not incomatible with an imense atitude for exasion ad innoation Moreoer, though the concet of art (in the ractice sense) ma be oen, it is not wide en not eerthing can be art at a time for just an reason Afer al, een if we agree that the ractice of art is oen to change and exasion, the elent changes and exnsions must be eated to what ecedes them, or the woud not be changes ad exansions o e racce at is, the henomena in uestion canot be utter non seuiturs hus, Dickie ad Danto might argue that the on exansions their con  ditions utatiesince innoations of thethat utterannon seuitur ariet But thisblock is notare a robem the roosition kind of thing can be art for the right reason is jus as liberal and as oen as anone should wat it to be. heir conditions (and other ossible conditions) in no wa eaten the creaiit of artists, since he aow ha ariss can rac in an kind of hing, from urinas and botte racks o rams wih ires roud their belies , bo cks of ard, and sectio ns of sharks fl oating in formalde hde Moreoer, aroaching the oen concet argument historica rather han logical, as he receding dialecic suggess, he ar heories of Dickie ad Dao can be consrued as growing ou of a resonse o Weizs argu ment, insofar as their theories are, in eect, eritable couterexamles to Weizs osiion Boh concreel exemif ha here need be no incon sisenc between dening ar and resecing he ermaen ossibilt of arisic exansion and creaiit Furhermore, a he same ime, he inea ments of the theories of Dickie and Danto can aso be seen as diaectical resonses o he famil resemblance argumen n order o areciae his oint, it is instructie to reiew some of the ifas of he fami resem bance aroach According o he famil resembance aroach, he wa n which we go about ide ntifing artworks - he wa ha we sor he ar from he non ar is b ookng for simiarities between works aread regarded as artworks and new candidaes deal, he rocess begins b esablishing a flexibe

nroducon

11

set o aradigmatic artworks-works eerone agrees ae unquestionab artworks On the basis o these, we then decide about the art status o ur ther works At an gien time, then, we will hae in our ossession a et o atworks comosed o aadigms and descendants o aadigms , n the resent moment, we are erlexed about the status o a new work, we are nstructed to look at the bod o works alread adudged to be artworks and to see whethe the new wok in qestion beas aeciable simiai tes with the items in our exst ng set o artworks Perhas the new work is smilar to Yram Sand in ts ossession o an elltcal narrate struc ture, ike Oedu Rex n its caact to aise i and ea, and esembles Beethoens Ninth Smhon in its subimit As these coesondences accmulate, we decide to class the new work as an artwork, thogh no established numeric al critero n determnes how man  corresondences are eqed hee Rathe, we eect on the esemblances and make an all thingsconsdered udgment Bt the roblem with ths method is that the concet o silarit uon whch t elies s too slack Fo it is a tuism o logic that eething e sembles eerthing else n some resect An ale carburetor rom another galax wll resemble Rodins Gae o e at least in resect o being a mateia obect, as wel as obabl in a numbe o othe was hs, o anconsider candidatethework, it wl esemble the aradigms in some and,o i we descendants o the aradigms i addton, thewas, nmber smilaties between anng and the items alead conted as art wll be comounded hat is, aling the ail esemblance method toda, we will be able to declare that eerthing s art b tomorrow, i not sooner his is a r too nclusie  t is moe inclusie than the theoes o Dickie and Danto, snce, wheeas the contenance the ossbilit that an knd o thng might be art under certain conditions, on the amil resemblance aroach we can arre at the concusion that eething is at now O, to ut the mate dieentl, sng the amil resemblance model we will hae to concede that eer thing is art, snce eerthng s lke eerthing else n some resect hus, the amil esemblance model is not a iable cometito o exlaining how we sot at om nonat becase si ng the am esemblance method, there wold be no sortng at all Bt sne Wetz and Kennck sose that we can sot at om eethng else, the aml esemblance exlanaton must be awed on its own terms O course, ths argment ma disose riends o the aml resemblance aoach to object that not jst an esemblances count when we ae de cidng what to cont as at On resemblances in etinent esects shold cont Bt what resects are ertinent resectsertinent resects and which ae not? ere the ntus ion o condti ontalk seems unaoidable



RR  

In order to halt the here comes everthing eect the proponent of the fail resemblce approach wil have to introdce the notions of either necessar siilaritie s conditions)-or of a disunctive set of neces s siilarities or of sucient conditions or set s tereof But that is st to becoe engaged again in the proect of deing art te proect that neoittgensteinians clai is impossible hus the n eoitgenst ein ians appe caght on te horns of a dilemma If the pers ist in a uadorned version of the fail resemblance model the explanator value of their approach looks worthless wile if the start adding constraints to te approach the will nd themselves back  the dening bsiness again  de signing conditions a d thereb undercting teir central claim that art cnot be dened  related wa of seeing the late r problem is to recall a faos arg ent of aurice Madelbaum's Madelbaum charged tat people like eit iicitl appropriated the notion of fail resemblance for their cp eal famiresemblances- sa the si milarit between o hair and our fater' or or nose and our mother's ae not mere resemblances mere correlations of featres Eve n if m ees are exac tl the sae color as regory eck's te do not be ar a fail resembla ce to Gregor ecks  for te obvos reason that no tter how great the similarit be tween m eessae and eck's  we are members familnot member s of gene pool ornot resemb lancesoftothe be same genuine fami resemblances te there mst be some uderling mec anismsuch as genetic inheritance f a silariy is to cout as a famil resemblance it must have been gen eted in the appropriate manner f Bill Clinton rsembles a big tedd be in certain respe cts that is not a fail resemb lance  since presuab l linton nd the tedd bear dont elong to te same gene pool hough tey ay look alike the resemblan ce is not a case of famil res emblace n other words fail reseblances properl socaled are governed by conditions It is a necessar condition of athentic famil r esemblces tat tey reqire a genetic foudation hus the proponents of the so caled faily resemblance approach reached for the la bel too quick or their procde trades in mere resemblaces not famil resemblances f teyhd rea oped to exploit te analog with famil res emblances the would ave ad to acknowledge the need for certain necessar parame tecein necessar conditionsfor the application of te concept of at But tis would have be en antithetical to their aim s sin ce it wold have put te b teir own lights back in the deition game  It is of cou se the lack of te kind of condi tions that the analog  to fai reseblace reqir es a t brings abot t e here comes everthin g eect outlined above he wa to avert that eect wold ave been to take

ntroucton

13

the amy resemblance analog seri ousl But that o f cuse would incu a reversion to the proect of dening art Mandelbaum' s cr iticisms of the famil resemblanc e model not onl dis closed a disturbng oversight in the rhetoric of Weitz and Kennck It also suggested a wa  in wh ich intending art theorists migh t negotiate the gauntlet tow down b the neoWittgensteini ans Echo ng Wittgenstei n Weitz and Kennick maintained that i n order to identif an item as an art work one ust needed to look and see-ook and see whether a candidate resembles the paradigms or descendants therefrom in terms of their mani fest features ut Mandelbaum's discussion of genuine famil r esemblances alerted philosohers to the possibiit that the relevant common featues for dening art might not be manifest at all but rather underling non manifest prope rties in the wa that it is genetic i nheritance that mak es for rea faml sim lartes and not ust glanc ng ones ). hat is ust as genesis plas the crucia roe in deing fami member shp perhaps gene sis is also the  e to dening a rt Dickie and Dant o can be seen to be eploiting ths possibii n derent was Danto in man writings argues that art status depends on the genesis of arworks in art theories and art narratives while the genetic mechanism that accots for art status on Dickies vew is the institution of art later recstened the artDickie circe has been quite eplicit abou his indebedness o Mandelbaum He observes ha Mandelbaum suggesed ha on Weizs view of pas ar heoriss, phosophers considered onl manfes properes of an em such as epressve properiesha were percepibe n he iem in iso laion from is hisorical, social, or culual cones as relevan o he proec of denng ar. hese manifes properes are ofen described  h ieraure mise adi ng as nonreaion a, hough i woud be mor e accu rae o call hem deconeualized  And even he famil resemblance approach atends o onl he manfes deconeualized properies of is ob ecs of c omparison  u perhaps hs aeged oversigh in boh he radiona approach o deniion and he famil resemblance approach is ha he look in he wrong place. Insead of searching for he comon ead or ead be ween arworks aong he dmension of he manifes, deconeuazed relaional ) properies of e works in quesion, mabe he soluion o he probem of idenifg ar, Dic kie s uggess, ress n eploring he nonmani fes, conenformed  reaiona ) properes o f he reevan w orks his is he mora h a Dickie derived from Mandelbaum An arifac is a work of ar for Dickie, us in case i possesses a cerain nonmanifes proper t ha i emerge from he s ocial cone of an arworld in he rgh wa

14

CRR

he rudimens of Dano's po sii on were formulaed b efoe the publi ca tion of Mandelbam's argment However  D anto' s sentients cle arl run parallel to Mandelbau's If nothing else  Danto's slogan that art is not soething that the ee can descr is a pith wa of encapsulating the idea that identifying arthood i s not an aa ir o maniest dec ontextualized prop  erties-not a aer to be determined b eeballing an item in isolation ro its srcins i n isolation r om an artworld)  oreover Danto's use o the me thod o indiscern ibles -his presenta tion o pairs o ob ects lie Warhol s Bro Box versus rocter and Gambles  concretizes Mandelbaumpe worries about the overreliance on maniest properties in the neWigensteinian agenda or i we loo at the perti nent pair o indiscernibles, i nsoar as the are i ndiscernibl es we will nd nothing to loo at and s ee that will account or the d ierence between War hol's boxes which a re artwors) and rocter and Gamb le's whi ch are not art objects) Or, to put the point the other wa around, i we emplo the al reseblance method, we will have no wa o dierentiating ordi nar Brillo boxes rom Warhol's he indiscernibili problem in other words shows that the amil resemblance model is completel inoperable and or the very reason Mandelbaum articulated-because o its depen dence on anies t decontext ualized properti es o he wor s in ques ion  Lielato icie antoWeitz realized thatsuggested this shortcoming in thelineapproaches ro tough at least a productive o rethin ing the issue o dening ar Whereas Dicie aepted to wor ou this possibilit in a way that ight be called sociological-lining the social cotext requisite or creating art-Danto has ephsized the iportance o art hstory and art theory or i denifying art   Dantos artworld is a world o ideas  Dicie' s is a world o people  o artists and their publ ics hether the ounding insights o Danto and Dicie are ultiately ir reconclable-wheher or no heir disagreeents are nally over aers o deilit is I think nevertheless true that the ove they both ade away ro epasis on the aniest decontextualized properties o art and toward the iportance o nonani est contextdependen t ( histori co socia eat ures set the stage or subseq uen developents i n ar therizing he parade o approaches to ar t theory that we h ave seen since Danto and ickie initiated heir response o he neoWiensteinians-hich ap proaches nclude culural historical intentionalist and neoinstitutional theories (and cobnat ons thereo -have pro ceeded tough the breach in the neoWitgensteinian arguent spearheaded by Dicie and Danto Even various recent aesthetic theories o art which ight appear to in volve noting but a re rn to the ind o theory t hat exe rcs ed Wetz  have proted ro the exaple o Dcie and Danto or not only dd these wo eolden aesthetc theorsts to reon the proect o denition they lent

nroucon



aesthetic theorists the clue that nonaniest propertis-such as artistic ntentions  ight be the secret to solving the proble. Most o the posit ions deended in this anthology are not aes thetic theo ries Many show the inuence o the ore contextualized approaches o Dick ie and Danto  and Margolis and W ollhei . hese theories are direc benec iaries o  he reacions I have skeched o neoWtgens ein is . I is a coonplace o philosophy ha you don really undersand a posiion including your own unl you have a sense o ha o which i is a re spons e or a reacion  o ollow wha is going o n in a philos ophy, you need soe grasp o is rivals In a proound sense he deepes rival o mos o he views in hs volue is neoWittgenseinis Had here been no neo Wittgen seini an in erlude , i s doubul ha os o he chapers o ollo w would have whaever urgency hey possess O course, he sory o rivals did no end wih he conronaion wh neoWittgenseinis, since even philosophers unied in heir skepicis abou he open concep argumen and he aily reseblance approach reain divided aong heselves abou how o advance in he wake o neoWigenseinis Alernaive deniions abound, as do new alerna ives o he deniional approach And wih hese new alernaives coe new rivalries and new debaes, whose crossre is oo inricae o narrae in a brie  inroducion hisis one Moreover, luckily,like here scan reason or such a nar raive, s ince os o he coribuors o this voue ake unisakably clear wha heir agons are and why. I have spen so uch ie e laboraing he neoW ttgen sein ian episode and is iediae vicissiudes siply because i provides he per vasive challenge which aniaes coneporaries o arrive a an accoun o ho we go abou i deniy ing ar Conep orary aeps in his ater wheher hey be deniional or no-us heed he lessons o be learn r he philosophers who advanced neoWittgenseinis and hose who resis ed i WHA I I HI OOK Each chaper in his book is an srcinal attep o deal wih issues ha arise ro he proble o dening ar here is no coon viewpoin shared by all he conribuors Soe o he auhors are explicily a odds wih ohers However,  s air o sugges ha hey all share a coon probleaic and a coon conversaion. Like any conversaions, how ever his one i s arked by der en perspecves and by dissenson . In  Ar as a Cluser Concep, erys Gau reurns o he philosophy o Wittgensen in order o explore cerain negleced resources or char acerizing ar He poins ou ha n ephaszing he noion o aly

1

CRR

reseblance, n eoWttgens tens , lk e Wetz, gnored aother alternatve for dentfng artworks that was avalab le n Wttgen ste n's phlo sophy of languagenaely, the noton of a cluster concept hus, though refuta tons of the faly reseblance odel defeat one knd of Wttgenstena approach to the concept of art, they do not foreclose the possblty of a Wttgenstenan odel of the concept altogether, snce art ay turn out to be a cluster concept On Gaut's vew, a cluster concept coprses a lst of crtera such that f a canddat e ee ts all the crt er a, then that s suce nt for dentng t as an artwork, though so ethng ay al so b e couted as an artwork  f t eets cer subsets o f e relevant crter a At the sae te, c luster con  cepts ay nv olve no ndvdually neces sary condtons, tho ugh the concept possesses dsuctvely necessary condtons, nsofar as soe of the crte ra ust apply f a cddat e falls under the pertnent concept or Gaut, a cluster account s true of a concept ust n case there are propertes whose nsntaton by an obect counts as a aer of conceptual neces s toward ts fallng uder the concept But Gaut stresses that a cluster concept acc ount s not a deton  the sense of seng for th a se t of nec essa condtons that are conontly sucent, because a genune cluster concept need not coprse a set of necess ary requ reents al l of whch are con unctvely Soe of thes ucent crtera that Gaut suggests ght be relevant to art status nclude the work's possesson of postve aesthetc propertes; ts beng expressve of e oton; ts b eng  ntellectually challengng; ts foral co plext t s capact to convey co plex eanngs;  ts exhb ton of a po nt of vew; ts b eng an exercse o f the creatve agnaton; ts b eng a prod uct of a hgh degree of sk ll; ts ebe rshp  n  es tabl shed arsc ge re; ts beng the produ ct of an ntenton to ake a work of art  Gaut adts that ths ls t ay be open to crtcs, but he ephaszes that hs pra r pupose s no t to establsh a specc lst of crt era , but to def end the clus ter concept approach to characterzng art, whch he regards as a vabe alternatve to appraches that advocat e denng art In hs Is It Reasonable to Attept to Dee Art Robert Stecker ad dresses a quest on that cuts to the heart of ths antholo , snce for an years -at least snce the 195s has often been argued that t s pos sble to dene art Yet, as Stecker ponts out, the proect of deng art has b een pusued wth renewed ener for the last three decade s Moreover, Stecker contends that there s an eergng consensus about the eleents that need to be ncluded n any adequate deton of art hese volve reference to the hstory d functon of art, to arts tc ntent on, and to the nsttutonal context of the artworld utherore, Stecker an tans that

nrouton

17

these ingredients ill have to be incorporated in denitions o art that are structued di sunctively hus Stecker believes that though no one has so ar developed a ully satsactory denton o art e do have a go od se nse o the shape and con  tent that ay such theory is lkely to take Co nsequently Stec ker clams, i t is reasonable t o attempt to dene art. Against recent skep tics , Stecker argues, on the one had that their anx etes are e asily di sposed o, or on the other hand, that several o  them, such as Davd ovitz requently presuppose implicitly the sort o art theory already pregued by hat Stecker regards to be the emerging consensus Stecker, or example mantans that Gaus cluser concept approach con  verges on this consensus, even though Gaut denies that he is dening art According to Stecker, the most robu st skeptic ism availab le noadays th resp ect to dening art iron cally conrms the pros pects or dev sng a de nition o art, since it converges on the emerging consensus evertheless even though Stecker s umoved by conteporary reservations about de nng art, he does concede provoca tivey, that there may be more than one adequate deniti on o art In constructing his noton o a emerging consensus, one tpe o art theory that Stecker does not incude is the aesthetic theory o art Ho ever,ntths sort oattheory doeart s recu the literatuorestorical hough most rece attempts dening h avereguarly avored in n stitutional solu  tions  Jaes C Anderson r opounds a sophistcate d approach t o dening art aestheticay in his Aesthetic Concepts of Art. or Anderson, the key to the aesthetic dention o art is the notion o aesthetic app reciati on, h ch he mantans occs hen someone regards s r he r experience of an obec t or a perf ormace as pos sessing i ntrins ic va ue. Unlike ormalst versions o the aesthetic ap proach, the requirement that the relevant experience h ere be regarded as poss essing intrinsic value paces no imitation on the content of such experiences and therefore represe ts an adva ce over no tons s uch as Be s ide a of aesthetic emoton. Andeson argues or wo concepts o art a descriptve concept and an evauative concept, both of hch are aesthetic in natue snce they rey upon the notion of aesthetic appreciation According to the descriptive concepton an arti act is art i it is created ith the intention o be ng an obe ct of aesthet ic apprec iation  hi e according t o the evauative concep  tion a artifact is art if it functions to provide f or aesthetic appreciaton Using to concepts-or to aesthetic denitions o art-Anderson be eves that he can avert man y of the probems that have bes et past aesthetic theories of art In this voume, a number of the pioneering gues in the deate about

18

CRR

art -including George Dick ie, Joseph Ma golis , rhu Danto , and Marcia uelder tonreist their ealier theories in order to clarif points of interreaio, conont recent criticiss, and ree their positions  reconted ealier, the neo Wigensteinian agents of philoso phers like ei d Kennick iscoaged atepts to forulate deitions of art Perhas the leadng oce reacting to the arguents of the neo itgesans was George Dickie ong other things, D ckie showed that one could fre a detion of art in ters of necessar and su ciet coditions in a wa that entailed none of the liabiltes that Weitz predicted I hs contributio n to ths ol e, he Insti tuto nal heo  of rt, cie reews the dierent stages of his theozing about art, e plnig the dustents that he has ade alo ng the wa, seting ot his otitos for alternatie constructons of his theor, and clang at length e ous copoe t denitions that cop ose  s heor o f the at circle ices present consid ered iew of th e structe of the awo rld. In hs capte, ickie also inends to correct wha he argues ae long stndng ister pretons of his eor After confronting persi stng criti ciss of his nstitutional theor of art, Dickie then goes on to challenge recentl eeloped criticiss, and he concludes wth the suggeston of a  taono for theories of at in ters of those wich regad art aking as a natralkd ersus a culralkind actiity If, as ckeacti propoes, theoretical approaches to art can be classed s natralist  opposed to culuals, then Joseph Magols progra epresets  etree for of cutuals In his chapter, he Deiant ntolog of tworks, argols defends a ew for which he has beco e well ko nael, that atworks ae cultrall eergent entties that ae detied nd indiiduated in the couse of he hstorized drift of ou ongoing terpretie actites. entrl to argolis ew s that t s a istake o aept to teat aworks reductiel on the odel of phscal obects Instead, arworks e enculurted obects; their propertes and their dentity are iparted to the tough o consensual lnguistic practices We understand or should udersandthe natre of artoks relate to o practices, notabl or terpete practices hese practices ae not algorthc, but arked b at rgolis calls cosensual tolerace. hus, he sises, if we odel o conce ption of t in a wa that is sensite to or suitable to o i terpretie practices, then the ontolog of art, like o interpretie practic, ll co it us to a species o f relatis , whi h he calls robust elatis It s here that agolss co nclusions are o st radical, d pe rhaps ost distincte o though the aori  of authors in this o le t hnk of art as fundaet socil and, with suitable adustents, are willing to accept

nro{ucon

1

so e o o the doctne that at woks ae cutu ally eo ded entties  ew i any ae willing to e ace Magolis's v iew that the natu e o at the social natue o at  entals elatvis o even oust elatvis Along with the wok o Geoge Dcie and Joseph Magolis Athu Dantos contutons have een seinal to the evoluton o at theoy n the second hal o the twenteth centuy. s ntoduction o the indis ceniilit pole discussed eale pesented a deci sve challenge to the al eselance appoach to identiing at At the sae tie Danto has deployed the indsceniility ethod to geneate a theoy o at co pising two necessay conditions Danto agues that x is an atwok only i 1 ) x is aout soethng and (2 x eod es its ea ning (i e , what it s aout)  Eodi ent i n this context e ans that the wok in question pesents whateve it is aout in a o appopate to ts eaning (what eve t is aout) In his capte At and Meaning Danto teates this theoy o at and deends his view against ecent oec tions he st oecton is that aoutness is not a necessa conditon o at since tee ae supposedly ovious exapls o atwoks tat ae not aout anything, such as nonoective panting Danto howeve, esponds that when one attends to actua l cases o socall ed nonojectve pantngs one cannot d genuine exaples o pantings that ae aout nothing I n deed, Danto issue s a Danto challenge w oulde xaples eal hstoca exape etstothat he cancountee always show that itois any aout soething he second ojecton that Danto cononts involves the chage that hs two nec essay conditons ail to do what Danto has always aintained s the uden o a philosophy o at to dstnguish etween atwoks and eal things he pole hee s that Dantos theoy allegedly ails to ds tingsh etween two o his avote exaples-Wahol's Blo Box and eal illo oxes oth will tun o ut to e at acc odng to Dant o's theoy snce oth ae aout soething ( alet d eent soethngs) and oth e ody thei eanins appopiately In esponse Danto cocedes this pai o exapes a not h ave een as paadigatic as he had hoped ecause o the pole o coecial at vesus e at, and he suggests that the way n which to get at the elevant dstncton etween deent sots o o oxes hee ight e to look closely at the type o citcis sui tale espectively to Wahols oxes and octe and Gales Like Ath Danto and Geoge Dckie Macia Muelde Eaton in he chapte n this voue A Susinale Deition o  At'  is i nvolved in deending the coe insights o a detion o at that she advanced soe tie ago. In 83 in he ook r n Nonr cons on n rng r n  oos l Macia Muede Eaton agued that soething i s an atwo  and ony i it is an atia ct n it is discussed in such a way that

0 CRR

LL

nfortion concerning the histor of its production directs the iewers ention to propertes tht are worth of attention Though reaing coed to the outline of this proposal in retrospect Eaton now wts o eend or adjust her heor in seeral iportat was rst, she wants to correct what she takes to be her Euocentric bias in egdng it to be n essential featue of rtworks that the be objects of dscusson In othe cultues rtworks a not be discussed at all  Thus , ton suggests tht we drop the terinolog  of discussion and sa stead tt soething is n rork if d onl if it is a rtifact that is rat (e th discussed) in such a wa that soeone uent in the cultue is thereb led to diect ention to properties of the rtifact worth of ention. oeer this foultion itself reans soewat ague about the popetes towrd hich the relet sot of serious treatent diects at tention. ese e, of couse, aesthetc properties but what eactl re those? Eton proposes tht soething is  aesthetic propert of an ob  ect if d nl if it is n ntrinsic featue of the bject d it is cultuall identied as a popert orth of attentio n (perception and/or reect ion ) hs ields tons reised denition of rt which aintains that s a relevantways or of art ftat ad s oly artfact ad (1)  sasuc a way tat2someoe wos aestet ue  cally  sftreated  s teated a culre s led to drectateo to rsc properes of  cosdered wory of ateo perceto ad/or relecto wt tat cule ad (3) we omeoe as a aehetic eperiece of  e or she realzes that he cause of he eperece s a itrisic property of  cosdered worthy of atte th the culte

tons deniton s socal, since on her iew art d oes not eist outside couities coues that deterine wht kinds of featues of rt orks re worth of ention . These counities re ade up of rtists nd udences, of cetos d eperiencers who ac, react d teract  ech othe n cople d utuall infong was Ths s a co uit ith roles nd esponsibilities where rtwor ks call for interpre ttions and interpretions enrch rtwoks Moreoer since the artwork sits ithn  freok of socal oles d responsiblities deterinng hee or not soething is rt is not idle snce so noinating a cdid ate intes certain kinds o f pproprate respons es fro us - sch a s prepared ness to eplore  o k nterpetiel for ts pos sible p ont or eng Lke Mrcia uelder ton George Baile a so talks abot respons lties to artorks is chapter rt Lfe afer Death?  falls sqar e n he tdition o f socil conceptons of rt On hs ie w  rtwok is the fus of cetan righ nd esponsiblities that eole within the contet of socil practces or eaple the work of an tist bers cetain rights

nroucton



such as the cla to be taken s erousl, whch, for Bale, noles  n large part beng uderstood hstorcall Bae anans that a prar func ton of a artwork s to engender consent (to its art status-to ts ca to be taken serousl) for the rght reasons (where the releat rght reasons wil be deterined b historical narraties-be the hstoricall accate ones or ere irtua) The test of the abliy of these narraties, ad of the reaso ns the adace, s utatel whethe r the enab e ar t to sue. For the fucton of art, gien Baes accout, sees to be to ende, ad the narrtes that abet this are sa d to track the right reaso ns for acknowl edgng arts clai on ewers, l steners, ad rea ers Though a recent theores of art, ke Bales, ephasze the ipor tance of histor and socia contet, Peg Zegln Brand argues in her contro ersial chapter, Garing issions in Tradtional Theories of At, that the reace of such theo ries on past artstic p ractces a n fact perpetuate tradton a pre udice s agan st the art of woen ad person s of coor Were theores of art depend on hstorica precedents for ther paradigs of pro ducto ad rece pto, the ae apt, Brad coec tues , to be restrcted to a ae, in deed a whte ae, perspe ctie n such a wa that atention to what s aued b other perspectes wl rean gnored ad een ds couted For ths reason, Brad agtates for what she calls a uconentonal fen st theor of artbwhc h, aogagenda, other things, re cognzes past has been donated a particular that authory roes that n thetheart word hae no ba sis n ob ect e fact, that art histoy is not inear, that se  st ad racist assptons hae pereated philosophica aesthetcs fro the begining, and that race ad gender are part of the artword contet This sort of theorizng is necessar, Brand contends, f the artword is to bec oe trul deocratc. e art of the other is also at the center of the chapters b Stephen Daes ad Denis Duon In onWestern Art ad Arts Deton, Stephen Daes addresses a wide rage of ssues, ad proides, aog other thngs, a characterzaton of noWestern art. This characterization heps eplan the ably of outsders, ncludng Euopeans ad A ercans, to recognze nonWestern art as art To this end , Daes argues that t here i s a transcutu a aesthetc, rooted i ae sthetc proper tes that co ad the nteres t of ad appea to huas n genera These transcultal interests, in tun, ge rse to what ght be caed sa  art,  cotrast to the gh Art of peral culte lke ou ow. Whereas such igh Art s often alleged to be for conteplaton rather than for use, sa  ar-such as poera be useful so long as i t is aso posse ssed of aesthetc prop erties that are integra to the wor k  the sese that the aesthetc character of work s essental to ts fucton Trbal art often eets this condti on, a s doe s uch of the tradtonal and



C R R L L

folk art of the West. It s all small  art and ts emphass upon ntegrall posse ssed aesthetc features accoun ts for ts nearl uersal crosscultura l recognzablt Daes c hapter not onl makes an nstructe contrbuton to te theor of trbal art but also oers an nterestng potess about te relaton between te fuctonal dentcaton of artworks, on te one and, and procedural and/or storcal dentons, on te oter hand. Tough te artworks n adanced artworlds ma requre enfranchsement on proce dural and/or storcal grouds artworlds temseles ma be dented fuctonall n rtue of ter producton, n ther earl stages , of artfacts notable for te r ntegra possesso n of aesthetc prpertes  Daes wr tes itialy if ot always ators i al cltres ae projected for aestetic regad tat is for cosideratio of te aestetic acieemets tey are created to display were tese eects cocer te wole ad ae essetial to te fctio te atice is desiged to sere Tis is to say tere is a istoricall prima regad for wic at least some atwos i all tods e iteded Ad is is sc a stiig feate of t maig iewed aross te spread of man tes tat it expais ow we ca perceie al cltes as tmaig oes ad ece as aig tords

Lke Daes, Dens Dutton aso belees that art theorzng sould pa attenton to trbal art oweer he s worred tat tere s a wa n whch suc dscussons can go wrong n debates about the concept of art, t s ofen carged tat cultures other tan our own ether lack a concept of art or ac k our concept of art. Furterm ore t s ofen su pposed that tese putate lacuae s omehow comproms e attempts a  character zng art n  s chapter  But Te  D ont ae O ur oncept of Art  Dens Dutton confronts tese msgngs eadon argung that suc clams ex aggerate cultural derences are often based upon false or napproprate comparsons, and fal to apprecate the range of art and art teor aal abe n W estern cuture. Dutton mantans tat  ofen wen t s sad tat some oter cultu re as a derent concept of art fr om ours, tere  s mplct  n t e clam an ex tremel and  storcal spec cand dento n of te art denoted as our crcumscrbed  -ndeed, a denton more nar row less representate th an te frend of derence ndcates. Dutton further suggests that te noton of a derent concept  s stretced beond ntel lgblt n most s uc con texts and  ae et to see  t used al dl n con necton wt art Aganst te school of derence Dutton belees that derse practces of art can be related b analogues and omologe s and e defends a lst of characterst c features whch  e sas does a se rceabe j ob of demarcatng te doman o f trba l non lterate art {p erhaps, we mght add  afer te fash

nrcn



on of w hat Gaut calls cluster co ncets)  utons artcle  lke Daies  is ortt for ringng altic aesthetics in co ntact wth the discou se on nonWestern art that is so eras e in enclaes o f the huities outsde hilosoh. The chaters n ths olue, then are dierse The arch to no sngle drer In fact a nuber of the belong to dierent ar ies, and seeral are at war with each other At the sae tie, the authors are awar e of one anothers work d this iels the to a high leel of recison in clari fing what is dstinctie about ther o wn osition s Because the concetual terrain is occuied b so  derent theoretical redoubts there are few new sweeng aneuers here kel to radcall recongue the eld. The adances d retreats are careful in natue The work in ths olue a not be thought of as altogether reolutonar Perhas it is  eale of ordinar hilosoh to draw an analog wth Kuhns notion of ordinar science). But t is necessar onetheless For wthout deliberate atient sadework, there can be o hlosohica rogresso great reolutions i thught

OTES  ooe Beadsley Aeec roblem n he hloohy of Crcm2d ed Id aaols Hacke  9 8  )  Ths book wa s og aly  bshed  958 2 h C Dao The wo ld  oual of hloohy 6  964)  57-84 3 Fo eamle eoge Dcke Ar and he Aehec A n Inuonal Analy ha ca NY Coel  vesy ess  974)  ad Th Ar Crcl A Thory of Ar New Yok Ha ve  984 ) 4 Sehe Daves Dnon of Ar haca N Y  Coel vesy ess 99) 5  s Aa gadMogese ed  Culure and Ar Aa c Hghlads    H ma es  ess  97 6)  6 Mos Wez "The Role o  Theoy  Aeshecs ournal of Aehec and 5 956) 27-35 eck Does Tadoal Aeshecs Ar ResCrcm o a sake Mnd 67 Wam 95 8 )  3 7- 34 a  Z The Task o Deg a Wok o  hloohcal Revew 62  953) 58-78 7 The veso o Wezs The Roe o Theoy  Aeshecs ha  am cg ca be od  onmorary hloohy of Ar Radng n Analyc Ahc ed Joh W Bede ad H ee Bocke glewood Cs N] ece Hall 993) 9 98 8 Wez 96  9  ms be sess ed ha hs ecosco o W ezs gme s my ow  eeao o Wezs e  se ems o me ha a eea o s caled o hee

4 CLL inc e Weitz' own tatement of theagment  rather opaque. Some reader ay uetony reinterpretation on thegrod a Wetz doe ot expty u e e concept of a ontradon However,Wetz doe rite that "aethe theory  a logcaly van aept to dee what ot be deed.     Te pae "ogiay vain  obre, but I o ot thik that I  trething thig by thkig tat he ha n n a contraition at th pot, epealy in e e f oo e ph ae wth a contradiction -te dea of deng hat aot be deed I at foo, I atept to hpen what I take to beWeitz' uderyg poit i a maer more logcaly perpio 1  Weit, 195 than te srcna tatement of t. 11 Mae Mndeba Fiy Reembae ad Geerazato oer ing the  Aercan Pocal Qrerly 2 ( 1965 21 9-2 8 1 he propert renot oeationa ie repreetatoaLropertie, ex prsive propertie and forma properte are repoe depedet e tey ae  "noeationa I th oetator realy mea tat they e deotex tuaze proper ondered pt om the aua oa futioa d to them Weit ao rea be take to be htoria crctanc that gve tan abot norelaona propere beaue the properte of e item at at tract  aenton e feate that objet hae ad  marty  a reato Ao tere e oe probewth the way i hh the oupet maifet/no nft propertie ofte empoyed  the debate The harge of reae up anft properte of work i ofte uedto pot to the mtatio of the ad o ntion to ook nd ee by propoet of the fily ree mba e approah Bu t it i not cear that thi chgecan be extended to a prevou approahe to deti in t, ince, for eple, expreon theorie of t ad the aetheti deiio of t oen nvoe ntention whch ae oaifet Ote  here ommetato r e Dcke refer to the ue of oaifet propertie, tey e realy referri g to ociay eergent propertie that an only be ideted by atedig o he ula cont of  wor 1 Again the ue n th pagraph of "mafet ad oafet ith ef erence to tritona approahe todeig t may ot get at at i eally at e What Dicie i reay hgn g bot the traditoa approa ad the eo Wientenia approach with here  a ak of atetio to te properte of work that they po n vitue of their oohtor al otext I have, hoever, conned to e the maft/noaifet oplet, e that i e aguage  which De d other freently te t pont 1 Here, for pupoof epoton, I a duig ato approah pror to the publcaton of h booAer he of Ar (Preto: Preto Uv erty re, 1996 In that boo Danto appear to have dropped the reuiremet tat tworbe enfrached by art theorie  a ee odto of t tatu 15 Ma Muelder Eato, Ar  Nonar: Recon on an Orange Crae and  ooe all (uterford, N] Fareigh Dio Uverity Pre, 1983 16 A  view i deveope  ote 12 of o Crol, rt, Pratie, ad arrative, on  (1 988  155-56

2 Ar a a Clr C n E RYS GA

e stor of posophers atepts to dene te concept of t has not been a app one  eores we ae n pent  fnctonast detons n stttonal dentons storcal detons and aros brds of tese ae been proferatng of ate e ss edent s an agree ent abot whch of these ra dca derent ases s te correct one Soe w see n ths fare of conergence et another sgn of the bankrptc of anatc p osop and n deed  f t be te so e a  of anatc phosop  to prodce dentons ten te enterp rse s deep nsoent and n nent danger of forecosu e he stor of postGeter atte pts to dee knowedge ap lstrate s the dclt of secrn g correct anases  and f anass as fonder ed on te noton of knowedge, what e s there of sec rng scces s wth s o dspted and aorphos a noton a s tat of art e togt that art cannot be deed s not of cose a new one t was te centra ca of seera aestetcans n the 0s wo drew n arng was on Wgenstens noton of fa resebance to sp port ter case Yet ter negate ca that art cannot b e deed n the sen se of gng ndda necess ar and o nt scent condt ons tat nqe spec t as wt few exceptons been dened wle ter pos te cla tat a correct caracterzaton (rater than deton) of the conc ept s n fa  resebance ters as bee n een ore wde reec ted e reas ons for ts are faa f we car acterze w orks of art as those wc resebe certan paradgs, t en  rst, te acco t s nco plete ( t needs to state wc obec ts are paradg works), d, second, te noton of reseb ance s sce nt aco s (antng resebes ant ng n soe respect or oter snce t sares soe propert wt t) tat te character zat on wold cont anthng as ar t or were te argents t e Wttgen stenans adanced for t er post on partca r coeng  te fae to d a deton gt be explaned b te attept to dene art n n 25



G

tinsic, rter tn reltionl, ters ence te subseuent popularity of istutionl nd istoricl t eores) , wile te cla i tat  art re sis ts de nion becse rt is f ndentll creati e fils bec us e practices can b e prsued in srcinl was et be deable cess ad psics ae eaples), or it igt  part of te deition o f art tat its products b e srcina et te subseuent filue of reltional denitions to secre generl ssent ougt to reii te tougt tt art s not been deed be cuse it cnnot be dened, and a spirit of caution ougt to encorage te tougt tt a iew of art rooted in a pilosop as powerful as Wi gensteins cnnot be so sipl disissed I sall argue ere tat it is not  reseblncetopdig construal, but a cluster concept construal, of fil reseblance tat gies te correct cracteriz tio n of art, a nd tat te guent for tis constral rests not on te iportance of srcinality in art, but cie on an inspect ion of wat we would sa abot actual and counterfctal cases of putie art o bects  LOGICL FO RM OF H ACC OU Wigenstein s pt of is discssion of fail reseblance deelop a clster ccont of te eing of proper naes    Mose s I nderstand te did wat relates Moses, orust at anberate a goodfalse del of itwo Bt ow ucteHaible e I de cidedofow uc proed for e to gie p  proposition as false   ased on tis accont, Searle lso defended a ore detiled nd eplicit clster account of te sense of proper nes Tese eples bring ou t te ain featres of clster ac counts ere e ultiple criteri for te pplication of sc concepts, tog none of te e necess r ere is also a grea t dea l of indeteri ncy in ow n of tese criteria ust appl f a obect is to fall under te concept, toug at te etrees tere a re clea cases were  t does and cle cses were it does not We can forlate te ie w ore care full as follows  cluster account s tre of a concet st in case tere re properties wose insttiton b n obect conts as a a er of conceptu al nec essi ty towad i fllng der t e con cept  ese properties are norall ca lled c bt it is portnt not to  ssocit e all te connota tons wic ts r s cuired wit i use ere a crite rion i s sipl to be nderstood s  propert possession of w ic counts s  er of concept l neces sity towrd  obects flling under  concept oting wold be lost b referring to ese properes s caracescs giing a caraceran of  obect, rt er tn  s crteri)  ere  e seerl criteri for  concept. ow is te notion of teir cunng ward te ppliction of a concept to

Ar as a Cuser Cnce

2

be understood  Frst f l l the prope rtes ar e nstnt ted  then the obect falls under the concept : th t s  the ar e  ontl suc ent for the pplcaton of the concept More strongl the cluster ccout lso clas tht f fewer thn all the crter re nstantated ths s sucent for the applcaton of the concept Second there are no propertes that are ndduall neces sar condtons for th e obect t o fall under the concept that s there s no proper whch all obects fallng under the concept ust possess hese condtons together ental that though there are sucent condtons for the applcaton of a cluster concept there are no ndvduay necessary and o ntl sucen t condtons hrd though th ere are no ndvduay neces sar condto ns for the applcaton of such a concept there re dsjuncvey necess ar condtons  that s t ust be rue that soe of t he crtera app l f n obect falls under the concept hs clause s requred for otherwse we wll erel hae shown tht there are sucent condtons for a con cept to ob tan rather than showng t to be a cluster concept ake the cse of art Suppose we can construct soe set of propertes for nstance of beng beautful beng expresse beng orgnal and beng coplex and coherent. And suppose t can be shown tht f arous sub sets of the obtan then an obje ct s art tht none of these p roperte s has to be possessed b all artworks but that all artworks ust possess soe of the hen we cannot denecondtons rt n thefor sense of gng necessar and ontl sucent t but we canndduall oer a char acterton of an account of what t s n ters of crtera or char acterstcs Note that ths account allows a great deal of ndeter nanc n whether the obtanng o f a partcul ar s ubset o f propertes s sucent for soethng to be art: there wll be n cases where t s not clear whether ts s s o; what s port ant s tha t there are soe subsets the obtann g of eers o f whch s suce nt for soethng to b e art here s n portant d erence  n logc al for beeen cluster accounts and resebl nceto parag  accounts  Whereas the l aer spec the rele ant featres n ters of reseblance to soe prtculars the forer spec  the b general propertes n the case of  a cluster ccount refrs to propertes such as those referred to aboe wheres a reseblanceto parag ew woul hol tht so ethng  s a work of art f an onl f t resebles at le ast one of soe speced paradgatc works of art Clu ster theores thus od the rst dcul wth the reseblancetoparadg ew there beng no ncopleteness n the account snce no appeal s ade to paradgs d the also aod the second obecton Reseblanc s a aer of propertes beng posse ssed n coon and s conse quentl acu ous wthout f urther speccat on  cluster theores ake sub sttal clas b specng wa the propertes are tht are releant to eternng

28

G 

whether soething is art Fai lure to disting uish these two distinct constru als of the fail reseblan ce approa ch a failure of which een soe of its supporters hae been guily  - has led to a too swift disissal o f the iew ow do we decide what properties ae pat of the cluste r Witgenstein sas, Don't thnk, but k This is n an inunction to count onl isible or intrinsic properties as part of the cluster, as has soeties been supposed b critics of the fai l reseblance app oach it is a plea to see how the concept in questio n is used i n the lang uage Thus, w e ake a dis tinction between art and entetainent so art ust gie ore than just pleasure ust b e n soe wa chal lengng o eplorato W e tend to e gad things in cetain genes s uch as painting or usic as atwoks, becase these art genres are well establshed On the othe hand, f an objec t, ee n if outside these genres ecels n beauy or create srcnalt then that gies s eason to jdge it to be at ( that dess is a wok of a t ) And, conesel, we tend to regard the absence of features such as skll as countng against soethin g's being art ( child col d do tha t) Man of these citer a hae been adopted b the woldbe denes of a t ( in tes fo instance of the epression of eotion  or of crea te ia gnaton)  and are ths fail ar n aesthetcs The noel point about the cluster theor s that t aceps the as crteria withot holdng the eastel to spec f the no ton o f at A paticulal us efl source fo discoeing what ae thetscite ia fo at sprngs f ro eaination o f disptes abot whethe objec (for nstance, Duchap's readades are works o f art since n such cases dsputants ar e ost eplict in ging their reasons for dgng soethng to be art or not ee ae soe popeties the pesence of wch odina udgent conts toward soethngs beng a work of art and the absence of which counts aganst ts being art (1) possessng poste aesthetc propertes, sch as beng beautfl gaceful o elegant (popeties whch gound a capaciy to ge sensous pleasure) (2) beng epressie of eoton; (3) beng ntellectuall challengng (ie, qestioning receed iews and odes of thoght) ; (4) being foall cople and coheent; () hang a capaciy to cone cople eanngs; (6) ehibtng an inddal pont of iew; () being an eercise of create agnaton (beng orginal); 8) beng an artfact or pefoance which s the product of a hgh de gee of skill; (  belongng to an established a tstic fo (sic painting, l etc ) and (10) being the prodct of an ntention to ake a work of at. Soe of these pop eties ae theseles speced  n tes of at an d the accont ths e hi bits a degee of cic lay t thee is nothin g ais s with circula r acconts ( nor een wth crc lar dentions  proided the are nforatie and the account s nforatie not onl becase of the pesence of noncclal speced popeties but also becase thee ae sbstante constaints on the application of the cicla citeia-we can

Ar as a Cuser Cnce



know wheth er someo ne intends to make a work of art b consulting hm, and if he does not, that count s against t he obje ct 's being ar t. lear, one ma wsh to dspute these partcar criteria, or add others M man am here i s to defend th e cluster accont of art per se, rather than an particular theor about which propertes shuld be part of the cluster. oweer, these critera are good prima facie canddates for those whch shoud appear in a cluster accont and I wl defend the form of the ac count in term s of these s pecc featur es. The form of the accont requres one modication An artwork is the product of an acton, preemne nt of a making an artifact) , or a perfor m ing a performance It is wrs that are noed here since something s n each case done. ence beng the prodct of an action is the gens of the artwork and is thus a necessar condton for something' beng art It might be thoght that ths s denied b those who acknowledge the eis tence o f fond art bt in f act t is not Sch art is se lected and select ion is an acton Seection adds to the r ange of propertie s that can b e posse ssed b bects and thus alters them een if not phsica  A piec e o f driftwd n nature canot epress despair nor can t be abot anthing (snce t acks een dered ntent ion liy) , but when selected for displa n a galler t can epress desuetude and be bout faure and deca Being the prod ct of a action is howee a er generc co ndition does not distngsh artworks from r,an of thethn other prodcts of act which on phiosoph papers, chars pa fr eeze s, gr words etc ). Ths the moded custer ac count holds that there is one nec essar condton for somet hing' be ng an artwork, but that is because of the notion of a wrk ( the product of action , rther t ha beca se o f the notion of art I shal take this modication to be understood in al sbse quent refere nces to  art as a cster concept It mght be suppo sed that the sub stantialy of the generic c ondton can be enhanced the acton mus be part of a socia practice such a practce being a knd of compe cooperate actiy empong skls and knowl edge characterized b an eolng and deeloping tradton wth ts own nterna goods reasons goals ad ealate standards. It s certain tre that al artactions known to s are ndertaken as part of a cltral practi ce And this s an mportant trth abot art from whch w e can hope to earn a great dea b seeng to what etent t shares featres in com mon wth other ctra practces  n respect o f ther openness or resis tance to mtpe nterpretatons, the ontoogca pecarites of their prodcts, ther rel atonship wth the assoc ated practices o f sing th eir products and so forth. Bt for the notion of a cltra practice to be part of the generc condition, t mst be not mere a co ntingent truh bt a necess ar one that an acto n of produc ng an artwork is ndertaken as part of a practc e Ad that is not s o co nsd er a pos sbe word n which th ere s no art ecept one

30 G   T   indiid ul  oes o on her own and odels in wood an eephan t, pa i ention to the beauy, eleance, and rce of the work, usin her cre ti iination to enhance the coplexiy and coherence of the desin, sill puttin in detis to create interestin textral and coor eects  ls no one of this, an d neith er she no r anone ese eer does this k ind o tin aain  a s she p roduced rt? t sees so  and if so, it is not nec ssr tat an rtactio n be prt of a cutra practice unless we triiaize t nion b hold in that one action can c onstit te a c utra practice  So i it is n iporta nt fct abou t the actiiy of art tha t i t is part of soe clr prctice or other, it is a con tinent, not a nece ssr fact  n point shoud be noted bout the theor Art hs two dis c, ti t related, eanins  it is used a s a ass n oun for rtworks  there is  lt of rt in this roo) and also to refer to a ind of actiiy rt is  ndin creer ) he cluster account roposes tht rtworks re the rcts o actions, which products possess soe indeterinate lre r of the isted propert ie s. And it holds tha t rt as an actiiy is the rcin of suc h rtworks  DL GCAL CNSD RANS  r  hae ere expicated the cl uster account an dccount rued succubs that i t aoi ds robes to which the resebancetoprdi t   wh should one beliee it? o answer this question, we need to deter  rst what re the constraints on the adequc of an account, that is,  orted deition or chracterization, of se concept; then we can rne whether the custer characterization eets these constraints i nd ost obious, the account of the concept shoud be aeuae  n hat is, it ust aree with or intuit ions bou t what we would s out actua and conterfactua cases if the account clais that soe  stises the concept bt it intuitie doesnt or ice ersa), then t  one strike aainst the ac count Prticular iportant test cases here  ose that are probleatic for ria accons of the concept since  rosd ccount should at least be an iproeent on its ris And i r re soe objects to which the appication of the concept is en il, irresobl, indeterinate, then the account shoud reect this too , r thn sip stipatin that the concept pplies, or stplatin that i s not ond, and reated to the rst constraint, the accont st be nrma  euae he process of atchin the accot to ituitios is un i sip to leae a intuitions as the stand. ur linuistic intuition s  articlr cases a be awed i restin on confusion s, o ino  ot the lanuae, or o a other fac tors. Thus s oe ititios

A as a Cuser Cnce

31

ha do no  he proposed accoun ma be rejeced here wll be a re ecte equl brum between the account an d ntuton s,  us as here s be tween prnc ples and n uon s n mora and pol cal phlosoph To aod beggng he queson, hs normae dmenson mus nc ude a ery  errr some a ccount must be oered o f wh people hae  he msaken ntu ons he do, of wh hese nuons see plausble o them Ideall ths heor of error should also eplan wh ral accounts o f he concep ha e enoed some popularty Ths normae dmenson s parcularl mpor an when here s a degree o f nerpersonal dsagr eement about whether a concep apples o parcular cases snce he prce of falng o adudcae he dspue  s lkel o be hat each dsp uan has o be a scr bed a deren dolect, and hence t would follow tht contrr to ther undersandng of he dspue th e are no t reall dsagreeng Fnall an proposed accoun should hae eursc uy ha s  should b e such as o ge n rue o r a leas promsng heores abou he object to whch the concept apples Ths s partcularl edet for sc enc conceps, where deons ae formuled so as o gure n rue heores of the relen phenomena In such cases t s ofen spulae detons tht are t ssue But the clams of hestc utlt also appl, hough less demandngl, o conceps n common usage snce hese wll also gure n eplana n he rele an doman  enceabou an  accou nt of a a larger hestc package the doman concep should dea llons   no concerned ADEQUACY TO INTUITION The smples and mos drec wa o argue for he cluser accoun s o show ha o canddate properes do ndeed coun toward an obec's beng   that s that the are adequate to o lngustc ntutons Recall, howeer ha hese proper es are oered onl as candda es: f objeco ns are rase d o wha follows  ma be po ssble o s ubsue oher crera for he ones oered n order o crcumen hem Wha manl maters here s to ge the cluster account  tself so me plausblty , rather than to defend an accoun of whch parcular crtera are noled Earler we saw ha ee condons must be sased for a concept to be a cluster one I begn wth a defense of the second condton that the crera are no ndduall necessar for somehng o be ar (1) No all works o f ar are be auful elegan o r gracef l some tweneth cent ar psues antaesthetc polces unnterested n sensuousl pleasng but deepl nteresed n challengng prookng, scandalzng, usng uglness and dscord as a ds rupe sraeg (Pcas so's Les Dem sees dAvn s I would argue, such a panng (2 Not all art s epresse of emoton

32

T

6s hadedged absacon is ineesed n foal elaions beween colo p opeies (e g , Josef Al bes's mage   e Square seie s), no in h e epession o f eoion , nd an n ees in he c obinaoial possibliies of paens of oeen caacezes uc of Mece Cunnnga's wok, ahe an a sing afe eoonal eec (3) No all  s inellecu all ca llengng adi ional e gious a s cef  concened, fo nsance, wi epesening wellknown elgious iews, ae  wi seeking o pobe, ques on, o eend he (4) No a a has a cope and coeen fo: soe o f Maeic's panngs, fo nsance, ac Square  n a We Grund ae an eee siple fo, as do soe Ccadc sculpres; (e.g., soe odenis ls prsue a delbeae saeg of ncoeence Buue and D a's n Cen ndau ) and a as been a ies concened w a oeen owa d geae s pcy (e g , ea Baoque usic wh espec  o Renassa ce polp on)  () No al a as a cople eaning Aesop' fabes and he aegoca sucre of  Pgrms Prgress coe o ind hee (6) No a a as been concened w oignay: os a woks  e deiaie, and if a adiion is o conue os ae o be fa deiae ; and so e adiions , sc as e acien  Egpia, escew ogi  ay (7) No a awoks epess a inddua pon of ew : e ace Egpia case is elea ee oo 8) No a aw oks ae he podu cs of ask g degee ofo skill Ducap' eadades wee oWais' a poduc of suc ( ceain  o s pa, a seas , o ae Afed s pcres e poduc s of gea pcoa sk ( No a awoks a e  esabsed a gees deed, e coud o be , fo if e wee, o ew a  gees could ae ee ged. (   Las , o all awo ks a e e poducs of an ieio o ake a pie soceies ed no o ae anhing ike or con cep  of a, bu we accep soe of he poducs as a, ad pobab uch a we ow accep as folk a was ee ieded b is akes as a.  a be objeced in geea o ese cais a if oe of ese con diios ae necessa, a s onl because he ae ieea o an objec' beg a  would be as if I soud is as a ceio, beg a gane block, ad e i upal poclai a is is o  a ecessa codi on, sce no a awoks ae gaie bocks. Pehaps he ieeae of soe of e cea ig be agued fo bu coud he a be e ea  could ee be a wok of a lackig all of ese popeies? specio of pos sibe cases s og sugge ss  a hee coud no  be  we can ake se se, fo isace, of a pece of in as pain g as a, een houg i acks e pessie coe, because we ecogize i as beg i  an esablised a isc gene (pani g), as beig e poduc  o f aisic i nenon, peaps as beig beaufu Tee is no eide n wa a an o bjec ackg a of h e ceia coud be a wok of a and ee f a pausbe couneeape coud be poduc ed, e fed of  e cus e accou n could espod b addig wa 

Ar as a Cuser Cnce

33

eer se es the relean t criterion to the cluster -that is, she can respond b odifin the content of the account, rather than its for ence there is reason to tnk that the listed criteria, or s oe etension of the , are di  nctiel nece ssar for a n obec t to be an artw ork - that is, that th e third conditio n for the application of the cluster accont to art is tr ue Far ro underinin the cluster account, this obection to the second condition actuall proides the basis for consi derations fa orin the third condition.  ore pressin obection is that soe o the criteria reall are neces sar. Man of the eapl es ien were drawn fro odern ist art, or fro earl art But an la people obect to countin the ore hperentilat in odernist eorts as art, and soe anthropoloists reject talk of the products o the societies the stud as art. Soe philosophers, such as Beardsle and anin, hae siilar obections or doubts about countin conceptual works as art If these kinds of eaples were disallowed, se eral o the criteria would be conerted into necessar conditions, and we would be stridin condentl toward a denition of art. This obection is interestin, since it throws into relief the etent to which deelopents in the twentieth centur hae rendered a cluster ac count of art plausible he acceptance of anthropoloical obects as works of art, and the wide ariety of artakin practices in the twentieth cen tur hae created an eplosion in art owee obects that larinland illuinates the probleatic statuos diersity o deitions r, odernist priitie eaples are ot needed to show that the conditions are not necessar, as ca be seen b reconsiderin those criteria where such e aples alone were ien So, () an ul nineteenthcentur paintin a still be a work of a rt, thou h likel not a er oo d one () uch of archi tecture  and usic is not concerned with th e epressi on of eotion (7) the lack o an indiidual point o iew is eident in uch o the reat ass o deriatie art that lanuishes in useu baseents and soe o that which lowers on their walls ; 8) consider the possi bility of a uke aster piece, that is, a work of reat alue produced b an artist of little skill, who happened to strike it luck and (  ) an artst iht do soe pra ctice sketches, in order to keep up his skills or record a iew, with no inten tion to ake art, but the a  be of sucient erit for us to count the as art or consider earl pioneers o a new ediu, who a not intend to produce art, but erel think of their work as tecnical eperient or entertainent, but who produce work of sucient erit that we ude it art ( Geores Mliss wor k in cinea sees to be o this kind)  There are also other reasons to think that a criterial approach was needed well before this centur to captre the notion of art. In a classic article Paul Kristeller ar ued t hat the notion of the ne arts, c oerin the arts o paintin, sculpture, architecture, poetr, and usic, coa lesced onl

3 GUT n te ealy t of the egteenth centy, recevng ts rst neqvocal sttet y Cles Baex n 1746 What beore had been regaded s ery dvese nds of t were now separated o from t he oter ats and goed togete as te e ts . But whle Batte xs grop ng was wdely cceted, t was not at all obous what all these d erent obects ad n coon tat ade te t Certanl y, Battexs test of the mtaton of eatl nae s nadequate, sgn ally fang to cover mc h o msc and ctt nd t sold be evden t that appeal to beat on ts own can not drenate the  arts from the others, snce there are bea l crt podcts Appeal to ter ncton of gvng pleasre and not eng sel ot do eter, snce the ats have many ses for nstcton , o cal poment, or conveyng a sense of dgnt and cvzaton, o swllng natonal prde, for helpng people to work n tme together, smply for lng n,  so on ) . The cl ster accont ca n explan th s sta t e of aas esly dernt ts were groped together as ne arts on the gondso seeal oerlappng consderatons , rater than by one prn cple wc cold  ormulated n terms of necessary and s ce nt cond tons ncet ce to seem obo to mos t tat the n e arts belon ged together, aog t s ysteos what gronded ts comonaly The hstorof t concep of t ater ths perod, wt ts v aos nect ons n te hands of te Romatc andcrtera later teorsts, deposted more conceptal for contn rses, fr moement xtenn the somethng as art the nstantaton of ewer ta Fnally, do the rst condton apply al  lste crera by  o bect scent for t to be a work of a rt, that s , s otang t mmbrs o f a prope sbset o f te complete s et o f proper ts scnt o n obct to be at Ctanly, t s not te tat the obtan  g o ay sst o  complet set s scent a phlosopy paper may  ntlay callngng, av a complex and cohrent form, a compex ng, a   ognal, bt t s not s ady thereby a wor of rt B t the clst ccot does not clam that the obtanng of smply any sbset s sct fo sotng to b t Yet thre are seve ral sbsets that are s  cnt, as hol b mad vdent by consdeng object s tat lac only one o t cta nond o tak  st on exmple, a pa ntng whch laced a l ng, bng a sple clbraton of a contry scene, but wh ch was t oct of n tstc nt nton, was gracefl and eleg at, d p os sss t o cta en tond, wold be a sold example of a wor o  er  n plausle examples o scent sbsets whch lac erl crter onder aan  cent Egyptan art: t laced  concern  n lty  ornl y, was not the prodct of an artstc nten ton in t on sns o tstc, nor was t ntellect ally challen ng tt old  een oltcal o relgos sbverson), bt we cont t s  s o ts eat bat, ts  se o or ms that are lke o artstc

Ar as a Cuser Cnce

35

fors pantng, sculpture, archtecture, etc), s consderable epresse force, cople and coherent for, cople eanng, and the great degree of skll noled And, o n reflecton, the obtan ng of these laste ntoned s crtera sees sucent f or akng a n obect art I f we cae acr oss ob ects whch had these s propertes on soe alen planet, t would be har d to see wh one should den  that we had dscoer ed that the alens had art But suppos e that we dd nd a ca se where the obta nng o f the crtera was nsucent to ake soethng art then we cold agan change the con tent of the accot, rather than abandon t we could add to our present crtera the crtera whch were sucent to ake the obect art The e panded set would stll hae a s ubset lackng at least fou r crtera, a su bset whch would be s ucent to ake s oethng art ote that chal lengng the content of the acco t [the partcular crtera used] need no t show that the for of the account [the appeal t o crtera per se] s ncorrect  An portant part of showng adequac to lngustc ntuton s show ng that a propos ed ac cot of a concept can ao d the probles to whch ts rals succub The cluster accot easl sdesteps ptfalls nto whch fctonal, nsttutonal, and hstorcal dentons stagger and stuble To splf greatl, a leadng proble wth f cto nalst dent ons  s that the unctons of art are of too great a are and too openended to be cap tured bone a dento n. Functonalsts hane generall respond ed bofseek ng to dentf aster uncto n no rall ters of the proson aesthetc eperence pleasure, or ntrest But these ters hae theseles proed notorousl resstant to denton, and howeer uch one weakens ther content, t wll not c oer Ducha p's rea dades The cl uster accot n contrast, acall stre sses the plural of fa ctors that ake so ethng art, so s ebarrassed b the are of arts nctons nsttutonal den ton of art hold  roughl ) that wha t akes so ethng art s ts hang ts status as art conferred on t b soe eber of the artworld a concrete socal nsttuton.° Besdes the probe of whether there rea s such  nsttuton wth approprate powers such dentons face a crpplng dlea f representa tes of the artworld hae good r easons for confer rng art stat us on soe obect , then t s whateer grods those reasons  notabl, the obects hang certan propertes-tha ustes the cas of he obect to be art and hence the nsttutonal conferrng of satus drops out as rreleant. Or alternatel, f representates of the artworld hae no good reasons for conferrng the status on the obect then we hae no good reason to recognze ths conferral, n whch case ther conferral powers are also rreleant The cluster accot aods these probles b aodng use of the noton of an artworld nsttut on and also b  ctng cr tera gng gr ods for the ob ect 's be ng art  storcal de ntns , agan er roughl, dene art obects n ters of soe arthstorcal rlaton to

36

T

soe episteicall priileged art objects The thus are structrall si ar to resebancetoparadig acconts, in hang to accont for how we identif the episteica prieged  obects, and thus are subect to silar challenges More pressingl their accont of an arthistorical reation is inscientl proectabe there cold be at obects whch are recognizbe as sch, bt which stand in no arthistorica signict re lation t all to an of or art On a dstant panet we cod dig p obects whch ooke d er c h ke or ar t and had si lar nctio ns, bt whch were prodced b a ongdead ciiizaton that neer interacted with or own Depending on how the arthstorica reaton is specied, historica deitions hae either to cot the not as art or to hold that the aiens could no t know that the were akng art T he custer accont allows u s to cont such obects as art since it does not appea to the notion of an arthistorica sgncant reation (And een f it did snce such a reation would be ust one crterion we could still con the aen obects as art) ence the cster accont aods with ease the probes that the crrent eadng canddates for deitions encounter Finall it s worth notng one frther support for the lngustc ade actiities qac of te accont the clster accont epains w soe such as cooker) see to e soewhere near the borders of art wthout bengofcear art, snce the share properes art bengpleasre) the eer indiidual creatiit haingseera a capacit to gieofsensuous cis whe aso acking other reeant criteria since the hae dicut in e pressing eoton and coneing c ope eanings , an d are not genera  the product of  artistic intent on )  t s a signa d antage of the custer accont oer the ore straghtforward detons of art that it can pre sere the hardness of sch cases and aow s to epain what t s that akes the hard sch cases can be shown to be genne borderlne and indeterinate  NOR MATV AQUACY The second conditi on for adeqac is the noratie diension  The appea  to ingstic ntton has aread inoed refectie eqbriu testng prncipes against ntuitions, and rejectng those inttions possessed b soe peope that odernst and priite art are not reall art. Sch re ections, i f the are not to be qesto nbegging st be grond ed, as we saw on an adeqate theor of error. As noted aread, one role of a theor of error is to eplain wh ria detions are attrctie The cster accont can epain er sip wh an dentons of art hae enjoed their appea the fsten onto a par

Ar as a Cluser Cnce

37

ticular criterion and infate t into a necessar and sucient conditon Epressii st deitions treat the criteron of th e epresson of eotio n in ths anner; foralist denitions so treat the criterion of cople and co herent for functionalist deitions that appeal to aesthetc eperience draw upon the rst criterion  More indirectl , the clus ter accot can e  plain the appeal of the insttutional d historical deitions as arisin out of a perception of the inadeqac of preios attepted deitions and trn to ake roo for the reater ariet of factors that the clster ac cont drectl ackno wled es I noted earler that there is a fair aont of disareeent oer what thins are art the clas of pritie art of conceptal art and of poplar usc for nstance are dsputed he cluster account can e a siple eplanation of this fact of direent t lest one sde in the dis pute is  isapplin the concept of art b conertin criteria into necessr conditions. opare soeone denin that solitaire is a ae-to se Wttenstein's oriinal eaple-becase all aes inole at least two paticip ants here what is perhaps a criterion for aeho od i s incorrectl conerted int o a neces sar condito n he cluster acco t can also eplan the parti cular nat ue of the disareeents i n eac h case  Becase there is a plualit of criteria conersion of dierent criteria int necessar condi tion den ieldsthe conflictin about what who clai o fjudents readades or fo nd obects obj ectsare to artworks be art ahose clai as a necessar condition the e of reat skll, or the obtainin of sinicant aesthetic pro perties  hose who den that priitie art is art a clai the nec esst  of the intentonalt criteron no tn that trbal cultu es lack the concept of art hose who den that rock or dance usic is art a also stress intentionalit as a necessar condition an of these objects are eant sipl as dsposable accopanients to dancin, or foral copleit and coherence. In a thr ee cases , su porters of the arthood of these obects den that the featues entioned are indiiduall necessar conditions, and can hold the to be erel criterial hs the clster ac cont can epain b oth the eistence and the strc tre of dsareeents n sch cases  Perhaps scient l cope and open ended deitions of art, sch as hstorical ones a also be able to eplain these disareeents, but the would hae to do so in ore indirect was, such as b appealin to dierent was in which to nderstand a narrate thread in the histor of art But i n an case the clster accont passes this test Besides eplainin wh the dierent sides disaree, an adequ ate theor of error ust be able to show that at east one of the sides is wron that is it has to be a theor of errr not erel of disareeent)  Yet it a be thouht that a cluster accont cannot possess this noratie diension

38

T

for n countenancng a plualt of crtera, ust t not render each sde to the dspute uassalable, able to rest ts udgents on soe of the crtera n the set? he cluster theor does, howeer, hae adequate norate bte he opponents of conceptual art, pr te art, and pop ular usc as we saw , hold that the releant crtera are reall necessar condtons hs assup ton ca be challenged b appeal to other, less contentous eaples o take soe of the eaples gen earler, those who nsst on the necesst of the sk ll crteron can be challenged b the case of the fluke aster pece , those who support ntentonal t as a nece ssar condton ca n be challenged b consderaton of the artstc status of an artst s practce sketc hes, o f the case of Mls, and so forth hus the cluster accout has the resouces to argue that n certan cases one sde n dsputes about art s n error. SME BJES Frst an accunt that draws n Wttgenstens and Searles cluster ac count of the sense of proper naes faces an obous worr snce Krpke s wdel regarded as hang deolshed these accounts, do the sae arg ents uderne a clus ter theor wh en appled to art ?   hea answer a r negate. Art s not a propereap nae, nor t nae natualsknd ( ndeed art a be the preenent le o does f soe thng th at s n a natual knd)  So Krpkes arguents about proper naes and natual knds do no t drectl appl or can analog ues of hs arguents be appled successfull to ar t hus, t s true that rstotle ght not hae been the teacher of Plato, nor hae been born n Stagra , nor hae had a of the other dentfng characterstcs whch a cluster account of the sense of hs nae ght d raw on And t s also true that gold ght not hae be en eow, and so forth. But we hae area d seen tat t snt cear agn able that a  bect could ack al l the crt era o f art entoned abo e and stll be art and as also noted, f soe plausble countereaple ght be ade out, the cluster accout could respond spl b augentng the crtera Second, there are two sense s n whch one  ca tak o f art the eauat e and classcator senses. Dstngush these senses, and t sees that the sense of art we hae been consderng ust be the classcator sense, snce soe of the eapes used aganst the ca th at art  can be d eed are nstances of bad art (e.g., the ugl Vctoran pantng). As used n the ealuate sense , art s a ter of coend aton , so n ths se nse all art s good  Perhap s denng ar t n the casscator sens e s hopeess  but for all that has been shown so far, deng art n the eauate sense snt  oweer, the assupton that there are two senses of art s bad

Ar as a Cuser Cnce

39

grounded  Consider the notion of heal th soeo ne a e i n good or ad health, ust as art a e good or bad, but health is stll an ealuate concept So the ere fact that we can call soe art good, and soe bad, does not show that there is a distinct , classicator sense o f art  We can thus hold that the onl notion of art is an ealuatie one he cluster theor is consistent with this, since the cluster of properties releant to establshng soething as art ncludes e aluatie p ropertes , such as beng eautiful, and eing the eercise of create iaginaton For nstance, an artwork can be bad, but still be art, since it possesses the other criteria releant to establishing whether it s an artwork But the notion of art is ealuatie, snce the question of whether these goodaking features are possessed is alwas releant to the queston of whether soething is art So the cluster theor, far fro being challenged on ths point, helps to free us fro the illu sion that ther e are two distinct s enses of art. hrd, it a e he ld that the cluster account s acuou s For I ha e sa d that f obections are adanced to the particular criteria put foard, then the cluster account has the opton of sustituting others n ther place to render it ore adequate to intuition But if this is so, then there are no possible counterea ples to the accont, so it is ept of content  his is not so here are possible countereaples to cluster accounts the deitions of art. B a settoofeindiduall nec essa rareandsuccessful ointl sucent conditions forging soethng art, one could show that the cluster accot is istaken: if successful, institutional, his torical, or functionalst denitions are countereaples to the cluster ac count So the cluster account is not acuous Further, the point of the earlier rearks aout the fleibilit of the cluster account was to distin gui sh between the for of the account, and the particul ar dstinct contents it  possess he for is gien  the eistence of criteria for a concept, construed in the wa laid out in the second parag raph of the rst secti on  he content proposed inoled ten particular crteria the iportant point is that rejecting t his particular account of content need not underine the correctness of the for of the c luster account f course,  hae also sug gested that these ten crteria are correct, and in so doing I hae ade a further substantie clai about content, as well as a substante point aout for Fnall, it a be ob ected th at the cluster accoun t is in fact a denition  ot all deitions are gen in ters of indiduall necessar and ointl sucient conditions there are disunctie denitions too For instance, Roert Stecker has gien a historical functionast account of art that in oles disuncte conditions, and he calls this account a deition his beng so, it a see that at best I a sailng under false colors haing in

40

T

fact given a denitio n whie clai ming I a not, or at worst that the e ntire custer accont is based on a contradiction, since it hods that one cannot dene art, even though it itse f is a deniti on of art at is a t issue here is partly merey a verba dis pute If on e wants to ca disunctive accounts, as well as conuctive accouts, deitions, then there is perhaps no great point in insisting that ony the atter are reay deitions  The substative poin t for which I have argued here wod, how ever, be ef untouched by such a concession: the substative point is that one cnnot give a denition of art in terms of individuay necessary and ointy sucie nt conditions, and one must instead use a di suctive accout ofthe form specied (whether or not one dec ides to cal th is cluster account a denition Thus one coud recast the main contentions of the chapter without setting the dispute about what is correcty caled a den ition, and certany there is no contradiction invoved in hodg that con uctive ac� counts of at are inade ate and o ny custe r accounts are successf ul. owever, in a somewhat e ss co ncessive spirit  et me add that a con unc tive account seems to be what phiosophers generaly have in mind when they are aer a deition (think for instance of the di spute a bot the thi rd conunct reuired to dee knowedge that dominated epistemology i te imediate afermath of eer's paper And further, as the number of discts account the pasdi ibi ity oonf think� accotd in as aa custer deition decreasincreases, es e general scussi in the ing of thereuire tird section, and part iculary the eaples sketched or sugg este d of su cient conditions involv ing fewer than a th e criteri a, give reason s to thin k tt  adeate cster accout of art wi be hihy isnctive So the intitive pull of claiming that the resut is a deition is it seems to me weak Hence even on the arg ely verbal point, there is r eas o to think that te custer account is not apty cassi ed as a deni tio  COCLUSION HEURISTIC UTILITY hat I have attempted to show here is not that art is beyond al doubt a custer concept, but rather that by distiguishing the cluster accout from te resembcetoparadigm accot one can sidestep the established ob ections to Weit's position, ad aso that the cluster account is adeate to our ingistic intuitions, subect to some degree of normative critie Since te custer accout c cope with some central coutereapes to te currenty most infentia den itions of art, it is a p romis ing ch aracter iation of art Since al claims tt oe cnot dene art invariab y produc e a fury of woudbe enitions i n respon se, it wo ud be we to close by pointing ot te aractions a custer account possesses as a gui de for phio sophical

 as a Cuser Cnce

41

aesthetics  other words, we need briefly to conside r the question o f heu ristic utilit to round out the defen se o f the cluster a ccount Much of the best work in aesthetics has not been concerned with the questi on of deniti on, but has attempted to uderstand the diverse capaci ties that art posse sse s: we have several im portant studies of representation, of epression, of symbolic systems, for instance8 Representational, e press ive, and symbolic capacities are p ossess ed not ust by art works, bt by laguage, by bodily gestures, and by mental st ates hus a great deal of the best work in aesthetics has been concerned not with what uniquely species art, but with eploring what art has i n coon wit h other human domains ad with eamining the connections between aesthetics ad the philoso phies of mind, action, and language he cl uster theor both eplains why this approach should b e fruitfu l, and also fosters it, fo r what makes som e thing an artwork is a matter of its poss ess ing a range of propert ies that are shared with other human domain s he theory also naturally fosters greater attention to the diversit of properties that go toward making something an artwork, and so renders plausible a view of nterpretation as compris ing a dverse set of activities, concerned with ascribing a wide variet of propertie s to obec ts, where these properties may have di erent criteria of ascription.  think on independent grouds that such a patchwork theory of interpre is correct,ionand the cluster t here ts that theorytation of interpretat  And sits naturally withsmoothly a view ofwith the it alsoacco vaue of art as consi sting in a set of diverse va ues, rather than one sngle kind of ecellence, a view in favor of whch there is also much to be said  he cluster account of art, then, encourages aestheticians to eaine connections between phosophical aesthetics ad other branches of phi losophy, and at the same time usties a greater sensitivit to the diversit of  forms a artistically relevant proper ties Both of these res earch pro gras for aesthetic s are in depe ndenty attractive ad promsi ng the custer theory eplains why this should be so, and also usties t he view th at both are likely to continue to be fruitful he failure to gve a deni tion of  is indeed a failure for that myopic view of aaltic philosophy which takes it to be concerned largely with the giving of denitions, in the sense of giving individually necessary and ointly sucient conditions for the application of concepts But the con trasting view of analyti c philosophy that see s it as a attempt at high level theorizing i s not called into question by that fail re, and the cluster theor y is a eample of how analytc philosophy of art ca still be fruitful, even when it forswears the pursuit of denitions f the custer account oered here is correct, the proect of denition that has been a central concern of recent phlosophical aesthetics i s doomed to falure. And that proec t has been pursued, even though an att ractive aternativ e to it has been avai lable

42

  T

snce e ealy 950s, a alenave whose power was ovelooked becase of a fale o dsngsh between two dsnc foms  cold ake Once we sngsh hose foms, we can see he e powe of h e clse  vew  he ealy 950s he phlosophcal fy was gven s chance o ge o of he fly botle, b ddn 't take t Maybe ths tme  t wll. °

NOES   Fctioalist ditios icld Mono Beadsly "Redeg t  his The Athetc Pont of ew Selected ssays ed Michael J Wee ad D oald M Calle thaca NY Coell ivesity ess 982) M W Rowe "he Dei to of t '  Phlosophcal Quately 4  99 )  27 -86  ad O swa ld Hag t tfact and cto  Phlosophcal nestgatons8 995) 3 48  sti ttoal detios iclde eoge Dice Art and the A thetc An nsttutonal Analyssthaca N Y Coell ivest y ess  974)  and T J Di ey The Re blic of t  hs The epublc ofArt and Othe ssays New Yo  ete ag 99) Histoical detos clde Je old eviso "Deg t Histo ically  i his usc Atand etaphyscs thaca NY Coell vesity ess 9 ) ad Jmes Caey "The Style Theoy of t Pacc Phlosophcal Quarterly 72 feded 99 )  272-8 9  eamle of a hybd t heoy Meanng is the histoical de Robet Stece vesty a Atwoks Denton aluef ctioalism esylvaa State ives ity ess   99 7)  at   2 ois Wez "The Role of Theoy   esthetics  Phosophy Looks at the At ed Joseh Magols (hiladelha Temle ivesty ess  9 8 7)  a Zi  "The as of e ig a Wo of t Phlosophcal ew 62 (  953)  58-78 an d W E. ec "Do es Tadiioa esthetics Res t o a Mistae ? Mnd 67 (958) 37-34 3 he ecetios icde fo the case of msic yda oeh The magnay ueu ofuscal Wok O fod lae do ess 99 2)  cha 4 ad fo at i geeal Nol Caoll "Histoica Naat ives and te hiosohy of t ounal of Athetcsand At Ctcs 5   993 )  3  3-2 6 o eh holds that "msi cal wo is  "oe coce t ie  ot ssceible t o deto  i  the sese secied above ad Coll holds the same fo "atwo 4 Col fo istace c aims that it "was sb ected to a be of decisve cti  cisms "Histoica Naates 35 5  o a sefl discssio o f the standad ctcisms  see Stehe D avies Den ton of At thaca NY: Coel vesity ess 99 ) c ha   6 dig Wtgeste Phlosophcal nestgatonstans   M scombe Ofod acwel 978) at  79 ad Joh Sele "oe Names i  F Staso ed Phloophcal LogcOfod Ofod vesty ess  96 7)  7 "Citeio has acqied seveal additioal agey secied ad ehas icosistt meaigs and woies abot these ae ot eevat to the cste ac

Art as a Cluster Cncet

4

cout or an aem pt t o sort out some of the vauene ss  n the dea of a crtero n as used by phosophers n other contexts, see Wlam . Lycan, "Nonnductve vdence  Recent Wo rk on Wen sten's  Crtera, ' Amercan Phlosophcal Quar terly 8  1971  109-25 8 Wetz, Role of Theory, seems larely to have the resemblancetoparadm approach n mnd on p 149 and the cluste r appr oach n mnd on pp 15 0 -51  The man thrust of Wetzs poston seems to be toward the laer and f ths s cor rect then the sandard aacks on hm are based on a msconstrual Westen also seems larely to suppo rt the cl uster construal of famly resemblance Note that the resembl ancetopara dm vew f furth er worked out collapse s nto the cluster vew for f we are asked to say n what respect somethn resemb es the paradm then we ha e to refer to a enera prop ert an d when we do so  there s no furthe r need to refer to the paradm 9 Wensten Phosophcal nestgatonspart 1 66 10 Note that the concept of the aesthetc appealed to here s a narrow one rouhly beaut and ts subspeces 1 1  For nst ance subectvst den tons of color ( e   necessarly someth n s red   t looks red to nor mal observer  der norm al condtons are crcular but n formatve provded one can specfy the condtons and observers other than smply as those ud er whch or to whom red thns l ook red  12 Compare Alasdar Macntre Aer Vtue (London Duckworth 1981) 1 75f  Ncholas Wo lterstor P hlosophy o f Art after nayss and Romantcsm Analytc secton 5 nNo Shusterman Oxford Blackwell, 1 989 ad CarrolAesthecs "Art Pract ed ce Rchard and Narratve  Mons 71 1 988 ) 1 40-56  at secton 2  Note that a pra ctce should not be characterzed a s an esablshed knd of actvt as Macntre dees t snce then the rst artworks canot be coted as artworks for they are not part of a pratce that s stablshed at that pont  1 3  The on tnency clam seems to be held by Woltrstor ( Phlosophy of A rt 52 but both Carroll and Macntre seem to th that ben a part of a cutural pratce s a necessary condton for an acton to be an artacton 14 Note that "product here has to be construed n a broader sense than nor mal not ust to ncude an entt that ca ocaly survve the termnaton of the actons that ornate or ater t (artfacts and selected obects), but also to cover the totalt of those actons themselves (the case of performances) Prodcn has also to be construed n a smlary broad fashon 15 See Beardsl ey "Rede n Art 3 1 3 for hs doubts about some con ceptual art Han fln Art Artfact and Functon 45  dees that  way out' o bects and performances are art H e correctly not es that man y peop le do not reconz e such obects as a rt but there aan of course many peope do  16 There are smar realfe cases: the ol sketches of Neapotan buldns made n the 1780s by the Welsh panter Thomas oes appear not to hae been consdered by ether the artst or hs audence as arworks but n the last fort years the sketches have been haled as some of the most ornal artworks of the ate ehteenth cenur 1 7 Pal O Krstelle r The Mode rn System of the Arts Journal of te sory of

44

T

deas1 2 ( 1 951 )  496 -527 an d 1 3 ( 1 952 )  1 7-46  For recen suppor for he hess see Paul Mattck r, ed ighteenthCentuy Aesthetcs and the econstucton of At (Cabrde  C abrde versty Press 1 99 3 espec ally he nroducon 1 8  T he concep of  ha s herefore chane d over ts hstory but note hs does not commt us to a hstorcal deton of rt snce the task s to chacterze the concept as t s now 19 See n ptcul  Beds ley  Reden Art 20  See Dcke At and the A esthec

21  Comp em Pantng as an At (Prnceton Prnceton Un versty Press,e 1 98chd 7  14 1 Wollh 6 22 See Greory Curre Aens Too Analysis 53 (1993) 116-18  23 It s not n eneral true that pluralstc theores re normatvely mpotent for an men t shown tha there s adeuate room for normatve mpr ovement hlosophical n the case of pluralstc moral theores see my Moral Pluralsm, Papes 22  1993 1 7-4 0 and Ra Bas D sputes ad Moral Plur alsm  Utlas 11 (1999) 37 -48 24 Saul rpke amng and ecessty (Oxford Bas Blackwell 1980), lec ture 1 25 The obecton s due to Crspn Stwell 26 Stecker Atwok pt 1  At pp 24 25 n 1 0 Stecke r says t hat ve n what I mean by a cluster accoun he has no obecton to the classcaton of hs ow vew as such an account 27  Ths was he resul of Wezs attack as noed by Daves Dentons of At 9  28 For nstace Nc holas oterstor Wok and Wol of At (Oxford Cl endon Press 1980 and Kendall Walton Mmess as MakeBelee (Cabrde Hrvd Unvers ty Press, 1990), e studes of the nature of representaton but ther resuts e not lmted to tstc represen taton  29 For a worknout of such a vew of nterpretaton see my Interpretn h Arts The Patchwork Theory, oual of Aesthetcs and At Ctcism 51 (1993) 597-609 ad Metaphor ad the Understadn of Art Poceedngs of the As totelan Socety 97 (1997)  22 3-41 30 A shorter verson of ths chapter was delvered to the natona Amerca Socety for Aesthetcs conference n 1995 I a rateful to the prtcpants at th sesson an d n pt cul to my com mentator Cr spn Stwell for ther comments The chapter has aso beneted reatly from commens by Oswald Han Alex Nel and Robert Stecker

3 Is It Reaso nable to A ttempt to Dene Ar ? ROBERT STECKER

The poect of dening at has had an uneven eception in our now eping cenury Pusued condently in its st half the poject looked to be b oth theoetically wongheaded and nealy downed in a sea of cou nte eamples in the middle yeas. oweve, like almost any othe philosophi cal poject, the weight of objections could not kill it o completely, ad in fact, in the last few decaes, thee has been a vigoous eviva of inte est in dening at and much ingenuity epended in oeing up po pos als . Now in theoflate to be doing inventoy (in pat, the issuing hisnineties vome)weInappea my stocktaking, I sense wo things Onwith he optimistic side, I see a ough bt still su rpising, convege nce of views, if not omenclature, abot what the ight dei tion of at oght to lo ok like , about the tems in which at ought to be deed. On the othe hand, I see a shap incease in skeptical sentiments about the feasibility and value of the poject Thus, in the last few yeas, when I have pesented papes on this topic the audience eally came to life only on the issue of whethe we should oe deitions at al, wheeas in ealie yeas, thee was much  moe inteest in assessing the meits of paticula poposals. If I am ight about both t ends, we ae in the pa adoic al sitatio n of losing faith  the pojec t ju st when a modicum of consensus may be in the ong In this c hapte, I will st ty to set ot the consensus I see emeging. I will then tun to easons why some ae sketical of the whole poect of deing at, and to paticla vesions of the consenss view. Finally, I will take up the issue of what a deition of at is supposed to accompis h Fo it i s ony when that isse i s settled that we ca complet e the evaation of both tends mentioned so fa 45



   



II T: TE COESS EW t te rik o entionin what  all too aliar,  will begin b y pointing ut the oinnt rival propoal ro which y proered consensus has eere. he positio that was oant in the rst hal o the ce ntury was ctioalis, thoughsoe propoets o this vew would be appalled at te label ccordig to this vew, art is to be dened in ters o (ypcally) e or (possibly) ore tha oe valuable uction it uls Perhaps not t uch weght need be place o the dea o a uncton. The basc dea ereis tat art is to be ene  ters o properties or whic h it is vau ed. a o ths sort ca be tralate ito uncion" terinology, since t  uually true that the possessio or presetation o a gven valuable rery is a uncto o a work, butthat ay not be the os t ntuitve way  reetg these denitios hat art is wha t posse sses sign icant or, i at evokes or epresses eotio (i possibly special ways), is what (itetioaly) provides (a si cat) aesthetic eperi ence are eaples o e unctoalist etons o art hey are ple unctonalist dei t because they dee art i ters o oe uncon, one valuable prop ertut beore the atiessetialist (or atideitionist) backlash set in, ctioalist dentos becae icreasing cople and (unortunately) sce hus there was orgacs, the vew albeit tha art is really aeleents class o c wholes cosstig inseparable, o istigushable, r ter causaly ecaciousrelatios preseted i soe sensuous ediu, i  oltrs, the view tht art is soethig that provdes satsac  tough agatio, socal sigcace an [ or?  harony ?  e et posito that shoul e entione is atiessentalis Ths ie soul ot be see siy as claiing that art canot be deed ter, it has ore cople, a eorously ifluential, aspects one etie, oe positive The iueta egative aspect was the rejection o e secicaly unctonlst etios just entoned - both the siple e  the last gasp ecesses The atessentialists rended us o the ee ith whch coutereaples coul be oun to these denitions and ere theoretcal reaso ns why thee should coe as no surprise  The ost eal theoretical reason  ot actualy the o e they ost ephaszed  be o the iea that the very atre(!) o art reuires that its vau lectio change over tie O the positive sde, the antiessentialists  er a ccepto o art, abe t a o enit ional conception  Sice it i ire b y Witgestei, it takes oe o wo ors. t is either a aily ebce coceptio accor to which soethng is art in virtue o  o iilarties to variou dverse paradigs,  or a cluster concepton ccri to which soethig is rt i vire o satisying oe ebers   et (cter) o coditos Each approach is inadeuate untl it an

I It Reaonable to Atept to Dene Art

4

swers a which question wic similarities (conditions) are the ones that bestow arthood Once this question is answered, however, we seem to be back on the tr ack of a de nitio n ence, antiessent ialism sowed t he seeds of a new crop of deni tions Each subsequent denition took its cue from some element in the anti essentialist perspective Institutionalist denitions seek to avoid the taint of anything functional (valuable, ehibited) in the dening conditions of art istorcal denitions try to identify the relevat strands of similarity and trace them back to srcinary rst art Neofunctionalists ike myself are sometimes construed as be longing in this category, at o ther times con strued as oering a hybrid of severa di erent approach es n any case the basic idea is to (partially) dene art in terms of functions without pinning down those functions o a list that permanently appies to the whole his tory of ar, past, present, and future Al these denitions are of a type om Leddy has called metalevel deniti ons be cause of the abstract lev el at which these theories operae and their (possibly eliminable) references o art, art forms, art unctio ns, ar insituion s, and so forth 4 f one surveys the ed of current denitons-and purportedly non denitonal conceptionsof art, one is most liely, at rst, to be struck by their diversity, rather than any tendency toward convergence eorge Dickie and others stll defend versionsjust of the nstitutional theory accord ing to which an obect is an artwork in case it is properly situated in the framework of an artworld institution for Dickie, just in case it s an artifact of a i nd created to b e pre sented to an artword public  here are severa historical denitions currently available, according to whch art ors eisting at a given time are dened in terms of a relaton they bear o artworks eising a an earier time, uni we arrive at a rs art which is dned in some oher way he mos plausible and besdefended ver sion o f his view is an inenional hisorical deniion proposed by errold Levins on I have defended a view I cal  hisorical func ionalism which, despite its name, is no quie a hisorical deniion as specied above Roughly, somehing is an arwor a a ime t just in case eithe r it is in a centra art form at t and is intended to fulll a properly specied function of that form, or it is a artifact that fulls a properly s peci ed function of art with ecellence, whether or not it is in a central art form and whether or not it was intended to fulll such a function.8 Berys aut argues (in this volume) that art is to be understood not in terms of a denition, but as a clus ter concept, thereby seem ing to revi ve an a ntie ssentialis t concep tion of art. Finally, simple functionalist denitons have not been entirely weeded out. In fact they pop up with surprisng frequency, usually at tempting, more or less straightforwardly, to dene rt in terms of aesthetic value his is the one sort of denition I will ignore in what follows.

here i the unifority-convergence, consensus-in this diversity of ews I n it in the folowing aspects of all the approaches to uder nin  art eceptthe siple fuctionalist ones: the disjunctive character of rt enition, the ineliinaility of reference to function and history, e iortnce of oth intention and institution  hi chrcteriation i very controversil Frt, t simply ignores one group of entons the siple functionalist one  Second, it character e viou etions in tendentious way, snce not al the proponents of thee enition woud admit that ther favored view has all the a ov e enone pect I wont try to justif here the rst controversial fea te utwil focus on arguing for y (initially) tendentious character on. E ICIE CHARACER OF ARS DEFINIION dsunc oe of e conceptons of art entoned aove are eplcitl tve other e not eplcitly disjunctive. What I will argue is that all are ctlly disunctve when al the nece ssary ualcations and condi tion s of eucy ae et rc l fnctionlis i s epci tly disjunctve he rough intial state ent of that view given aove i nicates this  auts c uster conce ption of rt trns out to e eui valent to a dis unctive e ton of art auts char acteration concept akesthen thisthere clear.re Hesevera eplainsdierent that fsuf the a clusr concept, concept of ofa iscluster cient cntions for eing an  no conditions ar indvidualy necessary for ein   that s, there i s no conditio n that all the s ust satsfy, and nlly, te ae dsjctively necessary conditions for eing an  that s, t u e true that f somethng s  then it satise s one or aother of the ucent cnditons for eing  o put matters a little ore smply, clus ter cncepts ie us sucient condions that are disjoi ny nece ssary (rather thannecessry condons that are conjo ntly sucie nt as r e given y so calle rea enitions ")  All this i s precisely what ust e true i f s are t e sjnctiely dened o speak of a cl uster concept s j ust another way f speakng of a disjunctve denition Havng sad that let e note  y snctie ierencesenition eween auts of art. aut con ceptio claisn of at arttasay a c luster e indeterinate concep t, and whethera ien condition fo r eing art is sucient or not he condition s  sate e sserted to e deterinately sucient Second, aut akes no cient as to the nmer of dis ctive condio ns or even whether ere s  eterinate nuer here are a deterinate nuer of disunc te cnitins n y view e inttnalhstorical denition is not typically stated disctively It is usually presented as claing (roughly) that  is an artwork if and

only f  s serously ntended for regard n any way preestng arworks are or were correctly regarded However, ths smple s ary statement hdes what s actually a elaborately dsunctve concepton of art Frst, t urns out that there are (at least) wo derent ypes of regard one can have for arworksntrnsc and relatonathe ntendg of ether one of whch s s ucent to make somethng art. Second,  t also urns out that there are alternatve suc ent condto ns for beng art, one set out n terms of creatve processes n the mnd of the artst, another set out n terms of appropraton and pro ecto n by a arworld couny An ntentonal hstorca purst ght attempt to elmnate these latter condtons whle argung that dstngushng beween ypes of regards does not make the denton truly dsunctve Even f ths purst proect succeeds, t won't head o the nee d to add yet another dsunctv e co ndton, whch no hstor cal vew can elmnate The need for a further condton s easly brought out by consderng the fact that before ayone can have the crucal nten ton mentoned n the ntal enton, there must be soe art around to whch the ntenton refers Evenally, ths wll lead us back to art not made wth such a ntenton -rst art  So as not to leave s art out, the den ton ust be rephrased  s art ust n case  t s tended for a regard .    or  s rs t art (w th an account of r st art" attached whch allow s elm naton of that phrase)  Hence, hstorcal theores are esse ntally ds unctve s there ay reason to thnk nsttonal theores contan hden ds uncts? cearest st eplct n sttutonal denton Dcke sThe ost recentand proposal  a arwork s a artf act of aweknpossess d createds to be presented to an arworld publc  wouldn't argue that ths den ton has a hdden dsunctve form.  would argue that the denton could not be adequate as t stands, and when made more adequate by suppe metaton , a ds unctve form would emerge Let us assume for argments sake that the orgnal denton provdes a adequa te concepton of much anstream" art of the past ad present. t stl would not very plausbly apply to rst art (very early art) and to art outsd e e standard art forms These n eed to be fnctona lly dened H ence, there must be other sucent condtons for beng art other than the nsttutonal one Dcke proposes Further, f st art s art n vrtue of meetng fuctonal condtons, other atems selfstadng tha t meetalternatve those condtons functonal shouldcondton als o beofartarthood Hence, So there far,shoud  havebe erely asse rted that ths s so Let me now argue that t s by turnng to the second feat ure on whch a meta eve dentons shoud con verge  THE NELMNALT OF FNCTON AND HSTO R Art out of the anstream rases wo questons for an nsttutonal de nton of art. The rst questn s what akes an nsttuton an art n

0

K

tutn? cke, and other nsttutonalsts, gve us very lttle by way of ner t ths ueston Instead they gve us feature, lke beng n artfact presentatn system, that b art and nonart nsttutons share n com n cke eplc tly reles on o ur nartculated bacground knowle dge f rent rtstc pracces to plement the dst nct on Even on the ues nle asspton that such an appeal suces for pcking out the art ntutns f the present an recent past,  t could no t suce as soo n as e e t t prouce n famlar contet s, a nd could s uce least of ll ith the ost nfalar case  the case of rst art en ts skeptcs grants the nsttutonalst too much, because t rts tat all at, and rst rt n partcular, s ade withn soe nsttu tnl settn But this ignores a second ueston rased by rst art: is art lays ae n such a settng? As  tephen Daves has recenty pointed out, s s t unlkely, not only for st art, but for much nonWestern art (, I wul ad, soe trait onal Western rt 4 D aves s certanly rght f ne thns f  t nsttuton as a framework excvey concerned th the creaton or presentat on of arorks  For in the cases ust c ted, there re not such dstncte ns ttutons, but rather the producton of art s  aspect of a ariety of wer s ocal pract ices -relgious, potical, fa la, an so on entons facetheresoces analoguetoof recogn the rst eues tonttutonal (though not testral secn, snce t hey have nonns ed a naely, what akes a traditon an art trad ton ? Ths ue sto n arise s euse arks se n mny derent traditons that may have er ent rns ( n erent rst tworks Although hstor cal denton s can eln hw later ites e arorks by relating them to a gven tradition, sh etns re inplete untl a bass s provded for dstngushng rt trtns fr ther hstrcally con tnuous cultal practce s e best wy t ene rst art, art traditons, and even art insttutions s n s f rt ncons he nsttutonalst has as far as I can see no late nswer  hstorcst ke Lenson mght appeal to common ntentns arss tradtns However, the supposton of such common nntns wul e plausble only f works fulle common unctons rss t rtons In ft, the rele vant ntentons are nteno ns that obe cts e rerde in ertain ways, whch would presuaby be of the ntrinsc et akn referene to such unct ons Henc e appea to common n tentns s nt  stn t lternative to appeal t o commo n functo ns Rather, the fer s prst on the atter  s  h t be reped that f we ne ed to dene or c lar when an nsttutn s n rt nsttuton, an when a tradton s an art traiton, esn't the se ueston rise regardng fu ncto ns  when s a unction an t fntn? s s ertany a egtmate ueston, but fortunate y there re se functns tht crop up across many ierent art forms that are

I It Reaonable to Atept to Dene Art

5

feuently, f not invaiably, fullle by individual atwoks and that ae as noticeable in ealy at and at fom dieent taditions as they ae in moe familia woks. Let's call these aesthetic fnctions. Woks that full aesthetic functions contain valuable aesthetic popeties and povide valu able aesthetic epeience Woks that fulll aesthetic fntions ae, among othe things, b eautifu, o gaceful, o vibant, o epessivey powe ful, o vividly epes entational  We tend to eco gniz e aest hetic fntion s in ve y ealy at and the at of othe cultues eve n if ou aesthetic appeciation is patia ad much o f thei etaaesthetic signicace is opaue. Howeve, one cannot smply say that something is st a t if it fulls aesthetic f unctions o s omething is an at tadton o nstitution if it ( initially) pomoes the i fulllment Many atifacts fulll aes thetic functions , not all of whc h ae at by any mean s. A moe discimi nating condit ion is needed My own denitio n suggests tha t items that full aesthetic functions with ecellence ae atwoks avies suggests that st atw oks ae items that, when teated as a whole, d isplay aestheti c featues that ae es sential to thei ealizng the pme function (o one of thei pime fun ctions )  Pehaps hee too a dis nctive condition is appopiate  n ay case, once we have a way of pickin g out st at, we can dene at taditions and institut ion s as ones that oiginate with items so fc haacteiz ed st at in tems of aesthetic fnctions o featues, it we can dene does not follow, ad it wold be wong to infe, that we can dene at in those tems This is because once at taditions and institutions ae estab lished, the fnctions of at and the intentions with which it is made can divege n nfoesee able ways  Many of these functions and intentons ae fom o gene spec ic  Many aise unde what  have elsewhee ca lled pe decesso concepts to ou cuent concept of at-concepts like those of ancent cassic, and that of a lbea at (applied to musc ad poety)  suspect that even the concept of ne at, that aose in the ealy eighteenth centuy, is a pedece sso  to ou cuent concept o f at e sthetic pope tes ae not always p eem inent i n items falling unde some of these pedecesso  concepts as well as o u cuent conc ept To unde stand the way we cla ssify items as at today, we have to make efeence to the histoical development of the concept of at His toi cists do this by e lating at m ade at a given time to the functions of contempoay o ealie atwoks o to the intentions with which they ae made A cluste theoist would have to cope with the fact that the appopiate cl uste of popeties fom which condi tions su cient fo being at emege is subec t to histoic al chage nsttu tionalists,  have ust agued , at least have to make efeence to the oigi ns of at institu tions, to distin guish them fom nonat institution s n o ne way o anothe, a efeence to ats histoy i s a peeu isi te to a satsfacto y denton of at

5

S T K 

 IOT OF ITTION AND INSTITTON  ee a es one aso need to ake reference to ntenton s wth ch rt s e or the nsttutonal fraework n whch t s made? us soe of the dentons entoned so far sa es But do the ren of the reanng aternates hae to make concessons s lr t se cle for fcton and hstor ? I thn the sse a e l ess ce here an the case for consenss ess cear, t a case can st e e tt  stsactor deton w make reference to oth ecll ht cke currentl dees at as  atfact of a knd created to e resente t an atwor adence The deton refers oth to   ttl ene kn (knd created to    ) and to  aspect of the sutn fework of at (arword adence) Accordng to hstor cl ctonls t s sucent for an t e to e at f  t s n a central at    t s ntene to fu a proper l spec ed fct on of that for e et spect of ths condton  s oo s The  nsttuto na a spec t  chre  he noon of a cenral a for. Somethng s a cenral ar  f t chees  certan stat s n an aworld  tes n sc h fors tend  e os re presented n certan settngs to certan audences an t e recee  hose adences n certan was A custer concepton of  l er lke contan a reference to these notons  The ntentona rc en oous ges a centra pace to ntenton, t need  rel  an n at a of an t nsttuton? Lenso n fact recog e e cet conton for eng at that s dstnct nstttona el,  te ght e an arork, n certan cases, n rte of eng rprte  rojected  an aword co for atstc regad   ue tt  cndton s ore an addton to, rather than a n ntrnsc  , tenl hstorcs That Lenson needs to look for sch   hweer, renforces the fct that there s an nsttutona aspect   k  ht eto ns nee  to acknowedge  Ths  nstttona as ec  p  ore centra roe n n tentona stor cs when we spe  he reas for whch oect ae ntended f the ae at (especall  e ce f rena ntendng) at o reference t atakng ntentons and art nsttutons w cr  n  ausle eton of art eaes o deeper uestons uan ere Ousl, we wat to know wc ntentona and nsttutona ec nee e entoe It s eua  crca to decd e whether t  s nec er at rrks poss ess the se as pects or whether  t s onl pat of o ne r re sce conons that the do ea the aer ssue, there s no consenss As I hae aread a e  n ew s that  s not neces sar that at e ade  n  nst ttl fraewrk.  also hold there s n o ntentonal ne cess ar condton

I It Reonae to Atept to Dene Art

53

for being art nstitutionalsts ad ntentonalsts obvously dsagree Ths s an issue that remains to be seled Regardng the former ssue, I wll conne myse lf t a few remar ks about the sort of ntentons that satsfactory dentons wll menton I  skep tcal that cke's approach will work t i s cl ear both that a rworks need not be ntended for presentaton to an arworld audence ad that so n tendng them s nsucent t make tems art Dcke recognzes that an ns tace of a knd created to be presented need nt actually be ntended for pres entaton  hat s requred, then, for somethng to belong t o ths kin d? Dcke 's swers to ths queston have prov ed elus ve at bes t. I t s e qually usatsfacto ry to s pecfy the ntenton as the ntenton to make an arw ork . Asi de from the tght crcul ary of (p artally) denng art n this way, beng made wth ths ntenton s nether neces sary nor sucent for ar thood It s no t necess ary because art has bee n made before th e concept art was aval able for ncorporaton nto ntentons It s not sucent becase one ca set ot to make a work of art ad fal The approprate sort of ntentons are those mentoned by ntentonal hstorcal and hstorcal fnctonalst deton s, wh ch I take to be very smla r n th s regard These are, by ad large, nte ntions that, by working n certai n forms r medi a, one wll fulll certan fucto ns To avod msnder stadng t should be made c lear that the clam necessarily s not thatsucceeds, ayone who sets otthat to make ntenton bt rather worksan arwork producedwth wthths ths ntention in the relevant frm  or meda are arworks (even f they fal to flll the ntended fu ctons ).8 f the argment so far s correct w e now the terms n whic h art shold be dened This s not the same as clam ing that we know how o dene art or that the correct denition i s one which syntheszes or ds a compro mis among the crrent rivals Let us now trn to the crrent skepticism about the project of dening art and see f t supples reasons to dobt whether th e approach to dening art se t out abov e can be success ful SKEPTCSM ABOT DFN ART Crrent skepticism abot the proec t of dening art only spercially re sembles midcentuy antessentialism. The laer had a powerful theoreti cal foundation in a Wigensteinia conception of langage The former has no single theoretical basis. For ths reason one has to tae a pecemeal approach to the crrent septicsm, addressing arguments one by one as they crop p in diere nt writers If there is a common tead among these argments it s despair for one reason or aother the athors of these arguments have become pessimistic that any deniton of art can succeed I have already mentioned, and have tried to head o one basis for dobt

5



K

bot detns, nely, te proleraton o alternates and te alre  derent ters t reac agreement I ae arged tat tere ctlly s  degree  cnergence abt te correct way to dene art among te most prsng approaces I wll ns te reply n te last secton by rgng t n we ndersnd wat dentons attempt to do, we sld not exec oplete cnergence Let me add tat lack o agreeent n ps y s dly eclar t attempts at denton. t s te nrm regdng ny phlosopcl proect. I one despars de to lack o greement, ne gt t despr ab ot plos opy, and mc else b esdes   smlar, thg  nt dentcal, arg ment aganst dent on s te ndc e argen. I t s t ver sn s One c lams t at ts attempt to den e r as aled,  t ttempt as aled, .   , so te next attempt wll probbly al. Te er ersn states tat dent ons ave  ed  n t s area o losopy, ey e led n tat area o posopy,    , so tey re lkely to al n te lsp y  art Tere are mny probl ems w t e nctve argen bt let s be sased ere wt one repy to ec verson. e rst ersn gt ave a mdcm o plasblty, bt note tat t esn't mply tt we wll never scceed n denng rt It also does not re ot tat w e  scces sl dentn s ond, t s was mad e po ssbe by contrbts  r ealer, les s sccessl att empt s Compare Ts at  tempt to ce l. Ierps, s led attempt aled tewl n extl never attempt ll probably bt, tat ts does notas mply tat so tere be  cre ) Te secn ersn  te rgment seems to rase larger concer ns Medcne as scceeed n nng cres Has plosopy ever scceeded n ndng denns?  say no s tendentos Tere may not be ee ent n a denn o knwledge r o jstce, or o art, bt tere are rposls abra t ave no been decs vely reted O ne or more) may be perectly cec, sccessl dentons. noter sce  despar abot denng art s te togt tat te cncept tsel  bece ragmented; tere js snt one tng to dene nymre I n s tgt bt more elsve and more ntrgng tan tse lrea dy ened It s more elsve becase t not cler ow t ers rom te cl already mentned tat teorsts ave prolerated dentons cnce  ns) o art rater tan convergng on one con ceptn I sggest tat te erence can be se ot ts way: Te erl er arg ment d not precle t ere s sme one tng to dene wc we mgt cs e rom te llng canddates te propert o beng art; te s et o tworks pas; resent, and re te extenson o art te trt cn ons o   s  rtrk. It merely cla med ta t tere s no agreement bt ow t ene ths tng  In act, Gat, one proponent o te earler rgent, ges n  sggest tat te best wy to solve ts problem s t tn o th pt  at s a clster concept, a concept to be deed

I I Reaonable o Aep o Dene Ar?

55

disjunctively The present thought is that there is no one thing to be de ned-no single property, set, etension, or truth condition here is no one con cept to captu re Peopl e have dierent concept ions of art because art is not one thing There can, perhaps, be mistaken conceptions, but there is not one concept that all correct conceptions have t conform to his thought is intriguing because it raises imprtant uestions about what would have to obtain for there to be a singe concept f art One pro ponent of the no single concept view is la Goldman He appears to base his view on the prported fact that the artworld is fragmented into various dierent circles of artists, of critics, of ordinary art appreciators, ad as one goes from circle to c ircle at al levels one nds no common core of agreeent about wh at is art So his argument is there is no agreement among eperts (artists and critics), and there is n agreement in ordinary use, so there is no common concept (Rather, we would have a concept of art relative to a circle The premises of this argment are very far from obvious First, such claims tend to be base d on rough and ready impr essio ns rather than pains takig eorts to sort out where agreement ests and where it doesnt Second, much of the data on which impressions are based concern judg ments about particular works, and dierences in such judgments have many causes, onlyononetheofway which is aare dierence n or ones art concept They can aso be based works perceived understood, personal bases, lack of familiary r overfamiariy, boredom wth a particular art movement, and so forth Third, the udgments tat are relevant to the conclusion of this argument re classicatry judgments abut candidate artworks But t is well known that udgments that an tem is or is not art are often issued to prase or disparage a given artwork, not to classify it Lt an in dividual s conceptio n of art be the totai y of his or her be iefs relevant to classifying something as art or not art A grain of truth con tained n the premises of this arg ment s that t s f alse that conceptons of art are uniform across individuals However, this, in itsef, is not a very interesting truth For one thing, it is probably rue of individual concep tons o f most obects of thought For another, many ndvid ual conceptons of art are prereective, insucenty nformed, biased, and lack of uifor mity among concepions is, at east in part, due to such factors ndividual conceptions, like other beliefs, can be evauated against various desider ata, and ought to be revsed to the etent that they fail to meet these An adeuate conception is one tat satises all the desiderata An adeuate conception ought to be wel informed (about the history of art forms, for eampe), unbiased, reectve (in the sense of takng nto accout mplica ton of ones view an d recogning oth er well known views  t ought to be consistent and not vciously circular t ought t o be able to cover the gener

5



aly agreed on etension of art and handle hard cases in plausible ways It ought to make the udgment that something is art corrigibe One can ague about what eacty a is t of desiderata sho ud or should not contain, but it shoud be in itially easie r to reac h agre ement here than on indiv idual conceptions of art The impornt issue, in deciding whether the concept of art is frag mented, is whether there is more than one adequae conception of art The more adeuate conceptions there are, and the more diverse these concep tions are, the more fragmented (relativized) th e concep t For rea sons I will elaborate in the last section it seems to me uite pos sibe tha t there i s more th oe adeuate coception of art However, for reasons already given in the rst fou sectios individuals wi epress these possibly dierent adeuate conceptions using a common core of ideas, so these conceptions wil all rughly be in the same bapark his indicates to me that there is a egree of vagueness about what is art, but not that there i s seri ous frag mentio of the concep t. The skeptica obections considered so far a raise doubts about the possibiliy of set ting on a generaly accepte d, ade uate, co rrect denition , especially a singe such denition Others have raised concerns that  not directly uestion this possi biity but which d iscredit in other ways the proect f seeking a denition ovitz ,toford eampe, argues that Ifcas sifying items as arworks has littlDavid e or nothing o with deni ng art his agent s correct, this would be devastatng for the pro ect of deni ng art because the pont of that proect has long been to articulate the conditons uder which we classify items as art If denition n s out to b e irrelevant to classicaton, then wat s the pont of looking for a deniti on of art? I wsh I could etract one or severa crispy stated argments from ovitzs paper nfortunately, they have euded me nstead,  will rst discuss varous remarks whch Novt z takes to support the c aim that ca s scato proceeds independently of denition This wl enabe us both to shape the issue, sorting out true statements from false ones, and to evauate the overall pausibility of Novitzs position I wil then ask how ovtz proposes to classify items as art and wil sugg est that he appea s to condtions which themseves appromate to a den tion . etions te us about th e meanin g of words and not the world, and the oent we revise th em n the g ht of ou eper ence of the word, we fa to treat them as denitions A cassicatory statement is never true by dention it is a synthetic a postriori?] statement based on ou eperi ence of he world" (156). Cassicatory statements are synthetc That doesnt me that they proceed ndependently of denitions Consider oe is a bacheor How do you now that?" Wel, I know he i s an adult male a I ust found out that he is unmarried The classication s di

I I Reaonable o Aep o Dene A r

7

rectly based on a denition, bt it still m aes a cla im that is synthetic and not tre by dention" because t reires ascertainng that the prper tes deitive of bachelors ae possessed by a patcla item, and ths ca only be ascertaned based on o eperience of the world" Im not se that deitions themselves ae never based on such eperence (consder the dei tion o f natal nds , bt even if tha t is tre, ad class icatory statements ae so based, t does nt follow tha classcati on proceeds nde pendentl y of denition [Althogh] classicatory dsputes about art sometmes paade as dis putes abot the rea nate or essence of at they ae more properly constred as disptes about a range of normatve sses .   (16). he passage stands in tenson with the previous one, since estions abot how we ould treat a obect ae not cealy setteable by o eperience of the word. The passage also sggests that cassicatory dsputes canot be about both the nate of at ad normatve ssues. But this is not so If a ems being at depends on its possessing valuable properties or fllling valuable func tons, and this deter mines how it shoud be treated, then clas scatory disputes would be abot both the nate of at and normative sse Novit also poi nts out that it is possble to classify radcall y innovative wor as at, bt he Either ca imsdetons that dentons have a had tme accounting sch classcations succee n coverng radcal innovafo r tons by becomng vacous ( the fate of instittional deitions, according to Novit or fai by reuring that new wors bea crucia smilaties to past ones (the fate of hstorca detons e Levnsons ad mine I thin its possible to defend both institutional and hstorcal dentions against thes e chages , but will here re strct the defense to the latt er type of deon Frst note that any satsfactory classicatory procede for s must place so me sort of restr ction on whic h items can be correctly deemed s whether or not ths proced e claims to dene s. Second, it shold be rea ed that a sorts of innovation woud be permtted by such dento ns For eample wors could flll new functions but aso some tradtonal sbect ones, ormatter they cold It s fulll by now traditional a traditonal functons function n new of at ways to or suggest for a new ways of seeing or thinng, to ehibt srcnalty to eston past pr actce, to brea rles, n short, to be new and dere nt n countl ess ways  Hence nnovation seems to pose no dclty for historica detons Bt what about inovaton so radical the new wor beas no signicant relation to eaier ones I now of no such wors. Untl a trly probematc eampe s oered, no genune problem has been posed Novit goes on to say that th e ca se o f classc atory dsputes is t he ful llment or the dsa ppoi ntment of the high ep ectatio ns we have abot at

58

STCR

hese are epectations that art wi fulll certain eudaimonistic func tions.  Novitzs re marks about how reference to these functio ns ser ves the classicatory enterprise are confusing. On the one hand, he recognizes that apeal to these fuctions wont constitute a functionalist denition of art since they are shared b y items which arent artworks On the other had, he eaves it most unclear how appeal to the fullment of these functions can settle any classicatory disputes ust because they are not sucient for an item s bei ng an artwork. n the end, Novitz recognizes that an appeal t o eudaimonistic functions cannot by itself settle such a dispute. Other con ditions need to be introduced owd the end of the paper, Noitz sugg ests that a succe ssful class ca tory procedue has to meet two futher conditions. First, no artifact can be a work of art if no one has eer caimed this o f it ( or of anything of t he sort)" (6). Second, Novtz suggests that these claims mus receive some sort of pos itive uptake, though to what etent and by whom is left unclear. Whatever this acknowledgment o f the claim that an item is art amounts to, t is something that in o cute at ths tme we wllngly tender out of respect .  . for other human beings, at least if we can get an inkling of the  humanizing roe of the item under cons iderati on (62) In earlir ages, such accept ance would not be so ea sly seced  folowing protodention An item(is a artwork if andhis onlysuggests f (a  itthe performs a eudaimonistic function, someone claims art status for it, or for things of the same sort, (c this ca receves ade quate acceptance I call ths a protodention for several reasons Frst, Novitz did not intend to s tate a den ition  Second perhaps in part because of this, it has obvous rough edges in need of renement before it could be taken seriously. For eample, the fucton mentoned n (a needs to be ore cearly spec ied  As it stnds, b will be saised by everything, since everything beongs to a sort that some arwork belongs to. With regard to c, a clearer epcaton of adequate acceptance s needed, as we as ore eplana tion why the condtion is ne cessary hird, however , Novitzs concud ing remarks,  ust adumbrate d, are much ore suggestive of condi tons n ecessary and suc ient for ar thood than were his earlier stat eents  his resulted from the fact that he nally had to articulate a cassicatory conception of art, and this nevitably approiated to a denition Finally note that the classicatory conditions Novtz articulates have most of the characterstcs the rst secton claed to be required by the consensus view about dening art Both functional (condition a  and nsttutiona b and c aspects of art are highlighted here is implicit ref erence to rts hstory n the recognton that both artstc fnctons and nors of acceptance change with time here is not a clear acknowedg ment that ou classicatory procedues appeal to a disunction of condi

s  Reasonae o Aem o Dene Ar

59

tons, ut gven Novts overall poston , ths s a concesson that ght e easy secured n short, when speed out, Novts concepton of our class catory procedure for art s not radcally d erent, n ts fundamental terms, from th at set out n the est current deto ns of art WAT DEFNITONS ACCOPLS There s proaly as mu ch controver sy, and dversty of ve ws, aout what detons are and what they do as there are dentons of art  wl not survey here a arge num er of ve ws ao ut denton and  wll not argu e that one concepton of denton s the correct denton of denton  wl smp y contras t my own vew aout what a dent on of art ca ac complsh wth tw o others One common concepton s that dentons reveal the rea essence of what they dene Where somethng has a real essence t s a necessary truth that somethng s an  only f (or f ad only f) t s a G and ths nece ssary truth ca only e ds covered a post eror  Some proposed den tons of art appear to hope to dentfy such an ess ence whle y skeptcs aout de nng art epress d out that th ere s any such thng to e d scov ered.  On ths one ssue  nclne to the skeptcs sde  There may e some tes for whch thseconcepton denton s approprate, knds f such there would e of leadng cnddates t ay ead thatnatural soe thng s water f ad ony f  s coposed of    molecue s, and that ths s a nec ess ary ut an eprcaly d scovered  truth. t ma y aso e true that the eanng of water s sply ts referent hence, not only water ut water s dened y a rea essence Artworks n contrast are artfacts they re not natural knds Artfacts,  assue dont have as ther essence, hdden natures that ca e dscovered We couldnt dscover that, though we thought chars were artfacts made or used t o e sat upon th s s really true only of some chars and that the real essence of chars es copetey elsewhere ence, artfacts are not deed y rea essences Perhaps soe k nds of artfacts, and other huany nvented k nds have essences even f they are not real essences n nventng the knd, we nvent the essence of the knd, ad preserve t n the meanng of words used to refer to tes elongng to the knd For these knds, t s a necessary truth that somethng s a  ony f (or f ad ony) t s a G where ths s known a pror on the ass of the eng of wo rds desgnatng s Perhaps t s necessary that soethng s a char f and ony f t s an artfact made or used to e sat upon y a snge ndvdua (or perhaps certan addtona surface structural features are also necessary to rule out such thngs as stool s, eags, etc ) Whether or not ths s so for char s, t ht ore plaus ly e so for the knds aun or aceo f any of t hese clams co ud

s  Reasonae o Aem o Dene Ar

1

y te avantgae atoug soe t tey o so too nctcay Tey ave not een as goo at ecognzng tatona at ut t s open to a conce pton to eny tat soe tn gs cuenty e ng cae at eay ae so Fuctona a stoca teoes ave oe esouces to ecognze ta tona at  ut eent teoes  o so n soewa t eent ways Tese es soun't e nestoo as cang tat te cue nt  not eang poposas ae a euay satsfactoy econstuctons  cang ts no o  eeve t Te ca s spy tat tee cou e euay satsfactoy econstuctons t aso soun't e tougt tat  a suggestng tat popose e ntons ae eay onoc ate ta casscatoy. Te entons ae concene wt ag sese of ou casscato pactce, even f te sense ae s soewat eaze Te entons tat escew efeence to fnctons popetes o egas, fo wc we vaue awos suc as nsttutona entons, ae ust as uc eaze conceptons of ts pactce as entons tat o ae suc efe eces  t s suggests tat, fo t e po ect of e ng at ot ete e pes  ss septcs fe on espa of ang pogess n ts aena an ovey uoyat opts (supposng tee s a enton tat eveas te essence of at ae space Wat we can easonay ope to o s sug gestessence ways ofofang nsesoofsot a pactce wc not so ufo to ye a at ansenot toug wsnconsstency as toasesst ay aept at sense ag By ong so we ecoe ceae aout ou nvua conceptons of at, can eane te  agan st vaous e seata fo ae uatey e ng at an peap s eten te coon goun n ou vaous nvua conceptons

NOTES 1  at s sally dened  s actaly wok of at (atwok I wll spea o f denng at for convenence and brev ty cover ng atepts to dene bot at (a pract ce) and arwor (an obect hen acal dentos ae dscssed, t wll be clea what s beng dened 2 Both qotatons are fro Morrs etz, "The Roe of Theory n Aesthet cs n Aesthetcs n Pespecte ed Kathleen Hggns (Fort orth Harcort, Brace, 1996, 76-77 Organcsm was etz's own vew before hs converson to ant essentalsm Volntarsm s the vew of Dewt Pare r 3  Paadgms are very clea e aples of som e type of entt y So presaby p ara dgms of art mght be t he nearly nv ersally acn owledged great wors of a canon sch as he Mona Lsa Beehovens Ffth Symphony, or Mddlemac To th

s  Reasonae o Aem o Dene Ar

63

tendng that a wor has va lable proprts or fnctons that som p ast wor has n the relatona way of nten dng, on dos not have n mnd sch s pecc proper tes, bt one has n mnd wors, geres, or art n genera 1 3 . Levnson says that these pc o t dre nt senses of art owever, the tems pced ot by thse "senses get prty mch the sa treatmentare regardd n abot th sa way as ems pcd ot by the tntonal hstorca "s ens.  ence, t sees to me more accurate to sa y these deren t condtons ae de rent gronds for pcng ot the sae sort of thng outhen ounal of h 14 See35Stephen Frst"Nonstern rt and rts Dnon, losohy (1997) Daves, 19-34, and Art and Arts Deton, n ths vol 15 For a more dtaled agent for thes e clams, s e the papers b y Daves ctd n n 14  1 6 Levnson aes the condton wth te further stplat ons that the tm n eston b (a nordnately valabl as art, b) nsted for o ther empoy ment, c somethng we cold scacey help tang as at 1 7 Or perhaps t s not comp letly obvos  hat hey ds agree Lvnson does or alternatve scent condtons to the ntentonal hstorcal condtons, and Daves thogh h has defe nded the nstttonal theory, now sems to see that not al at mang occurs wthn an at nsttton 18 For agnts for ths clam  my Atwoks enton Meanng Vale 554, ad th papers by Levnson ctd n n 7 For further thoghts on the bst way to chaacter th ntenton, s Leddy, Stcers Fnctonalsm, and my repy Ledd y on Stcers Fnctonasm oal of Aesthetcs a d At Ctcsm 56 1 998)  42-4 1 9 owever, t s not cea  why ths thoght too cod not be expressd n terms of a ds nctve de nton of a t 2  olda n exprssd thes vews n commnts on my papr "he Inten tonal storca Deton of Art, presented at th AA P acc Dvson Metng, Sa Fracsco, Ma ch 293 1 , 1 995  21  Davd Novt, "Dsptes abot Art, oal of Aesthetcs and A t Ctcsm 54  1  6   1 53 -63  Paenthtcal p ag rfer ences below wll b to ths atcle 22 Novt xprs ses two t d rnt concetons of thes fctons On on concepton at has the specc fnctons of hanzng the world man t a place where we beong, wher we feel at home Novtz rpeatdly refers to these

fctons toghot hs papernot Yetb case as a chaactrzat on of art bt fctons, t hs con cepton s hg hly mplasble, a t never fllls them b ecase t only somet mes dos Mch at does the oppost, mang the world stra ge, othr, n hosptable, cold shocng ch art does nether bt has yet other fnctons. I agre that many dsptes abo t cas scaton trn on the fn cton or val e of a can dda tem bt not necessaly on the specc fnctons Novtz's rst concepton ntons Novtzs second concepton recognzes ths wthot recognzng ts n compat bl ty wth th rst concepton. On ths scond concepton, ats fctons vary wth tm bt a nvaably e damonstc  I r ad ths ltraly as mer ey say ng hat at nva aby serves ha happness or flourshng  n some way or oth r

4

STK

 ro wth ths opton s that t border s on te vac os and fals to ds tsh art fro th y other tfacts that aso serve edamonst c ctons 23. So of th skptcl gents aganst ths have alread been dscssed  dscson of olda ad Novt above Among proponents o f he v ew that  dto shld ptr the dscoverabe essence of t s thur Danto, ost arly  Rsss ad Reples, n Athur Danto and s Crtcs ed M lls (Oford asl lakwel 1 3) 19 3-2 16

4 Aesheic Cnces f r JA ES C  NDESON

NODUCON  caper w aep o efen an aeec eory of ar agan oe of  o crca ojecon  w egn y ryng o ae cear e naure of e projec of ar enon  w ngu  eapy ca projec fro e epeoogca proe of ar encaon  w ugge a erenan g ee reae proe  epfu n wo way Fr w e w ga n c ar on exacy wa  we are ee ng n a enon o f ar Secon we w ee a evera oer recen enon of ar can e vewe no a copeor o e aeec enon of ar u a en on aree o a nc poopca proe n fac e eengy oppong enon copeen e aeec eory of ar naure n e econ econ  w aep o oer a cear concep of e aeec Te concep oere w ave evera avanage Fr e arcuaon of e concep of e aeec are feaure, n er of o conen an rucure w accoun oere y oer weer or no ey ee e aeec a cenra o e projec of enng ar Secon, e concep oere w no ae reference o any oer, ore funaena arc noon n or e accoun w a ea nay o e proe of eng eorecay ueu Tr, e concep pu for w e conen w e ory of e concep of e aeec  w pace e ueuen ue of e concep we wn e raon of oer aeec enon of ar gven an conen o eofnoon aeec,  wFnay, e aeavng o ow aape aeec concepon ar areof e no coe o fora cre ra of ar evaua on Te r econ of e caper nvegae way n wc e concep of e aeec  ncorporae n enon of ar  wll loo a wo very eren cea for aeec enon of ar e r approac, eploye o noaly y Bearley ncorporae e aeec no e 65

'\\ \ 

 [} -\! f  '� r  



DSO

artsts ntenton n proucng an artfact e resutng enton, t w e sown, s scrptv n nature e secon approac mts te nten toa coponent of te enton to te creaton of an artfact an treats te aestetc component functonay e creator of art nee not ae n tee te artfact to ae any aestetc potency. t s a matter of weter te artact, n fact, rses to some ee of aestetc potency e resutng enton s, of course, vauatv n nature e strengts an weaness of tse wo approaces w e nestgate wt speca attenton eng pa to te ssues of te poss tat artwors may e create outse of te cotext of te art wor an crosscutura art entcaton n e for secton, I conser te oecton tat aestetc entons of art are eter too narrow or tooroa  eg wt te nature of te proect  s paper Does ratona Aesetcs Rest on a stae  W  Ken nc as s s to [ane a very lae waehouse lled wth al sorts of thnspctures of every dcrpton musca scores for symphones and dances an hymns machnes tos ats hous churches and tempes statues vases books f poetry and of prse  pstae stamps, l owers, trees, st ones us cal strents 

Fter we are to magne tat a person s nstucte to enter te ware ose a rng out a of te wors of art Kenn c rgty con ues tat, wt soe exceptons, te person wou e ae to o ts een toug te perso pssesses no satsfactory enton of Art n terms of some com o eomnator  e tems concernng wc te person s n out are accounte for, y Kennc as a conseuence of te agueness of te cocet of art Accorng to Kennc t s sucent for te competon of the weouse exercse tat te person unerstan ngs, an uner sta s s not, wateer t s, unerstanng a set of entons of th ters we so comortay use e ware ouse ex permen t s ut a p ece of cs oera argument aganst te  ena  of art But from te exeret aone t oes not foow tat art cannot e ene At est, t foows tat entons of art (een a correct enton wou e of no ractca respect to te proect ofofart exer cse ay aue sowwt as tte as tat entons artentcaton wou not ee usefu n etfyng wors wc are paragmatc c ases of art t s te c onne cton wee te proects of te entcaton of art oects an te enng of art tat concerns me ere  s recent aper Hstorca arrates an te osopy of Art o ro presets an nterpretaton of te story of attempts to ene t wc sares a ey feature of Kenncs wareouse exampe tat s, te assmpton tat te pont of entons of art s te practca concern of art etcaton Carro wrtes 

Aesthetc Concets of Art

67

e recren as k of he phlosophy of ar as a maer of fac has been o provide means o dentfy new and emegng wok patculaly wok of a evolutonay sot as art

Futhe, he cams that the etona appoach pesumes that we en tf atncun, most patcuay aantae aty means of ea entons" 7 Accon to Cao , attempts to ene at shou e ewe as msue n outwa pesentaton attempts to poe the theoet ca means fo famy estashn ssue fom aantae eon to the of atthat    mutatons to esta sh theoetca connectonspactce etween the nnoatons of the aantae an the oy of wo anteceenty e ae as at    to soate a metho fo entfyngatwos 8 o mae the pho sophca  po ect moe cea, Cao  aanons the e ntona appoach n fao of an expct attempt to poe means fo the entcaton of wos of the aantae as atwos efoe pon that account, howee, Cao stnushes hs ew fom Kenncs y camn that he oes not thn that we hae any pncpe eason fo thnn that a ea en ton of at w nee e const ucte    t may neetheess tun out that a ea enton s unnecessay"  nnecessay fo what ? Fo any ph osop hca  entepse whc h s not mana an aca emc" 10 So whe Cao s not pepae to aanon the posst of enn at, he shaes wth Kenn c the ew that entons of at ae e sne fo the pactca pupose of entf n o e cts as wos of at an pon t he easons fo sch e ntcatons t s cetan too that Ca o wou sagree wth Kennc concenn the at of pesons to pc out, on the as s of nustc ate s aone, the ast aay of oects wh ch ae wos of at At ths pont  tme, an een whe Kennc popose the wahouse exampe ony paamatc cases of at cou e successfuy ente an retree fom the waehouse  St, Carro aees wth Ken nc that the ont of entons s meant to e the pactca matte of at entcaton Fo Kennc such entons ae unnecessay; fo Cao they ae ee unnecessary or  su se atcuatons of arths torca nar rates For oth Kennc an Caro the roe of such entons s seen as estemologcal want to conta st the ep stemoo ca  ew of entons wth the poj ect of ths chapter an  eee the actua proect that has tpcay ue the phosophca etepse of pon etons of at n The Prn cles of Art Conwoo contasts han a cea ea of [a] thn an en[n] any en thn 11 he former s the epstemooca noton of reconn somethn as  nstance of a  n when one sees t, en ae to ente the waehouse an p c out the wos of at Of enn a concep t he wtes, n oe to ene any en thn, one must hae n one s hea not ony a cear ea of the thn to e ene ut an euay cear ea of

68

DO

all the other this in referen ce to which one dees i"  his understand ing of the proect of denition pruppo the ab ility to correctl y e mploy the cocept i ueston ( in at lea st most cases ) e nin g a concept goes be yon at abiliy to provid e an articulation o f the concep t in terms of ther relate concep to nding the place of the conce pt on the c onceptual map. r consier Harold Osbornes chacteriation of the denitional project  s a ay hoso o ae a cae he ac coces  o hasas adohe ohehy coveos by whch we ve o bg  oae he sace gsc he sege aoaly o o soca  ves    o aclae ad o ds ay  a s coy e aclae coce  o a c  he behavo ad coveo s o he a od

Again e project is to place and make e plic it the content o f o concept of t  for the motive for prsuing such denitions Osborne clams that it is primarilyan intellectual ciosity  And philosophy is after all powere by a selfrewarding intellectual interest  I nd it di cult to belee that these philosophers so selfconscious and eplicit about what ey re tryin to do could really be motivated by a co ncern for at i dent cation enerally or identication of the avantgarde in paticula his is not to say that the of avantgarde not pro vide signicant p roblems for enitions art or thatdo theesavantgar de does not totally mo tivate vios  jstify e epistemological project pursued by Carroll and others I  oly pointin out that my project like Collingwoods Osbornes and others  apycalin nate I am interested i tr ying to nd out what  wor of at  an what it is ntally I wol e cntent t rest with th e above descr ipti on of this proe ct and ccept arolls characteriation of it as marginal and acade mic" ecept tt I o elieve that the metaphysical project can be sefl in the com letio of or nderstanding of the epistemological project I will briely elai why this is so In describing the historical narratives designed to eli the art sus of works of the avantgarde  Carroll writes:  dg aave esab shes he a sas o  a wo by co ec g he o do o he o  qes o o ev osy aco wedged asc  acces     hs oee e ha hee be a cose ss abo ce a o be cs ad acces  he as   a we ow ha cea obecs a d acces a eay co as a

ice hs accont is nondenitional we cann ot chage Carroll with c ircu lriy ith resect to e struc tre of the hist orica l narratives  My cl aim  w th tht I claim only that it is a perfectly good and natl estio to k ht akes the obects and practices which in Carrolls ccount lrey count as art art f a n answer t o this u estion were forth

Aesthetc  ncepts f Art

69

cong  the estemologcal and e me tahyscal ase c of the hloso hy of art w old  e  oned  In fact I vew the oects as comlem entary n  st ths way he sgncance of the meta hys cal entese s also aarent f w e e consde Kenncs warehose examle Fst snce I have acnowledged wth oth Collnwood and O sone that lngst c ocen cy s a neces sary condton fo the denton al oect as I ndestand t I accet m ch of what Kennc assets Howeve Kennc does admt that the eson n the thoght exement wll e zzled y some oects not nowng whee the thng s a wo of at o not  Kennc ates t hs gnoance to the  systematc vagen ess of the concets n qeston   Bt thee may e many easons why a eson mght not now whethe an oect s a wo of at and not all of those easons eect systematc vageness If fo examle a wo of at s necessarly an artfact the eson mght not now whethe a gven oect s a wo of at ecause the persn es nt kn hether the ect n questn s an artfact (as oosed to a oc thown togh the w arehose wndow  If a wo of art s necessa ly ce ated wth some secc ntenton the eson mght not now whethe  wo of art ecause the persn mght nt e oect s a gven ae frm the appearance f the ect t scern the ntentn th hch t as mae (even f the  eson s cetan that the oe ct s  atfact Havng an adeqate denton of at at o dsosal has the added advantage of helng s to ndestand o ow nowldge and gnoance of artclar cases hs nowledge s not meely academc Imagne that o waehose s aot to e demolshed If I fal to c ot a artcla oect fom the waehose and t s oght to my aenton that the oect s not a mee tee oot (as I sosed t an atfact desgned to symolze at once the  ea ty of nate and o dsegad fo t my eectons on the nate of at cold eslt n my nnng ac nto the waehose to eteve the o ect  th s nstance my destandng of th e lace of the concet of a rt n o conceta l famewo mt wel have the ve y actca l conseqence of sa vng the wold an mota nt wo of art H C OCP OF H ASH IC he concet of the aesthetc as t fnctons  n aesthetc dentons o f at s a qastechncal noton One cod dee t as t has een deed n deent ways to cate deent henomena and to cay ot vaos theoetca l tas s On the othe hand  ns ofar as one ses t to dee at as I wl  attemt to d o n the thd secton ee ae seveal cons tants that mst e met y any sefl accont of the concet Fst of al the accont we oe of the aesthetc mst aly oth to natral oects and events

0

 DR  0 

o the one hand, and to works of art on the other Works of art wi then be seen as a species of the broader class of aestetic objects Just how the broader class is narrowed to include all and only arorks is the calenge of te third and forth sections of this chapter. Stil, in putting fort our account of the aeste tc, the overall theoretical pro ject of deng art aes theticaly must be kept in min d econd, our accont of the aesthetic must be sensitive to and reect the wide varet of reactions audiences ave to arous obects, artworks aong rane of relevant responses can include not only pleamelancoly, anxiet, perpexit, and anger Traditional accounts of the aesthetic ave given a central, peraps exclusive, place to e concept of pleasre For reasons to be dscussed n what follows, is stake mus t be avod ed hird, the account provided should be ted to wat we might ca te aethetic adition  In h is paper  Beaut and te Gen eaogy of Art Theory," No Carro cautons that ne way o aemp o sae he aeshec a pproach s o eecey red ee wha s ean by aeshec n such a way ha anyhng ha s an apprprae response  ar s redesgaed as an aethetc response    T recass al ar respns s  aeshec respnses s    a bes an exercse n spuae redenn f n a dnrgh ms se f language 

I ill shw, then, that the sense of the aesthetic deveoped in this secton is tie to the tradition al uses of the term ially, te accout I oer cannot e mploy the co cept o f art in the artculato of the aesthetic this would render circu ar te su bsequent de nitions of t In this regard, I will consider an argument presented by Stephen Davies whch claims a t te aesthetic propertes employed in und erstand  a evalu atng artworks presuppo se the concept of art1 Any de ntion of   terms of suc proper ties would, tus, be c rcu lar I t ow to the ssue of the variet of experieces that can reason ably be nderstood to be eshetc n character and how recent accounts of the aesthetic can help in under standi ng that variet  enda l Waton has recently provded an accot of a family of aesthetic concepts including tetc peasre aestetc apprecatn and aestec vaue Wth some oication, but wie retaining e structral featres an much of te cont of his view, we w be able to account for the variet of aesthetc reactios to both natre and art Te foundatonal concept in Walton's faiy of aeseti c notons i s aesthetic peasre this he de nes as p easre take i one's admiration or postive evauation of something" 21 Walton ees aesetic appreciation as tak[ing pleasre or deight in judging [ythng to be good22 Fnaly, bulding on tese more basic notions,

Aestetc Concepts of Art



propre n [ones] hs conce of aeshec value s dened as a ceran takng aeshec leasue n [somethng] t must be reasonable or at or make sense to do so  3 There are several notable featues of these detons. The rst s the structural feature of te conces All tee embers of the fam of aesthetc concets nvolve metaresonses the concets ave a otered structue Both aesthetc leasure and aesthetc arecaton are meta resonses (easue) to base resonses (admraton or ostve udgment) to some object or event Second, all of the concets have as a consttuent a value ugment ether n the elct form of udgng somethng to be good or as a ostve evauaton of somethng." Thrd, the foundatonal noton n Waton's account of te aesthetc s pleasure In what follows, both the wotered structural f eature of the aes etc and the alue j udg ment feature w be retaned, whe te rmac of aesthetc leasure wll be reject ed . As a mater of clarcaton , t soud b e noted tat te detons oered b Walton do not s ucent dstngush aesthetc leasure from aesthet c arecaton  In fact, e denons oered are vrtual ndstngu shabe Ths echoes tradtona accounts of the aesthetc gven n terms of a sort of leasure But aesthetc arecaton need not nvove leasure at al One

can aesthetcall arecate Mozart'sb Requem feeng sad,Psco and , more mortant, ecause one s saddened t One canwhe arecate whle beng terr ed and ecause one s terred b t  Of couse, s s not to den that sometmes such works brng about med easues, that s, leasre wth ones sadness or terror Indeed, such reactons are not uncommon However,  leasue a t an level s n ot nece ssar for aest hetc arecaton .5 What s necessar for aesthetc arecaton s the recognton or judment that somethng s good" Futher, the correct account of aesetc arecaton does requre the structual feature resent n Waon's ac count. hese two features of Walton's account are reserved f we under stand aesthetc arecaton as a seces of vaue judgment whch focuses on one s experence of obje cts and ther roertes W e can, thus, dee aestetc arecaton as elevng te experence of te propertes of an oect to e ntrnscall valuale.6 Tcal, aesthetc eerence has been tought of as a sort of leasure The roblem wt such vews s that e fal to countenance the fact that some works of art sadd en us, s ome create ane t n us, some even ange us. s would be no robem f we were wllng to dengrate all such works but, to the contrar, we often arec ate and vaue s uch wors for tese very features It woud see m to folow th at no henomenologcal acco unt of the aesthetc eer ence " s o ss ble for an such descrton, there wll be an eerenc e of so me other artwork whch w have the oos te ch aracter



D

RS O

stcs d whch wll be as aesthetc as the orgnal experence he to tere approach resolves ths pro blem It allows s to capte the varety of aesthetc experences wh le retanng a coon feate o f the aesthetc  e vaety typcal of aesthetc apprecaton, vale, or even please s f at the level of the base experence We may experence pleasre, bt we may also experence exctement, provocaton , or sadness e de ntely aesetc dmenson comes n the way we regard tha t exper ence, at bject, or the achevement of the person responsble for the object  alns vew, we may feel anxet n the face of certan works of art t e please n admrng the way the work brngs abot ths anxety e cas f e ke peasure  adr the work for whatever we adre t for ths pea se s aesthetc d  f such peasue s propery tak e  t he work, t hs cost tutes therk's aesthetc vaue

alt oes on to consder cases n whch works are revoltng, even (and esecally desgned to b e revoltng Sch cases can b e treated n the same ay ey are, f they a e aesthet cally s ccess fl, at once revoltng and de ltfL e vew of aesthetc apprecaton oered here ders from Waltons le theyvew are both compatble wth a wde of at baselevel exper t eces, or does not reqre please or derange lght28 the metalevel; reqres only that the person rgar th xprnc of the objec t as havng tsc vale hs approach to aesthetc apprecaton has the advantage f  p leasre ( enj oyment, delght, e tc  from the aesthetc altoget her e e lstens to ozats Rquim and has ae stetc apprec aton for t, t s clt to d the pleas re n the sa dness  It s less d clt, perha ps, t rer that sadness (n that context as havng nt rnsc vale2�  s s t t say that we never ha ve the mx o f ( secondo rder pleasre wth or (rstorder sadness that , I wold b e happy to cal l, w th Walton, a s pec es f aesthetc please I  only clamng that aesthetc apprecaton need t be accompaned wth sch p leasre; the belef n th e reqst e ntrnsc ale s scent kewse, aesthetc vale need not nclde the noton of leasue ts tt the jdgment of ntrc vale be ap proprate  o faly of s e hav·ret the noton of thetc concepts how ever, t s no longer to be nders tood as esse ntal to the aesthetc Ths very shft brngs clealy nto focs the second reqrement f ay efl accont of the aesthetc  We mst oer a n artclaton of the aesetc whch s related to ts phlosophcal tradton Part of the d cly of fllng ths condton s that, trad tona lly, the aes thetc resp onse as een taken to be one o f a specc sor t of ( dsnterested  pleasre A re ate roblem we mst face n lll ng ths c ondt on on t he aesthet c s

Aesthetc Concepts of Art

73

the clam, made by Caoll, that the tadton of aesthetic accounts of at s comed to fomalist accots of at evaluaton that is, that aesthetc theoe s ae necessaly b eauty theo es " Caoll p esents a v eson o f the moden hsto y of the aesthetic and o f the deveopment of aesthetic theoes of at He begns wth Hutcheson and consdes the centa ges of Kant, Bel, and Beadsey , in whose wo aesthetc theoies of rt culmnate He notes that the search fo an tcuaton of the concep t of beauty n Hutcheson and Kant n cluded the cucial notion of snerese peasure Ths coupled wth Bes essental sm in attemptng to dee at, a poect that nethe Hutcheson no Kant was prsug, led to Be s formasm (signicant fo as the least coon den omnato of all at he consequence of ths was B el s ejecton of ep esen tona content, athist oic al popeties, and moal citicis m as ee vant to at assessment he stoy cuminates n Berdsey aticuaton of the content of Bes (unatcuated noton of sgncant fom Beadsleys Genea Canon s" of unt compl ext, and ntenst seve to cap tre the fomast component of the aesthetic theoy he aous desciptons of the aesthetc expe enc e povded by Be ardsley each contain the noton o f a detacment fom pact ca conce ns thus e notion of disnteestedness is caed though in his account of the natue of aesthetc objects geneally, and woks of art in patcua Caoll concudes the account as follows

th Bedsle y we  d th e most systema tc redcto of art theory to aesthet c theory whch  have tred to show meas essetally a redcto to beaty theory     Ths systematcally reres that estos of at hstory athora tet ty co tve cotet a d so o be bracketed as th ey ae   test for beay  the treatses of Htcheso ad Kat

s a esut of Beadsey fomaism, Col ds t qute natra that Beardsley wou d eje ct, as awoks, many of the woks of the avantgade, snce much avan tgade at s explcitly desgned to de ta dto nal sens es of beaut"   he stoy pesented by Croll s compellng Futhe, a theoy of t whch eects the avantgade o, oe geneally, woks which cannot be undestood n tems of thei fomal featues is, n a od, unacceptable nasmuch as we ae commtted to the essentast poject, it seems that we must nd a veson of the hstoy taced by Cao that does not end in a beaut theoy of at" We need to povde a sense of the aesthetc that s connect ed to the hs toy outlned by Cao but whch d oes ot ue ou t as elevant athsto cal popetes , epesenta tional content, o  the moal content of wos of at as possible obects of aesthetc appeciation he famy of aesthetc concepts artculated above fullls these conditons he key to the connecton beween the concept of the aesthetc pe



DRS

O

ete ere a the tradition of e aesthetic comes thro ugh the concept of itriic alue A of the concepts of the aesthetic deed above incude, irecty r directly, the notion of intrin ic value3 his feature of the aestetic i crucial since it will be i n terms of the ce ntra role o f intrin sic vaue tat ur accout will be linked to the aestetic tradition. I propose that e ccet f disinterestednes s which rol articuates in terms of  detacet) is conected to the conc ept of intrinsi c value . I will not rewrit e rrll account of the history of the central ures in terms of intrinsic aluefI i however,ofs et how this view themistaken his torical) gures makes ee te cocept disinte retedness andofthe identication  aetetic teries of ar t with formaist beauty ) theories of art he we contemplate nature from an aesthetic point of view, we are t cceed with the benets that might accrue to  s were we to exploit it i se ay, nor e we concerned w ith the harms that migh t befall s   utcen ays, we are not concerned with any pr ospect of advantae r isae. 33 We re, however, concerned with vaue in some sense, bauy bei a ood thin. It seems nata to betee  interested view of nature and a disinterested view is to be ex icate i term of valuin it instrumental in erms of rewards ),3 on In thec of the te e , and aetetic nature there is nothing our experience ructe areciation  enory of propertie of nature to bebut so vaued; ere isofutthe tey it lok to U3 I  terms of our deition of aesthetic app reciation , te rae f rpertie the experiences of which we coud regard as intrinicay alle include ust the properties we woul naturaly assimiate uer te cncets of beauty or sublimit. he properties woud include te t, te aed, intensit and subtety of coor, the sme of salt  re derstandin o ur exper ience s of sch pr opert ies in this way is t be ctsted wit viewing nature from a n economic point of view, for d  eale j " I t, eer, the sorts of properties the experi ences of which we co uld vaable are extended beyond the properties of '�; beliee t be  te, t inlude, for epl, e se mantic pries of the work his becaue, f crse, wo rks of art are the prodcts of human activit; they "Yl e m as wel a mere formal properties Art obects have ranges f reres that natura obe cts, short of the accep tance of the Argument f ei, cu not hae h e experiences of these properties are ofen, era t fen, what are most interesting to us in the real m of art from  aetetic pit of iew. hese properties incde arthistorical properte, rereetional including mora properties, and cognitive propertie. I rt, te account of the aesthetic we have oered includes but is t liite te ! r?ties o f tworks Bec ause of this, ere is

Aesthetc Concep ts of Art

7

no eason fo us to exclud _!£9 Jb e ?LE  9ks of e avant &de  nsofa ah ntate f£ ptes fo exampe at hstoca popetes ou expeece of whch s taken to be ntnscay vauabe3 6 The vew we hae hee atc ated teats the aes thetc featres of nat re as a s ubs et of the boade set of ae setc featue s shaed by at and natu e Awos fcton genecay  the same way that beautfu natua ob jects do they ae obects of aesthetc appecaton Whe acceptng ths aanement at east fo the sake of argume nt  Stephen Daves attempts to show that one can not use ths c oncepton of aesthetc popetes to dee art37 Daves argues that the aesthetc popetes whch ae elevant to ats functo n ad  hence ts de ton p esu pose the concept of at 1  e functona st de ton of art eque s that an ob ect meet a cetan mnma  standard of evauaton to be a wok of at  that t povde fo aesthetc appecaton fo exampe).   An ob ect wl  meet that standad  n vtue of ts aesthe tc popetes  3  But e aesthetc popetes at eeate the obect to the pont of fung the functon of at dep end on the obe ct' beng ecogn zed as a wok of art !

"

, '

4 Theefoe concept of the the concept  eevant)of aesthetc a wok ofpopet art s conceptualy es . po to the   Theefoe the functona de ton o f at s ccua pes uppos es the

concept of a t) 

e sub )agument fo pemse 3 comes fom Da ve s' eadng of Dan to's dscusson of the deence beween arwoks and ea thngs Daves wtes: f the sprt of atos aguts s accepted, th they show that works of art take o other aesthetc propertes whe s ee properly as atworks fallg wth atstc tradtos    To ap precate suc h p eces as arworks s to apprec ate the for s uch pr opertes    So at status ust be coferred  a pror codto of the geerat o of the ery propertes  ters o f whch at s aled as sch

A second moe adca stategy fo ustng pemse 3 s oeed by Daves as weL hs  s the vew that thee ae no prey aesthetc pope tes that s a esthet c popetes  n nate that do not pesuppose those aesthet c popetes pesent n w oks of art He wtes: The cla the  s ot solely that we look at atre as f t were the product of atsts' actos bt rther that we cao t ew t otherse  were we to pt or dersta dg ad apprec ato of at asde  we would d othg or oy a lttle of aesth etc terest reag



D

RSO

is ater view about the nate of aesthetic properti es n general would be scet to justify pr emse 3  The iew suggested here s that all aesthetic etes ae necessarily propertes whch presuppose the concept of at. Let S call an aesthetic pro perty which resupposes the concept of art an aastc proprty The suggeston, then, s that all aesthetic propertes e t-aesetc properties  When we iew nate aesthetcally, we employ ccets wch hae the concept of at built into them Ths iew s to be stgsed from the more naie ew that we cannot help but thn of ate as he product of an tsanthat, for some reason, we ae all nec essly cotted to th e Argent from Desgn Ths more sophstcated cli s at even the person who ews natre as the product of pely tal rcesses employs, insofar as she ews nate aesthetcally, con ce whch presuppose an applcaton n the at world In ths s ense, "we cnt vew [nate] oerse that s, as both ae sthetcaly interestng n cletely ndependent of e conc ept of art s seco defense of prese 3 s strange, especally as t s stated by aves f all aesetic properties are artaesthetc propertes, why should tee e exceptions as indicated by Daes' paenthetical pase "or only  ltle I the same paagraph Daes suggests that on this iew, suc� ely aeshetc properties would be unexpectedly in and scace. he st t toonake s a logcal one; f the "pe aesthetc ertes artaesthetic properties s a dependence there will be conctuaofone, o excetions But what reason is there for thnkng that there s such a ccetal dependency? ere s he cam n Danto that ofen e same tes e used to describe t-aesthetc properte$ and what we take to  e aestheic propertes, thus alowng us to thn that we e refer i t e sae property (e, the pe aesthetc property) when actually e t-aeshetc property is a distnct property But this consderaton f t sw the conceptual dependency Daies refers to Ths aguent  t resupposes that t here ae o di stnct aesthetc propertes a al le te radcal poston outlned here would be sucent to jus ti es 3, I se e no reason to belee t Of cse, one need not cla tat all aesthetc propertes ae a eetic oertes to sustain premse 3 and the subsequent refutaton of e eec nctonalist account of at It would be sucent to show  e rertes, aestetc or oerwse, tat vat an artork to art saus resupse the concept of at The radcal defense of premse 3 has ee rth consdering, however, since, if t were true, t would e su ce  erne any aesthetc theory of art Fili e adcal vew dscussed aove, what reason do we ave for ig at premse 3 of Davies agment s reasonale to eleve Can

Aestetc Concets of Art

77

we n o conceve of a wok of art that s sch smpl n vte of aesthetc popetes whch t shaes wth natal obects  see no obstace to ths n fact, t seems to me that n ms c, fo exampe, the pesence of pe aes  thetc popetes s far fom thn and scace" an, pehaps most woks of msc se to the stats of woks of art (fom a functonast's pont of vew ) n vte of the pe aest hetc popetes Ths expan s the fact tha t msc, fom ock to casscal, an be aesthetca appecated wthot an knowledge of the popetes the wok has n vte of ts locaton wthn an athstoca tadton of [msc " 4 These pope tes nclde ht h, tone, and meod Even f these feares tn ot to be exressve feares of the woks n whch the occ, t wod no foow that the are at dependent n the wa that pemse 3 eqes Thee ae man expessve popetes n nat e (ncdng aesth etc popetes )  the nclde cong atons of the han face a nd vo ce fo exaple4 1 t ma tn ot that t he conecton beween expessve feates n woks of at and expessve fea tes n nare (of the han face and voce fo exape s complex, that the ae not the ve  same poetes, fo example42 Ths wold not show, howeve that the expessve feates of, sa, mscal woks pesppose the concept of art T hat wol be the case onl f sch popetes w ee, n eve case conven tona an the co nventons  nvoved wee spec c to the artThe wold pasblt  of the agm ent oeed b av e  ests  thk, o n the mpotance, n some woks of art of semantc aesthetc popetes Some woks of art se to the stats of art ( fom a functona st pont of vew  n vte of those p opetes  s c etan te of ch amp's ountan and anto's Can Oener And t s wo thwhe to pont ot how man aesthetc oetes of at ae ataesthetc popetes Al of that sad, thee s no eason to sppose that a genea cam abot the centat of ataesthetc popetes s fothcomng  have artc ated a conce pt of the asthe tc whch ecogn zes the va ret of aesthetc eactons to art whe etanng the nt of sch eactons The account  have oeed s cl osel coected b wa  of the con cept o f we ntnsc have vale, seen that t o the tadtonal tadtonaccounts destood of the n tems aesthetc of ntnsc At thevale, same st me, not wedded exclsve to fomast conceptons of art evaaton n ths wa the avantgarde can be embaced b the aesthetc tadton Fnall, the fam of concepts povded hee s not bared on gounds of cc art, fom povdng a den on of at t emans to be s een whethe th s ndestadng of the aesthetc ca be taslated nto sch a deton



ER

0

EFINING ART n h f,   e o eveop two etons of t, both of hich e,  eir cre, e concep of he aeshec One enon wi be ecriie  re n e oher evau ve nasmuch  each ree c n oriay e f e er , the two acco are not compeior for he crrec eitin f  Raher, he wo enons copeen each oe To e e cpemen naue o f these concept, I wi briey ece  ey  o viou probematic case  he r,   io, re ireet of an epo en o f the con ce f e eeic i eig r is to singuish works of  from bec n e c eiit aesthetic properties an prove oppor ie f ec recon his  accopishe b cang tha wk  , ke a ects ae ifacs Much has been wrtten b  tic cii  he eve of han acvi reire for soeg  e  tifac hs contion has wie accepance across i cc  te e f  incing  for eape Dickie s in  ie e ic iigh here is that artifactuai (soe eve of ei  cy isngs hes natua ob ecs from works of ar ce e ce   c  an ientiona acii, i foows t hat a k  ie e ieay rouce   einy he conen ofthe  tenton rere for art k ci  e   hch verget srateges eerge within he   eec ee of t he cai hat  is inteniona s ig i  e ee as First, sang tha works of art are in eni  e  if eoe akes a work of ar, then she was neiy   k of t ha s, the concep of t was p y ctie f e ei he w orks o f  t a e  n ar casses an s e cy rk of thi ort we ight ca such works art ek ese e tworks create specica to be works of  ec, e ie cponent ight ean t there is a specic neti c   orks thogh that intention oes not neces sy ce,   f  conen, the concept of t For eape, it  e e ce   k of art e ntene to be tifacts which e eeie r ei r epresentive of reai y,  c e  f soeone akes an artwork then she wa ieiy i eh r oh an, for reasons in epenent o f the cone e eti, e tifact rne ot to be an twork Here the cnen  e ei   epenen of both the concept of t an, per , ee e cce f e aethetic For eape, a person mght se out to e  e,  c,  gen, n then for oe reason inepenent

Aestetc Concets of Art



of the contet of her ntenton, the wdget, car, or garden s recogned to be a work of art Of the above alternatve accounts of what t means for art to be nen  tonal, onl the rst s unavalable to us n ou attets to construct an aesthetc denton of art f we are trng to dee art (even artall n terms of the necessar ntentons of a erson akng an artfact, then the sort of ntenton artculaed n the rst alternatve would render the resultng dent on of are necessarl d   n§_that allow for of art whch s not at selconscous As we ths secton and n the fouth secton, however, the concet of artselfconscous art wll rove crucal n solvng one of the centra dcuties wth aesthetc theores of art Both of the two reanng alternatves have been eloed b those resentng aesthetc dentons of art. Beardsle, for eale, emlos the second strateg e rejects the artselfconscous alternatve and assert s that the reuste ntenton s he ntenton of gvng t [the artifact] the caact to satsf the aesthetc nterest.4  Ths aroach combnes the artfact condton and the aesthec condton b wa of the artsts nten ton. n one fell swoo, artworks are thought to be derentated from natral obects (no nartfacts , even those whc h satsf the aesthetc nter est, and whch othe r artfacts , even those (hae nNeedles" aes thetc  satsfofou nterest, are no works of arwhch The sadstone southern tah satsf ou aesthetic nterests, but, not beng artfacts, the are not works of art.  handsaw, whle an artfact, s not a work of art snce ts creaton was not gude d b the sec c aesthe tc ntenton t was ade merel, let us suose, to saw wood ecentl. We wll call ths aroach the aestetc ntenton strate and eress ths strateg n the followng scheatc denton of art

 s a ork of art-  f  s an artfact create t te ntenton of eng an oect of aestetc arecaton .

The thrd stra teg, reres ented b cha rd n d's deton o f art, se a rates the artfact condton andtothend, aesthetc condton art. The ntentonal element, accordng s ehausted bfor thebeng artfactualt of art works The aesth etc d e ns on of art s a atter of how the artfact tuns out to functon. He wrtes: Functon s the mode of acton y whch s omethng ullls ts purpose   D t thus efes to what the oect actually does athe than smply wat the tst ntended  othg s t we cla f t oes ot so u ncto  whch wold e pla n why we wl not accept aythg as t s mply ecase someone has ae led t as such

8 A ER 

Arre  he o natal obect of beuty, for exple, n   e eal) afact conton. But whch  tfact trn out to e r f    not eterne b he cnent of the creator'  ntent on R, eer  artfact n o t o be r s a ater of how the at fc fiosetcal) I ll call h approach the aestetc funcon sraeg  ere   e llon chetc eto n of at :

 s a workof ar-e

df 0 is an artfact and 0 fundion s to provde for aes

he appreaio.48

Tre e r erences beteen hese two approaches o de   eetcl. hle he eshec nen on sraegy all ows for he cre  rk outse of he  worl,  does so only on the con  t e cre one of  rnge of  esthec nen ons to the creato r  c fc s seg reires  he cv e pane rs of Lascau re te ec nenon f e e o sser that he pantngs are  Eecll les conoversal, the aesthetc  ctonal st vew rer l  e recognze e pantg to be han atfacts, and,   e con for us, herat sts s secre. Gl, e eec col  pproach allows for cr o cultra  tc ou roublg oelve over he pec c prpos es for c rese cree Soefncon frcanaeshecally ass ae ch sncecases, heyle ae cer te c tfacs e ce  e ce nng, a e seen as nsaces of the more genera  f fcs a fncon aehe caly bu wher e t s no  rele  e tt the rs n quest n e no t art seconscous T ,   rele  u  se t te creaor of the atfact was not t  ke  rk f a Mna, e can sa of such cases that er r  e rtc nenon es  epecay nvabe o   te re er reove cse, such as he cave pantngs,     resole  en ev he ssbty h t the o bec s ae ar selosous

Oe e  e aesec fncoas approch  s that we can say   r e o epo reoe es an hose from other cl er ree or no), ou hpoeszng unnown n   te  f e art,   the artwor s e atwor o f the . c  ec e o o be tree  fon obects eevated to e t     cuor ortropoogs49 n the aesthec fc \ tl ,  e� c be  artttQ!) y  - " of  1gr  _ 2h< e hve epore ove, the aethetc functonast      ,   , rfac hch e creat ed th  ntentons knon  be o a ashi . For exape, even f we now tha

Aesthetc Concepts of Art

81

th cathra was crat to orif Go or that th ask was crat to frihtn vi spirits or to scu victor in an ipnin batt th arti facts iht sti b woks of art povi that th succ  in fctionin asthtica n this sns th asthtic f unctiona ist appoach povi s an vaua tiv i tion of art o sa that sothin  is a work of art is to sa that it fus a ctain fction w o aquat Givn th natu of that function to sa that an artifact is a work of art is to pais it to sa that it is oo Whth ths fatus of th asthtic fctionaist accot of art ar avantas o isavantas wi b iscuss at h point h is to show how this strat irs fro that of th asthtic intntionaist Fo th asthtic intntionaist ss th rquisit intntion is prsnt th artifact is not a wok of art. f th quisit intntion is not known to b psnt w o not know whth th arti fact in qustion is a wok of art f th intn tion is known to b othr than asthtc th artifact in qustion is known not to b  a wok of art  tun now to so o th is tinu shin fatrs of th ast htic in tntionais ts stat h asthti intntionaist strat  provis a scrip tiv or cassic a to sns of th pas wok of art" B this  an that unk th asthtic fctionaist appoach th scha ivs a sns of th pas that aris ipication as to th whthr th work art within is ooth intn or not Bcaus th no nition bs asthti copoofnnt tiona oponnt an bc aus it is at ast oica  poss ib fo an artifact to fai opt to iv up to th intntions of its ak it is possib for an artifact to copt fai to provi for asthtic apprciation ain a wok of art  i th asthti� ti  evaluate notinf ar th a tic intntionaist pvi<s ? scr j   tve conption of art At th sa ti b   ithin th nition  in th oncpt of th asthtic itsf is th asthic itrion of art vaua tion . h psn of this cition is aft a on  of th ha arks of th  asthtic appoach to art On con squn of th sri ptiv nat of th asthti it ntionais t stat fo in at is that th at statu s of various objcts is ft opn fo an pistooia point of viw. On cannot na t on this viw b r  ookin at an obj ct whthr o not i t is a work of art  his is tu fo at ast tw o asons; st on iht b con font with an ob jt whic h ivs is t o so an of asthti c appciation but of which it is not known whthr or not th objct is an artifact Not knowin whth t h sooth ston with th  ais ova at its nt is an artifa t (as oppos fo xa to a fossi) cus knowin whth o not it is a work of art  his is an avanta  of su h itions bcaus t aif uncrtainti s of this sort corrspon to an ar xpain b th ition



AER

ce ecll e nre of our projec, he job of a deniion of ar i    a eterine heher every obec is or is no a work of  e    elain   is o be a work of ar; acal uncerainies ill lely ren ncerainies ec een i ne c deermine he arifacualiy of a given obec e c e,  en i, unceran as o wheher he arifac in quesion i  r   eae one gh no know wha h e poin of produci ng e ic  e n s Again, his can be seen as an advanage of he e e chea ne's uncerain as o wheher a given arfac i  e clie   ork of ar is someimes mached b and eplained i er  e' ncerainy a o he inenion (reaons) of he person  cree e ec. If e ake, for eape, an arfac from an un ii ce ( e) suc as he picographs in he Grea Galler i yl inal Park, one wonders wheher he mmmshaped  e ee prodced as a sor of hisorical record of famil lin ee   e heic sasfacion  n mnd or boh. Are he works  t   cle eign o s, o ae he he hso book of a cule ei  e eional schema racks our nceran in such ca ses I  e jece, hoeve, ha he schema s oo weak in hs are, eeciy n li  he accon given of he same cases by he aesheic c l ch Given he poin ha he aesheic inenonals ce eeen  ecrive or classcaor sense of work of ar" and  e ccy aoach allows ha woks cold be complee fal e i l ee  fllo ha we shold be uceran as o wheher a a afc of nknown inenon are works of ar In shor, he ei ccin  his objecon, does no rack our uncerain since  ice eny ee ere is none While we wond e wheher he ic  e Ge Galley are woks of ar, we do no have he same ee  cey abeery arifac from ha cul re.  e i ecione mus n o aenon o he isse of wha c  eec r e eisence of he aeshec nenion. Beardsle    e eaal fe the aesthetc ntent n    fom ppetes f the pd tca A  th a el sject an d eden t poe t me e ees      e edece f eteme cae n the cmpstn clo hamny stle ts  lt d tete then we hae gd eason t e lee that  f the tes  ch he pane wed was he aehec one

e eece   reny aeshecall neresng feaures in an ar c  eiece  e aeeic inenion Tha eviene, no presen n he ce  ic eneall, gves rse o he quesion of heher he objec is clly     he presence of hose feares g ves pon o he

Aesthetic Concets of Art

83

qeson of he ar saus of he objec The background assumpon upon whch we operae n confronng arfacs from or own or an culre s ha he feares hey have, especall hose he have n some abundance and forcefulness, are no accdenal. A he same me, whou knowng he actual nenon of he person responsble for creang he arfac, we are lef unceran as o wheher wha we suppose o be he person's acual nenon was her nenon We mus concede o he obecon rased here ha  s possble ha an arfac of nknown nenonal orgn mgh have been made wh he aeshec nenon;  s jus ha, n mos cases,  s ponless o rase he queson So, ogeher wh he assmpon con cernng when ques ons of ard sa us have a pon, h e denona s chema does rack and eplan or nceran abou he ar sas of objecs of unknown (nen onal) orgn.  ma seem hen ha we have aken sdes agans  he aeshec fun con  als on h e s sue of such epsemologcal quesons of ar recognon  Acu all, he d snc mplca ons o f he o conceps wh respe c o hese sors of cases are o be epeced The fac ha he der n hese respecs does no favor one over he oher as he " concep  of ar. There are o conceps of ar ne s evauave and capres one se of preheorecal nuons and applcaons of he erm ar." The oher s descrpve and capures anoher se where of preheorecal of he ar" n he casesw o of arfacs h e speccnuons  nenonand of ses he cre aorerm s nknown, conceps appl n dsncwas o he same subjec maer The capre or seemngl confcng nuons abou such objecs n he one han d, we judge such objecs o be works of ar on he oher hand, we reseve udgmen as o her ar saus pendng more complee anhopologcal n fonaon nce one recognzes ha quesons concernng hese maers requre specc w h re spec o he concep of ar  n que son, clear an swers are forhcomng. Furher, whle here are o conceps of ar opera ve n hese and ohe cases, oth conceps are aeshec concepons of a T  BRA D, T  NAR RW  rn now o he que son of he broadne ss of hese o conceps  mgh be hough ha n or aemps o nclude aworks whch are concepual n nare, we have so broadened he noon of he aeshec ha he de penden conceps of ar wl nclude arfacs whch are ceary no works of ar (n eher of he senses dened above) Furher,  gh be argued ha here s no prncpled wa of ecludng counereaples ha wll no also eclude bona de works of ar (hus makng he accoun of ar oo narrow) Th s he chaenge we face Le s magne ha we read a ver clearl wen phlosophcal essa



AER

0

Se rer ta e sct re o esentaon i s so enti ely esicuous t i rie  te ee of fnctonng to ovide aesthetic aeciation. Ac cri  r ccnt of te, e shod conc de that this  iosoi c ey i  k of  hi may see, at least, to be cou tein tuitive   e t avoid ts conseence by distinguishing imay r ecny fncions of tifacts5 e idea hee is that if some ti i  ertieen, fo exle, its incal fncton is to se a rc, erea e rncia l fuction of aok s is to delive aes thetc areci e rinca fu con of ou hioso hca  essay s not aes  ec, , us, e essay s no a ork of art-e e rle i rying to solve or oblem n this way s that if a aerseen fais o be eectve as advetisement (that s, t fais to sell), ts lege) secony cion ay become ts inca fncton  e fle aerseen bec oes a ok o f at because o its ailure t e a ee aeriseent  te case of ou hilosohical essay, if e ey ils  o at iloso ica essays a e su os ed to do , t mght ell e  rk o , in virue o that aiure. nds way of tyng to sove e le face y eaaie enit ions of at is misgu ide d In fact, the e, a n resents , is ase on a fase diea. Why cou dn t a iece  losoy or  aeseen be a wok of ate The oblem re  sake of evaluative   ee eaion o cofsing excle tete hdescitive losohicaad wok and the senses adve eeises ro or tnkng a sc aifacts ae noma y) ceated  er jecies in  . Tey e not bought abo t wth the oe s; s, ey are no oks of t B he temtaton to exclde sc jecs is ase on te esciie sense of the tem at, that s, r- e ae alrey ote o  at arfacts which ae woks of ate ee  e ks of  n so, e ave no eason, once we caify ic ee  e er is eing eoye, to deny ae stats to some lical orks an y aeseens 55  e raess oj econ c e aoied wt h e se ct to ate , it seems les iy solei resect to ard In fact, the  hilo soh ical ess ay we e e iscssn, so ong as tee as  ntentiona eot to make the ey erscus  eeg, resens seios obems fo the desci e cce of t le, if   corect, e sod be wilng to call the ey  rk ote, it o see not to cont as a wok of a td  resec o or concetion o orks of atd, we face a diemma e  o e ilea c  be t  olos: Tere are many u man ac  i hih ed athe intentions hich are not orks o artd. e atral ay to solve hs oe s to mak e a dstncton between riy secony ntenions n ceatng atifacts  We ca say that the

Aestetic Concepts of Art

8

phiosophe ws ing (pimi) o pesen  cogen gmen fo some poposiion by (secondi) ing o be ce d eleg in he pesen ion  woud mke no sense o s h she ws ing (pim) o be eegn d pespicuous by ing o gue fo some poposion. We cn hen modify o deniion schem s foows

 is a wor of artd

 df  is an artifact created wit te primary intention ofproviding for aestetic appreciation

This move, howeve, pces us sqe on e second hon of o di emm Fo in he emp o now he nge of eseic ciiies o us hose which e woks of d, we end up peuding ge csses of bona de woks of d  eie commens on he epsemic sus of eligious  side, s moded deniion of d woud peclude mos eigious , ge c sse s of poic ,  e pim poin of whch s o commen on ohe  , nd  n gene n  n whic esheic me s e used in he sevce of e men of ohe inenions The second hon of ou diemm, hen, s h: Tere are many wors of artd in wic te concern for aestetc appreciation is not primary

Bu pe hps he pob em c be s oved b dwing he pim/second  dsincion in  dieen w. We do wn o s, fo empe, h hee sch is  dieence beween epessng ides  phiosophic c s he Summa Teoogica ndeigious epessing eveninhe sme des in he sined glss windows of  ched The fome, if i is concened wih he esheic  ll, is so on secondil, emoe, peiphe e e efecs  conscious choice o epess hose ides n w s pim, cen, bsic  esheic mnne The sou ion o he bodness pobem ie s in dwing  he p m/sec ond " disincion i n  deepe w f w e cons ide e woks of o se h use isic mes o dv nce poiic pos iions, e gious visions , o c ms bou e ne of cses in which e pim inenion is no es heic in n e  we se e h hose we e inc ned  consi de o be wok s of d e nsnces of se fcon scious  he e woks of   hich kehei pce squeaswihin esbshed isc dions, o e pesened b ceos wors of art This suggess he foowng souon o o pobem Awoksd which e no geneed fom esheic moives e woksd in  deivative secondary sense57 uch woks eqie, fo he d sus, e eisence of esbshe d  pcices whic h he use, commen on, o o which h e ec n bei ng se fconscious woks, hese woks bpss he esheic inenion The e pecise he sos of woks which genee he plusbili of he insiuion ppoch o  i, he e woks which pesuppose  sense of wok of d"

86

DRSO

c s no ar sef-conscous In short, te see mngy dstnct henomena f oitc a art, regos art, art which comm ents on art, ad atiaesthetic a a sae te fe ature of being works of art-d in a dee ndent sen se 5 e c now oer the foong amended d eitiona sche ma for the de scritie sense o ork of a r 

 is a ork oartd = d  is eiter  an artiact created wit te intention o being an object o aestetic appreciation or

 an artiact wic is an

insne o art-se-conscious art e deton is to be uderstood suh that th e s eond di sj unt in the de ens s arasii on the rst disjunt, as disussed above Further, the isj ncts ae not eat to be mutuay exc usiv e; much of the wor d s rei  ios d ot ca at is reat ed wit aesthet c  oncerns i n mind  aing suggested t he above soutio n to the se ond horn of our die mma, ae e no imaed ourseves squaey on the st horn? There are may an actes tha embody aestheti ntentions whch do not seem to con as oks of t-d This is eseiay imotat in ight of the i acy o te rs dsjut in e above deniton avng abadoned the aroah of distinguishing atd from nonatd in terms o rimay a seonday intentions hoosi ng rather to advoate a rimay and seonday

we ae ef, onceMr a gain, wth our int entonay aes sense o teeasng ter art-d thetiay hiosohca essay, Muhys wemowed awn, y sisters nose rin g, and an endess ist of aestheti roje ts whih fu te above nditions fo r being works of at-d in te primary sense. Pretheo retcay, oever, they shoud not cont as wors of artd But can the retheoretia intuition be taken at fae vaue? he issue here is whet her the ca ss of obj ec ts we ca works o f at-d a  derentated, n a rinied way, from the wider cass of objects we ght a aestheti ativites or the roduts of aesthe ac i   s And i e not e badon the aestheti d en i  on  f a-d? My own e is that e annot rovide suh a distinction but that this shoud not ead to the reecon of the ae stheti den ition o f art-d  Frst we must n ote tat the very oets e ae onerned with here woud be reogn ie d, u n controersiay, as works of at i n contexts ot her than those in whi h they noray occur The hosoica aer, if rsented by Berna Venet, d e a ork o at-d r Murhy's awn if resented by Christo, d e a ork of atd And, of corse, the use of ones own body as at or a o a work of art-d s now a ommonace  But in these a ses , te orks wod not e te pilosopers aer, or Mr Murpys awn, or  sisters nose rng they woud have d erent aestheti ro erties they od be instances of atsefconscous at d Futher, it s  ikey that none

Aesthetic Concets o Art



of the ognal examles ses to the status of a wok o f rt-e, though th e Venet and Chrsto countearts mght Stll,  wonde, fo all that, f the hosohe s ae, M Mr hy s lawn, and my ss tes nose ng shod not count as the modest, unetentous wo ks o f at-d of the v es  Once one admts the os sb lty of w orks of rt-d that a e not rt-self-con scous woks of rtd,  see n o good eas on to ecde them Pehas an a tena tve, nonae sthetc theoy o f rt, ehas one esented  n ths vome, w moe adequately addess the metahyscal oject wth whch we began wtot a emande a s tobesome as ths .

NOES 1 I woul lk to thank ol aoll Saa Ros an th patpants n my 199 6 sn a n atht fo th  hlp n fomulatng th a n ths hapt a spa l thaks al so to o  Gant I assum spons lt y fo th mstaks n ths ssay an th ontotons trough whh I put th astht taton 2 Wllam E nnk os Tatona l thts Rt on a Mstak  Mnd 67 1958 321 3  I    322 Knnk gosonform on to pont o ut tatplosopal t sam prson nstrutof at  tofor pkampl out all of t4objts w to vaous ntons Sgnant Form woul b at a loss. Of ours t gt ust b a fatur of t ntons w Knnk onsrs tat ty ar of no us n art ntaton. T problm wt ntons mployng onpts su as Sgnant Form mgt b tat t nn s a lss la tan t nnu m. Ts ru arg woul b just only f t prson prsntng t nton  not supply a ontt for t  us of t nns. l Bll rtanly  ot t s lss lar tat otr n rs of art av  bn so l a. 5 I wl l rturn to t ssu of wtr a la r n ton mgt b of som va u n ntf yng probmat ass of w orks of a t lat r n t s ston an n ston 3  6 ol arroll Hstoral arravs an t Plosopy of rt oual of Asthtcs ad A Ctcsm 51 ( 1993 )  3 14_ M y tals 7. Ib . 3 15. 8 . Ib 3 14 My ta ls 9 Ib . 3 15 10. Ib. 11 R G ollngw oo Th cpls ofAt (on on 19 72  2  12 Ib. 13  Haol  Os born Wat Is a  ork of rt? Btsh oual of Asthtcs 21 (1981 5 14. Ib 15 arrol Hstoral aratvs 318

88

 

  ntr sml accunt ut n wc is ntinal s tat pr y l isn sn rats wrks frm t past an prsnt t urwrks ic  stpulat t  rks f  f suc a tin t s ms a fair qus tnt askat maks atrks artwrks S  rrl  nsn  ning Art istricyrtsh JoalofAesthetcs 9  1979  232-50 7 ick s Tratinal sttcs Rst n a Mstak? 322 8 . l rll  auty  t nalgy f  t Try hlosophcal Fou   334 n 5   pn  9 as etos of At taca .Y. rnl Unrsit Prss  enall  Waltn  arus ! Twar a T ry f Asttic Vau  al ofeetcs a rt rtcs51 1993 499 510.  i    0 4 3   0   s ttr stct f t asttc s fun in Rcar n's accnt f t aestetc obectin istnguss w srts f intrsts cnsttuti f t asttic t rst is a prcptual ntrstt intrst w a in makng tlliil at s ncuntr n prnc Te scn mtall ntrst is in enyi t fsctin tat ccrs in gtn prcptual intrst   srt, astticplas is a plasr takn in t satisfactin f a wtir ntrst sttic cts  ts tat satsfng t prcptual intrst t a g  gr) tiat  satisf t taintrst S n T Asttic Essnc f A al ofesthetcs ad rt rtcs 50 99   7-9  atns accunt fasttc alu i s tr n ths pnt nc n ntr ucs tntn f t arrateess of aesthetc pleasure n can assrt tat an ct s asttic alu n if n s nt (actually tak plasur in ugng it t  g l tat is rir is tat suc plasur r t t ccur  appr prt s stll sugsts r tat a srt f plasur  is t mst funamntal astticcncpt  rsist tis ipuls t wul  st t n asttic au s ppritf astc apprcatin wr as ttc a pprc iatin  is  n nntly f asttic plas  is critqu f  s acct f tast, ol rcgntin f asttic alu n n t inl any arl rgty pints ut tat psiti sntimnt (plasr tar t ct. n ca s t asttic au n t tic allt as practc y t scl f Brnnill witut nyng suc ainn apprciat t last tsuc � mr ult t rstan cu  f sa cs itut uging tatw nsn prncs  astticaly   t alal as  f tis t maks prft sn s t say ta t wl  r g ni t asttic alu t apprpriatnss f sm ns asttc apprciain f sucall  prsally  nt apprciat tat srt f anc S arrl s tr  atJoral ofesthetcs ad At rcsm 43 84  87-8     nt t  smingr fr s frmulatin f ths ntin f as ttc appciain s s ng Astt Appriati n Jour al of Aesthetcs a r rcs 39 98 ) 38 9 99 is stratg is plct ly sgn t rply t t cs ma y i tat nintlligil an trti ally us ful sns f t

Aeshec onceps of Ar



asttic s fortcoming T akng t noton of apprci ation smplcte as is start in point smingr procs to articu lat a s pcs of apprcat ion wic captur s our sns of t asttc os not commit us to any spcial sort of mntal s tats ti of t asttic an migt pro to b tortically usful T accout of asttic apprcaton or by smingr is as folows  asttically apprcats t nss of a if i a is    xprntally taks a to b  a tobsntrnscaly ii sblbing anxprntally s xpri ntially  ar co goo itily rlat stat takngtaking a to b (wr  is a prson a is an objct an  is a propry Hr again w a a a to b  an a scn mtal basl xprnc s xprntaly taking rspons b ling hat xprntially takng a to b  s intr insically aluabl. My arlr criticism of smingrs tion was bas on h mistakn assption at f somon  bl s som hng  on knows tat on bls  an tat on wou not conscously ny p s Anrson "Rtining Asttic Apprciation  Joual oAesthetcs ad At Ctcm 41 1 982 )  979 8 an  Dais Detons o At 5762 My otr objctons to smngrs tion wr bas on a confu sion of t  concpt of asttc apprcaton an aesttic alu . 27 Walton How Mar lous  5 6 . 28 n t cas of t asttic aprci ation of natr Walton incus t ati tus of aw an wo r at t bas l bi  5 0 8  29  Jrrol inson Music an t gati Emoton s  in eectg o  At  Jo Anrw isr (M outa n Vw Calif  Mayl  1 99 3)  374 90  30 C arrol Hus Stana of Tast 3 26 3 1 bi 327 32  n aton al of t plosopr s mntion  wo accpt t  wotr ac count of t asttc also acknowl tat t au nol n astc appr cation is ntnsc alu  s mnr maks is xpicit in  abo cit ition Walton also claims hat astic alu s inpnnt of otr alus of pract cal alus mora alus conomc alus tc (52) naly wn in trs to istnguis asttic objcts from otr ntr sting obj cts  taks as a ncssary (toug not sucint fatr of asttic objcts tat ty ar objcts w con s r for ir own sa k aon  120 ) . 33. rancs Hutcson quy Coceg Beauty Ode amoy Desg .

tr 34 .iy b i(T 37. Hagu trla n Ma rtinus io  1973 )  3 6  35  Ts so ul not b m ant to imly as t   for Hutc son tat t prcp tion of bau y n n natur s "iia t T faurs in natu r t xprinc of wic can b tak n to a ntrnsc alu mgt b alu as suc only upon r lction ; t array of formal proprtis nol migt b  apparnt on ly aftr yars of stuy T point   maki ng r is ta t natur os not a t smantic fa turs tat art as 3 6. At on point C arroll conir  t possib iiy of proing an accout of i ntrstn ss n trms of intrinsic al u H says 

90  Be . . . mght have sad th at aest hetic exp erence ws n ntr nsc    tht t his ws c nnected to ts de taced nature But t sees t e that te c te nt f ntrn sc  ness s n opto al e ature of be auty t eory ; etac ent    is te essent, recrrn etre  e oiat aacterzatio of beuty n e trtion ("Hue's Star of Tste 325-26)

I have  interest n ui whether dsnterestedness nderstood as detacent or  nvolving ris vale s dominant" n the tradton I ould onede that vieing it  detachent is exacty whysom aesthetic theores have been beaty teoes (Bell's, fo istce  On the othe hand, it is q ite natual to take the vi ew that thatoi dsnteesteness ithin the tadition is explable n temstheoy of ntinsi vae an so avois y incnaton to colapse an aesthetic of at to a beaut eoyof t (naoly onstued) 37 At least one cannot use it to dene atfuctoaly See Davies, Dtos of Art 6777. 38 bd 69 3 Ib  1 60 40 bi 8 4 Fo  accont of the elatonshp beween the expessive featues of the hu fae  voie and expessve popetes n msic, see Pete Kv Th ord inceton inceton Univest Pess 980 42 ee Iseminge, Aesthetic Appecaton, 39295 43 Te minmal sese n hh I se the tem atifat does not ontadit� Davies enal of the tifact conditon o eampl e Dave s  eqes that al ati facts be physa objects; I o not See Adeson Msical Knds, Brtsh oural of stt   85) 4 3-4 I am usin ths ondton only to distinish nat al objets  uinntiona hman actvit fom awoks I believe that this se of the onept is uobetonabe ee Daves, D to of Art hap 5 o a om prehensive scssion of tifactuait see Randall R Dipet Artfacts Art Works a  (hiadelpha: emple Unvesit ess, 1993) 44 Aodi to stittional theores of at all woks of at ae of ths sot It is aothe uestion as to hethe bein an atifact made to be an awok is suent fo ben ok If, fo example, the concept of at is nomatve n etain espets it coud tun out that some atifats ceated to be awks fai to be oks I 45 ooe C Besley An Aestheti Deniton of t n What s Art ed  Huh Cute (Ne Yok Haven18 3)  2 ' 4 Te detion s chemat in the sense t ha the s peic ntention atc lated hee is ot necess fo somethns bein at-d. ny one o f a famly of intentions ould be suient fo exaple the ntention to povde ae sthetic pl easue whch des n oent fom the intention to povde fo aesteti appeiation wold be sent I do not beieve that a deton of th s so t tat aticulates too specic a conte for the inntion c succeed.

47 Ln Aesthet Essene of Art 125 48 Aan te deton is schematic n the sense that t cold as wel be e pesse in tems of othe membes of the famiy of aeshet ic onept s 49 Walton o avelous!  50

Aesthetc oncepts of Art

91

50  Tis is no to say tat any prson rgarlss o f is or r nrst aning of t concpt of art an t istory of art worl practics coul crat ay artwork Som atifacts coul only b ma wit t proprtis ty in fact a by a pr son wo is crating atslfcoscous at. 5  Ti s sor t of ncrtain ty is sa by t asttic fn ctionalist approac  To tis xtnt t functionalist approac is scripti as wll 52 Bay sttic D ition of Art 23   53 LInd, "Asttic Essnc f Art 25 in is not a i stinction of intn tion   inbt to i n o  for this xam pl  55 Bt a problm concrning t broanss of at rmains T iculty is not so muc in rcognizing xampls sc as tos iscuss abo as at t problm is tat onc w o so w a no principl way to istinguis t ltral s of at from t mtaphorcal s of t trm Somtims w s t pas "work of at in an aluati  b ut nonlitral sns to rfr to aios uman actii tis W say of t ApaiciotoosontoPowll oubl play it was a work of at  o not tink w a using t xprssion r n t sam way w us it to caract riz t ca paintings at Lascaux or a wllcrat a rtis mnt or n a nly w rittn pilosopical ssay Wat coul w b maning r otr tan tat t atifact (intntional prouct of man actiity) functions to proi asttic apprciation An if so  wy isnt t oubl play ltrally a work of at  56  T possibl xcption to tis sms to b  t c as in wic w  a not cr tain asoftoat wtr a work Bu o f at connt tat it isan a   g  t twork ca ispaintings t t toug iss in w tsacass is irnt work as b n  alt wit abo 5 Suc works wil not atworks in t primay sns a not for all tat lss common tan works of art in t prmay sns n fact in our cultur wic is so sl fconscious about its a t cration is play aluation an ucation almost all at is at slfconscious  o not man to sggst itr tat al atslf conscios at is at in a sconay sns T pilosopical proccupation wit nonasttic an antiasttic at somtims las us to ignor t fact tat as ttic concrns motat muc of toay's at 5 For an aticulaton of a simila i w s  Rica Sustrman T En of Asttic xprinc Joural o f Asthtcs ad Art Crtcsm 55 : 29- 5 oncrning tis nition lt m rst point out tat wn a prson b passs t asttic ntntn by crating an atact wic s an instanc of at slfconscious at t prson os not a as a consttunt of r intntion t pilosopical contnt of t primay concpt of at  am not proposing an ac count of t sconay sns of at wic rquirs tat t artist a in min t prmary sns of at Artsfconscious at is not normally pilosopically sfconscio us Frtr it may wll b  ncssay to a f rtr is uncts to anl otr sorts of cass  onsi r for amp an ay ristian paintin g a station of t cross Laing asi t issu of wtr tis work riss to t status of at w can ask wtr t work is an instanc of at Lt us frtr suppos tat t work was ntn to cony its rligious mssag an tat t was n o

92

ND

E

ON

an nstanc o asttc ntnton Finally lt us suppos tat t paitng s not rslconscios t tat s t paintr was no nnding o cra a work o  s ts panting a work o td ? On  on and  am t mpt d to say  Ys ts a pantng atr al Praps w sould add a ds unc suc as ts  o ) a atfact that epoys ecozabe atstc measA s a aly o concps wc crcls ack on itl n a marous ty o ways 

5 The Insu onal Theory of Ar GORGE DCKE

PROLOU I have made four tres over the years to formulate an nsttutonal den ton of art By an nsttutona account  mean the dea that orks of art are art because of the poston they occupy wthn an nsttutona context My rst try was n 1 96 9 n a ournal ar tcle The next two tres in 19 71 and 19 74  were ra her mnor a empts at rev sn  In 1 98 4 I ae mpted a maor overhau of the theory. I sha call the rst three formuatos the earer verson of the instittonal theory I shall ca the fourth and ast formuation the later versio of t he nstutional theory In the rst try of the earle r veson  I speced the denti on as follow s  A work of art  th dscrptv ss s 1 a artfact 2 upo whch socit or som ugroup of a soct has cofrrd th status of caddat for apprc ato . 

I soo n real ed that speakg of soc e or some subgroup of soce  as con ferrng canddacy for appreciaton gave the wrng mpresson that works of art are created by soce or a subgroup of scie actng as whole an mpression I had not i tended ere and n al subsequent dscussons of the nstitutona theor y I have be en trying to c apture what goes on when art s created by artists whether it be a single person pantng a pctre or a group makng a move ven n ths very rst artcle d despte the perhaps mseading language of the denton  expcity stated that the status of canddate for apprecation must be cnferrable by a snge per son's treatng an artfact as a candidate for apprecation  .  2 Ths quote makes t cear that even at this early date the th eory focuses on the actons of artsts when they cre ate art In 1971 wth an eye to removng ths possbly msleadng mpresson about who creates art I r eformulated the dention to read 93

94  K   A rk  art n  classfacory sns s 1 an tfact 2) upon wc som prson  pss actin n a o a crtan socal nsttuton (t torl) as co n  t statusf canat for apprcaton

 974  fruaed he denion n v rtualy th same way. A rk  art n t classcatory sns  1 an tfact (2) a st of t aspcts of  as a cofrr upon t t status of canat for arcaon y som psn r rss act n alf of a crtain soca l nsttuton  t torl )

  f ee lhly ar formlatons  soke of some rson or

er a i ar i or arss, confrring he status of canddate for a recat n rer o avoid the imresson tha soc ety acted as a hol to ake  eie e consc care  have emloyed aer the rst formlaton  ai e understandng about how ar s created according to the ta ery, a sinterrtaton o f my vw o n  ust ths o int has ee ely acceed Rchard Wollh em n hs 1 987 book aining as an A fn nly n th earlir vrson of th thory, aributs to m th e  a ake ch ans to avoid. Secicaly, Wohem arbutes to e e ie a accordin to the ear er vrson of the th eory ar is mad  y rereeae of the artword who mee and ointly ac as a grou to cfer a n ceran obec s. Wollhe im hen rd cu les this absd view s t artrl rally nomnat rprs ntats   t  os wn wr  an   ts nminatns tak l ac o t rpr snta tis f ty  st pass n r all ats fr t satus of t an o ty tn wil conrri ng tis ss n sm ny it to ors Wat rcor s kpt of ts conrrals an is t stsitslf suct to rsion f so at wat ntrals ow an y wom  last ut nt last s tr r ally suc a tng as t tworl  wit t cor c  a scal rup capa l of ang rprs ntats wo  in tun cap al  rr ut acts tat scty s  oun to nors  5

(e a accrn to Wolhm the nsttutiona theory is about the fer f e sats of ar whereas my tee eale dentions sea f e ferin of he status of candidacy fo acation but  shall ie ia ail.)cked 6 r u Wohem's vson of my ealie viw and n coroae i in a a e on whch  was a commentato  infom a tati a a goss msnte etation of my earl i  vew but whn i ae  ished, he still abut ed ths vew to m  Subse quntly  a ae hi same vew to me n one of his colmns n the Naion  e a lee f otst to the edio whch was ublshed along wth a' ely  y lee n h s rly Danto cal ls Wollheims account the  fte itional theoy and says No can the be gat doubt that

Te nsuona Teory of Ar

95

his co plays a cnal ol hough G og Dic ki 's vaiu s fomulai ons of h [ns uona l] [ hoy of] A ]      Dano hn ass s ha Dick  "has l aly com o spc ify ha  som pson o psons mus b an ais o som aiss , bu in my [Dano 's] viw his is a s p backwads fom h obus f om in which h  [nsuional h oy of a] s bs uds ood   Dano s sayng ha h vson of h insiuonal hoy ha Wollhim d cul s s h b s way o uds and h ali vsion of h hoy Fis,  h so ca ll d co had nv bn my udsa nding of h al  vsion Scond, i is o aey ha  hav spcid aiss o b h c aos of a  pu "p son o pson s ino h dnon w nygh yas ago fo his pupos. And whn  mad hs chang wnygh yas ago  al so wo A nbr of prs ons  r qu r to mak  up t so al nsttuton of t a rtorl  but only on prson s r u r to at on b alf of or as ant of t two r an onfr t status of ana t for apprat on Many works of t  nvr s n by anyon but t prsons wo rat t m but ty  stl works of  t  status n uston may b a ur by a sgle persos treatg a atfact as a caddate for appecato Of ous notn prvnts a roup of prsons onfrrn t status but t  s usually onfr r by a snl prson t ts wo rats t tfat

Whn  spok of a goup confing h saus of candda fo appca on,  had n mnd, no h whol awold o a goup of is nomnad psnavs, bu a goup ha maks a mov, pus on a play, o h lk Fuhmo, n h oigna aicl of hy yas ago, ahough I did no gv many xam pl s of a makng,  did sp ak of Ducham p's asic ac of cang Founan I wo, "    Duchamp's ac ook pac wihin a cain nsiuona s ng    , bu I dd no say ha som goup of awold pn aivs had o al so ac o concu n Duchamp's ac  By h way, Wolhim was no h s on o abu wha Dano calls h "obus vsi on o f h  nsiuonal hoy of a  o m, bu h was, I hink , h s o aibu i and o cici z i As fo his " obu s fom of h hoy, I bliv ha i is bs mbacd by ashicans of h spcis aranropus robusus. Unfoualy, h "obus viw has now vn bn aibud o m in h cnly publishd Te ambrdge Dconary of osopy   An aic by Mono Badsly convincd m ha h was a kind of ncon sisnc bwn ach of h s h dn iions and h x s wih which I had suoundd hm In h xs, I had spokn of h insiu on of a as an infomal nsuion, bu n h dnons which pupo o ncapsul a and d scib h insiuion,  us d h vy fomal languag "confd upon and "acing on bhalf Consqunly, in Te Ar rce  h 198 fomulaon and h la



DK

veri f e ory,  drope he formal language lso, in this fourth ae,  ecie ve denitons  deitons of wha  regard as he core o f e tiona thery of art  tst is a pso o p ticipats it n rstanng in t making of a work of .  ok of  s a rtfact of a kin crat to b prsnt to an atworl pblic  plc is a st of psons t mbrs of wic  a prpa in som gr to sta a oct ic is prsnt to tm  ol is t totality of al rtorl systms  ol systm s a famok for t prsntation of a work of at by an at ist to a o plc

ere i aely no eemen n any of these ve deiions that gves hele reso tha anyhing oher han artists, as everyone ord ily er as, creaes a The fac ha  specify a deon of  a oe f e ve denions makes t clear how  derstd ar t to e creae  ollhem and anto publshed ther comment s wel aer e aece of e aer version Wolhem even refers o the later ver�    frae ha ollhem dd no ake sucen noce of or a   o take any notice of the later erson because that woud ae ae for a ore accate nerpretaion of the earler verso n the laere, a e begnn of The A rce  dscussed a consider ae le e terpreation of my earler vew ha had already been ae y e, c  exacy the same msnterpretaton that Wollheim   ae laer.16 tice  ta  he later verson reference  o canddacy for appre ca i i al e Canacy or apprecation was orgnay included  er t nsh beween those aspects o a work o art to which arecai /r crcs u o be dreced or exampe, he repre eat a aa ranzaton vsble on the srace o a pantng, d e aec  a tork o hich appreaton d/or ritsm ought   e iree, or exale, olor ha o the was bakno o aoe paintng Ths ci  il ora, b the  ecded ha needed  e aree ii he nuional theory o art A i  on  n o ake noe o an argen nvened and used y a a  ave aope ano envsons vsualy idstngshable ar  ect nan an a nal that looks us lke t the pating  h   a ae taly produed pan and vas o bjet hat oo  ke , ols B B and a real Billo box ha looks jus lke  e ta the rst eber o each o the pars s a work o  art

Te nsiuona Teory o Ar

97

hie the second member is no He concudes that there is a context that the eye caot descry that accounts for the rst members bein a ork of art ad the secod not That is, the rst member of each pair is embedded in a context that the second member of each pair s not Dato then ives his accout of hat this context is I accept D antos arment, but I ive a dierent accout of hat the contet is, namey, the nstitutiona account embodied  n the detions I have iv en The visuay indistinuishab e ob  jects arment of corse appies, ith suitabe adjustments, to atorks outsi de the domain of visua art THE TWO VERSIONS O THE INSTITTIONL THEORY In a formuations of the theory, I have tried to formuate hat  rst caed a descrptve and subsequenty caed a casscatory sense of ork of art That s, I have aays souht to dene a vaueneutra sense of art I beieve this is necessary because e sometimes speak of bad at and orthess art If orks of art are dened as necessariy vauabe, t oud make t dicut or mpossibe to speak of bad or orthess art Thus, I beieve that the basic theory of art is about a vaueneutra sense of art Notice that this basic theory is about the members of the cass of orks of art some members are exceent, some members are mediocre , d some members are bad The enera acviy of creatin aorks s of corse a vauabe activi, bu it is the members of the cass of orks of art that the nstitutiona theory is focused on By the ay, not a the products of a vauabe actvi need to be vauabe, athouh a certain percentae of them oud have to be urthermore, I do not deny that the expression ork of at ca b e used in an e vauative ay Thus, there is an eva uative sense of ork of art My denition of ork of art, hoever, s sup posed to capure a basic, none vauative sense of the exp ressi on, hic h of course i ncudes a t he orks of art to hich the evaua tive se nse a ppies as e as a the medocre a nd bad orks Both the earier ad the ater versons of the theory are responses to the ve s an open concept that deed in terms of nec essarythat andt sucient conditions17 The cannot enerabecaim of the nstitutiona theory is that f e stop ookn for ebed (easiy noticed) characteris tcs of arorks such as representationai , emotiona express vi, and the others that the traditona theorsts fo cuse d on, and inst ead oo k for charac terst cs that arorks have as a re sut of their reation to their cutura con text, then e c an nd dein prop erties 18 The theori es o f at formuated by the traditiona theorists are easy refuted by couterexampe because the mmense dversi of artorks easy rnishes exampes of orks of

98

Ie



E

at that lack the ppetes speced as den by the tadtnal thees On the the hand, n atwk, n matte hw nsal, can escape ts e atins t its cltal cntext The pblem is t d the dein elatinal ppetes f atwks t the  clte and t chaactei e them cectly One pblem f my thee eale attempts at detn aeady nted s the fmal an ae se d in the fmlatins f the dei tin s the chanes n the detns f the ate vesn ae amed at aivin at an veal ac ct that s c nsstently nfmal Anthe pblem f the eale  accnt is that it claimed that the atfactalit f atwks cld be acheved in tw ways 1 by bein cafted n ne taditina way  anthe,  (2 by ben cnfeed The cnfen f atfactalt n the eale vesn was sppsed t accnt f the atstc atfactat f fnd at, Dadast at, and the ike, cases in which n taditina caftin ccs I sbse qently came t beleve that atfactalit s nt smethin that can be cnfeed, bt s a chaactestc that mst be acheved n sme way In the ate vesin, I tied t shw that fnd at Dadaist at, and the like pssess a mnmal atstc atfactal as the eslt f atsts usng fd bjects, manfacted bjects Dada, and sch as meda wthn the at wd Ths , f example, Dchamp used a plmbin atifact a ina t pdce the sclptelie atwk Founan Founan is a manfacted atfact as thefeslt what happened facty and an atstc atfact as the est what f Dchamp dd wthna afactymanfacted bject it is a dble atifact Of cse, dinay paintins ae dble atifacts t, snce atsts cnstct them sn manfacted tems pants, canvas, and the lke Founan s lke what antpss hae n m nd when they speak f nalteed stnes fnd in cnnctin with hman  hmanlike fss s as atfacts  The sed bj ect s a c mplex thn made p f a smp e thn and ts se-the na and ts se, a ck and ts se, and s n. THE ATER VERSION OF THE INSTITUTONA THEORY I nw mve t the emainde f the cntent f the late vesin f nstit tinal they, and I shall d s by cmmentin n the ve detns n the de that I lsted them abve An atist s a pesn wh paticipates with destandin n the makn f a wk f at The ntn f undersandng s y mptant hee Thee ae tw thns t be destd Fist, thee is the enea dea f at that mst be de std s that an ndivdal actin knws what kind f activit he  she s nvlved n Bein an atst s a mde f behav that s leaned n ne way  anthe fm ne's clte Secnd, thee s the destandn f

The nsuona Theory o Ar

99

the particular artistic medi or media that an individual is usin Such uderstanding need n ot nvolve grea t mastery of a medi, for even begin  ners can create art On the other hd, a person can understd both of the above things, participate in the makin of a work of art and stil not par ticipate as an artist Stage carpenters and primers of cvases participate in a way in the making of artworks d in amost all cases no doubt have the requisite understandings but they do not participate in the artist roe because what they do can be done without the requisite understadings A primer of canvases has a very dierent role from that of an assistant who heps a master with a pain ting  The denition of  artist" depends on the notion of wo rk of art d na tu rally leads on to a denition of work of art" A work of art is  artifact of a kind created to be presented to an artword pubic n the rst three formuations of the denition of work of art"  broke it into two parts The rst part invoved artifactuait  the secon pt involved the c onferrng of candidacy for app recia tion Both conferrng an d candidacy for appreciation have been dropped and the deniton s not broken up in any way n the later version, the dening of work of at" is approachedin entirely the tocreang of an Focusing on on arti factuaty ths waytough is a retrn tradtion forartifact from ancient times philosophers of at have bee concerned to theorize about the cass of ob ects that is generated by a paticula kind of human making Phiosophers have been interested in these obects precisely because they ae han ati facts According to the ater denition the saus of at is a chieved t ough the creating of a certan sort of atfact Such a atifact s one that is in tended to be a particular sort of thing, namely, the kind of thng created to be presented to an artorld pubic Notice that putting it in this way eaves open the possibilit that aorks c be created that ae never pre sented to anyone, for the deniton requres only that a atwork be a kind of thing to be presented  have pased the denition in this way to allow for the utod atworks that have been created but which for one reason or other have not reached any artword public By the way, n using the word kind here,  am using it in a very general way d am not using it to s uggest kinds or genres within a t such as no vels paintin g o r the ike  should note that such thigs as playblls, exhibtion catlogues, ad the lke are created to be presented to atworl pubics but they ae not atworks They however, ae derived from atworks, and the denition is intended to apply to prmary obects of the atword domain. The denton of work of at" makes essential use of the notions of pubc and arword so these two notions need denition d discussion

100

DICKE

A pubc s a set o pesons the membes o hch ae pepae egee to unestan an obect hch s pesente to them

 some

Publc" as hee ene s not te solel to the aol s a noton o geneal applca ton Th ee s a votng publc a basketb all pubc a og sho publc an the ke as ell as a pantng publc a stage publc an othe aol publcs A publc as such s ust a set o pesons ho ue stan an kno ho to eal th a patcula kn o stuaton A membe o aol paalel those o mem an atsto (1) a a genea eapublc o at has anchaactestcs 2 a mnmalthat unestanng o the mea o a patcula at om Does an atst aas h ave n mn a publc o h s o he o k uppos e  atst elbeate thhols a ok om actua pesentaton I an at st oes so because he o she uges t unoth then t s beng uge as noth o a publc an s thus beng conte as a kn o thng ceate to be pesente to a publc uppose an atst thhols a ok because e o she egas t as too eveang n some a In ths kn o case an atst has a pubc n mn because t s a pubc to hom the ok  oul be evealng In cases hen a ok s elbeate thhe om a publc thee s a oue nenon that s thee s an ntenton to ceate a thng o a kn to be pe sente to a n aol publc but thee s a so an ntenton not to actuall pesent t No o the eton an scusson o the othe noton use n e nng ok o at nael aol" The ao l s the totalty o all ao sstems Ths means that the aol s a collecton o eent sstems-pant ng lteatue theate an the lke The colecton s not a t one but s athe one that has been an togethe ove tme n a somehat abta a Wh oes t ncue lteatue theate an balet but not og shos hose shos an ccus es  The anse s that the ao l s a cultual constucton -somethng that membes o socety have collectvel mae nto hat t s ove tme Although pehaps no one has eve conscousl ece that og shos ae exclue om the cultal constucton that s the aol t has tne out that a I the hsto o culte ha been a ttle eent the aol mght also be eent ad ncue og shos T hee s a s tong chan ce o thee beng an ele ment o ab taness n eve cultal constucton sp because the come about as a esult o people' s behavo  ove tme Tatona theoes o at t to avo the untness exhbte hee b atemptng to bn a the vese oks o  at togethe as nstances o some chaactestc o chaactestcs o hman natue such as the expesson o

The nsuona Theory of Ar

101

motion th charactristic or charactristcs) is usd as th ssnc or ssncs) of art Th shr dvrsi of artworks howvr dstroys th tra dtional approach Th nsttutonal approach mbracs th rat dvrsty ad admits to th kind of loical utidnss dscussd abov Tradtonal thors try to dscovr th ssnc of art n som aspct of human natur such as th xprsson of moton Th insttutonal thory focuss on huma cultur ad ts hstory Th dntion of th artworld dpnds ntry on th noton of ar ord sysem� whch I hav dnd as follows An artworld systm s a framwork for th prsntaton of a work of art by a artist to a artworld pubc Th rst four dntions of th latr vrsion hav bn producd b mans of a lnar dscnt that s artst s dnd n trms of th noton of ork of ar Work of art s dnd n trms of th notons of puic ad arord. Public s dnd nraly ad thus stands outsid th in r dscnt Th rworld contnus th nr dscnt ad s dnd n trms of th  noton of arord sysem Th dntion of arword systm howvr nstad of tndin th lnar dscn usn mor foundatonal notons rachs back ad uss all four o f th  arlird nd notons Thus what bns as a lnar dscnt ndss up bn a crcl-th v dntons consttut a crcuar st Crculari a charactristic that traditiona tho ris do not hav For xampl xprssonism dns art n trms of th xprsson of moton but th dnton of th xprsson of motion would not nvolv th noton of art. Circularit is nrally rardd as a loical fault bcaus it s clamd that t fals to v an nformatv dnton or dscrpton For xampl whn ·Cv Bll sad that snicant form is what causs asthtic moton and thn sai d that asthtc moti on is what s ca usd by sinca nt form many concudd that thy had rally not bn told anythn and prhaps thy had not tst work of art publc arword and arword systm nlk sinicat form and asthtic motion ar not tchncal notons nratd within a thory and in nd of a thortica xplaation Th v cntral notons of th nsttutional thory ar all notons that w all arn at a tndr a and w larn thm tothr as a st Art tachrs and parnts tach childrn how to b artists and how to display thir work Chldrn ar tauht how to draw and coor and how to put thr drawn on th rfrrator door for othrs to s What childrn ar bn tauht ar basc cuura roes of which vry comptnt mmbr of our soci t has at last a rudimntary udrstandn Ths cultral rols ar I blv n vntd vry arly on n prmtv socts ad prs st touh tim nto all structd socits. So whn w har artst and work of art w ar

12

DKE

nt baed in the wa that we are when we hear signicant rm" ad aesthetic emtin When aduts hear artist and wrk  art, the hear wrds that the have knwn the meng  r a ver lng tme The circulart  the centra ntins  the nsitutina ther thus pses n prbem r the understandng  these ntns The act that the ve cen tral ntns  the nsttutnal ther are learned tgether as a set mes that the are what I call  inected cncepts, a set  cncepts tha bend in n themseves, presuppsng ad supprting ne anther There s nthng msterus abut such sets  cncepts I suspect that man  u cutual henmena ivlve inected ntins, ntins that ae nterdeed and are learned as a set The ptical ntns  executve, egislatu e,  udcar, and law are such a set  cncepts I nted earler that artst and artwrld pblc res cme nt existence in the mst primitive  scieties and persist nt the mst advanced  scetie s n ther earliest mai estatins, the centr al rles   artst and art wrd public pret much are the cultures artwrld Later, the artwrld cntans m ther rles art galler entreprenus, museum uatrs, at critics, art thersts, philsphers  art, and thers All  these sphisti cated rles are parastcal n the central rles  artst and artwrd publc, the cultura ramewrk that perssts thugh tme and cnstitutes the cre  When, the artmaking smeneenterprse mght ask, dd the rst w  art cme int exs tence accrdng t the nsttutnal ther? Frst, the nsttutna ther is a srucura ther, b which s meant that the ther is abut the ve deed elements that make up the structue  the artmaking enterprse Thus, accrdng t the insttutnal ther, the rst wrk  art wuld be the ne that ccuped the wrk  at nde  the atwrld structur when that structue rst geled It wuld  cuse be ver dicut t date the tme  such a gelling, athugh n dubt t has ccurred man derent tims n man drnt cultus Finall, it shuld b ntd that th nsttutina thr  art is nt an attempt t sa everthing that there s t be said abut art Art des m, man drnt thngs that a nt tuchd n b th nsttutna thr r an thr thr  at An thr  at, includng th institutinal ther, atempts t speci denng characteristcs, which are ging t be rathr narrwl rstrctd and smpl wll nt ct th brad scp  the things tha t wrk s  art d TW RECET CRITICISMS F T E ISTITUI L TE RY l Carrll has recentl attacked the nstitutnal ther   art.9 At the sam tm h has prsntd hs hstrcalnarratina accut  ideniyng

The Insiuiona Theory of Ar

103

ing awoks as a eplacement fo the institutional theoy and any othe theoy of at athouh he expicity states that his account of identifyin at is not a theoy of at20 Caoll atacs the ciclaity of the institutional theoy by sayin that it do es not say anyh in specic abou a bu is athe  ust the ecess fra eork of coor iate coui catie practices of a certai eel of copleity  But i illuiatig certa ecessary structual featues of such practces has isptats ot eally tolthe s coes a thg aout t icqua t    epecte ut    this    isckie ot hat atio of aaly phiosophy  t e ae of a eto [h is]    s o oger playg th e gae accoig to its srcia es a it oy cofses atters to prete that a rea etio is stl  the og  

I have neve atempted to play accodin to the oiina ules of what Ca ol calls eal denition As a matte of fact I have neve even used the expession eal deniion. Fis followin aice Mandelbaum I wen beyond the exhibited chaacteistics of atwoks in lookin fo necessay and sucient c onditions which violates he deniiona l ules as conceived of by Mois Weiz and ohes Followin Mandebau and Dao I souht eational chaacteistics of at that situate it within hua cultue because I ead the exhibted chaactescs by taditional as hopeless as de nin chaa ceisics  Secondused I explicil y noedtheoes h e cicu aity in both vesions of the institutional theoy i t is this ci culaity th at maks the denitions of the institutonal theoy as deent fom the in ea denitions euied by the oiinal ues of what Cao calls a eal deniion. My view is ha he necessay and sucien condiions speci ed n the nstitutional theoy cannot be undestood independently of the institution of at-an institution that is imbibed fom eay childhood I neve inended o peended o ive a ea noncicula deniion in Ca ols sese I take it that such a eal denition would specify necessay ad suc ent condtons that can be known independently of the dened tem at T his is what the taditional theoies of at have always ied o do ad what I have t ied t o et away fom What th e taditional theoie s of at ad thei denitions te us about at ua at is fase What the institutonal theoy tels us about at ua at s somethin that we aleady know and have known fom an ealy ae ahouh acuay fomulain his knowl ede s not easy By the way I d no fault with the histoicanaatve scheme that Ca ol descibes fo idenifyin awoks When faced wih an objec he awok identity of which is contested o uncetain Caol poposes that the solution lies n tellin a rue naative that elates the obect to eale undoubted at obects o evens. If such a stoy links the conesed wok o pecedin a makin pacices and conexs in such a way ha he wok

0

De

K



e e can be seen  be the inteigibe outcome o recognizabe modes o thiking d making o a so t aready commony adj udged to be artis tic, en the obect is identied as an artwork ol raises an imotant question about his own narrational theoy the uestion o hethe the kind o narations he has i n mind might result in ientiying nontwoks as art The exmpe he mentions is Van ogh's seee ea Sose, he says, that a true narratve could be constructed a elaes the ea to an attempt by Van Gogh t symboize the pight o his tisic conictions in the ace o Gaugu in's c riticisms 23 ven i s uch a e soy coul be tod, Carrol says that would not suce to identiy Van ogh's e as  twok Crol then compares Van Gogh's mutilation to a eniethcentuy twokRudo Schwakoge r's selmutilation Why is  ogh's mutilaion no an artwork when Schwarkolger's mutiation is he eason, Carol says, is that the earlier one lacks a ramework that e lae one has Crol describes this ramework as ollows :  o to estalsh the t status of a oteste wo one ees ot only to tell

 tfg aate that oets the wo  questo wth ano wlege at pates t a e oe ees  estabsh that th e thng an a g tha t the efg aate eostuts be loaze to attes that ou wthn e ognzae artorld sstes of presentaton atfos ea an gees whh a alabe to the artst  the artworld publc une s uss o That s en tfy g aates s be onstae to ta o ly poesse s of hnng an mang ote se the aeor of artorld sstes of presentaton o eognzabl e sos heeof oeoe hee ths o stant s hono e e fy g naa ts l noto the eo of oeusee ss (tas ne) 24

 ns out a the eok Carol describes or constraining identiy ing naties is made u o the cental no tions o the institutional theory o  a theoy that Croll has reec ted as a r eal deition . Carroll's th eory o ientiying  aroaches a work o at rom the consumers point o vie hle he instittional theory approa ches wo rks o art rom the point o ie o the atis he instittional theoy however, despite its circu li, tels us all at e need to know about how to denti y artworks . enonsnevetheless o Ar� Stephen n hs ookoach who nsttional rejectsaves, both o myhimsel versionsopts o or the the in stiional theoy because they both lack what he takes to be a necessary iedent o instutionalism-the notion o he onerrng o he saus o  Although he as something to say about this ngredient he never realy sties is necessi or institu tionali sm aes s igt tat oth o my versions lack what he takes to be the ne c ssy ae nely, the conerring o the staus o art although in Aes heAn nrouion d Ar and he Aeshei I did sometimes carelessy ie o coneing he sus o ar as a knd o shorthand or conerring

The nsuonal Theory o Ar

10

the candidacy or appreciation he ocial view o th e wo earlier books  however is that candidacy or appreciaton is conerred and artiactalit may sometimes be conerred Davies evalation o all o my versions o he instittional theory is sed p n the ollowing wo otatons rom hs book ce too ofte  dscusses the cofer ra of ar t status as  f t were a d of acto e shavg rather than a eercs e of authorty vese d   soc ally de ed roles wh the resu ad thatwhe he has2o useful eplanato to oer of who ca cofer art status o what

( soe approprate but foral fasho he auhorty  co fer saus By auhorty I do  o ea  a rgh o ohers obe dece  ean an  etteet successf uly to eploy the covetos by whch art satus s coferred o obecs/eves  2 

 artst s soeoe who has acqured

Davies this that the necessary eate o conerrng the stats o art n tn rests on a exercise o athorit by an atis  have o corse never hed that at stats s conerred b t Daves ths that  ad ay instttonalist shod Moreover he thnks that the cre ation o at derives rom an act o athort He contrasts the athort that Dchamp alegedly exercised n creating Founan with the lack o a thorit o the pbing saesman  imagined in Ar and he Aesheic  clam ed sc h a sale sma cod have done wh at Dchamp di d i he had had the magination and wit to o so Daves vew is that art s created by a exercse o athorit-an exercse o an entitlement to employ artmaking conventons He claims that my magina plbing saesman wold ack sch athorit Daves never gives any agment in spport o hs clam abot  athorit s his claim tre Consde r a mndane exampe o a t creaton  atist paints away in hs stdio on a canvas and aer a while says to himsel ts nshed and he then sgns the painting A work o at has been created bt there has been no exercise o athort he atist may have exercsed some skill magi naton knowledge o a patclar sort and the ke. ether o artst nor Dchamp exercises athorit n creating Aer thebecase act o at an atst may exercse athorit over isatpantings theycreaton are his propert-or example athore a gallery owner to dspay them or sae. Perhaps Dchamp exercised sch aertheacoatcreaton athort n geting Founain dspayed at that nowamos at show An atst also exercises a simila athorit o te propert sort when he or she says t s nished bt having the athort to determne when ones own work s completed s not at all the kind o athorit aves has n mind For Davies the relevant athory is he atorit to exercse an entitlment to employ atmaking conventions

1 

De

KI E

I thnk Daves has confused he noon of beng n a ptn to do somethng ecause one s possessed of authorty wth the noton of beng n a poston to do somethng for other reasons A polceman a docor a pharmacst a parent and the lke are n a poston to do certan thngs because the have the authorty to do them. But one can be n a poston o do somethng no because of authorty but because of knowedge and sk Someone mght be n a poston to do CPR or the Hemch maneu ver smpl because of the nowedge of how to do them One does not ave  have auhorty to do such thngs On the other hand to do bran suger one mus possess a certan medcal authorty and be censed b te stte o have the ega authort to do so I thnk that the creaton of ar fals der the noton of beng n a poston o do somethng because of e possesson of knowledge (d sometmes skl The general concep ona scheme I have n md s ths. There s the more general noton of beng n a poston to do somethng Under ths general noton there are to speces 1) beng n a poson o do sometng becase f athorty and (2 ben n a post on o do somethng nd ependentl of athort In a revew of enons o Ar Ira ewman makes a smlar pont ao Daves' clam abot at horty ewman wre s y og the oto of authorty an roes Daes has a potca or orgaza toal structure  m     So Daes oto [of authorty] has to b e ee a s at est metaphorcal that s t s as f the ebers of the artorl c oferre art status the ay msters an uges o Yet Daes oers fe sppotg reasos for eg ths metaphor as a  apt oe  There s otg reote ly le a process of electo or selecto  hch ebers of the artorl asse posts for co ferrg aror stats  olege of arts hstoy a theory so cetal to erstag hy Duchamp Fountan a be a ar or oes  ot ache e any thg le gratg the author ty to bestow art status    ths s the authorty of a uale epert an an altogeher eret se se fro the oe Daes has    aes oto o f authorty thus seems as mysterous at ths stage a s the cocets t s tee  to lmate

I concude that Daves' an obectons to m versons of nstttonal sm namel ta both lack an account of how ar status s conferred and ow t s conferred b  eerc se of athorty are nfonded  TE CLASSIFICATIO OF THEORIES OF ART In hs recent book Stephen aves has cassed theores of ar n a ver sef wa as ether fnctonal procedura or hstorca. Fctonasm denes art n ers of soet hng taken to b e an e ssental fncton of art  ar as he expresson of emoton s a clear case of fnctonalsm Proced lsm dees art n ters of some procedure; the nsttutona heor

The nsuonal Theory o Ar

17

s a a as of produasm Hstoral thors d at n trms of som hstora rlaton Carrolls thory s a la as of a hstoral thory, athough t s no a thory of at. Jrrold Lvnsons thory s a la as of a hstora thory of at, baus h ds prsntday at n trms of ts hstoral rlaton to at of th past28 Som thors tun out to hav aspts that fall undr mor than on of th thr atgors Thr s othr us ful ay to  lassfy tho r s of at, on  bas d on th dstnon btn natualnd atvts and utuaknd atvts29 Anmal sps xhbt natu ralknd atvts suh as skng f ood , atng, matng and th lk Suh atvs a no doubt rttn n th gns and om about as th rsult of bodly matuaton H uman bngs and prhaps som othr sps also xhbt ulturalknd atvts suh as skng food usng rtan thnqus , atng n rtuald ays marag and th k. Cultualknd atvts a human nvntons and a passd on from gnraton to gnraton by mans of tahng and lanng Cultualknd atvts ar somtms ays of aryng on natalknd atvs. Exprsso nsm -th v tha t at s th xprss on of moton -s a la xampl of a natualknd atvty thory of ar Th xprsson of mo ton as suh s a naualknd atvty, atough of ous ultural mattrs may bom nvovd n th xprsson of moton. Thus xprssonsm trs nsttutonal to drv atthory drty natu asofaa natuand of from at s ahuman lar xampl uturalkndatvty atvty Th hory on ths thory at s  ulua nvnton Ar may nvolv natual knd atvs suh as th appraton of bas ash qualts but th nsttuona thory dos not s suh appaon as ssna to a

NOTES 1  George Dickie Deig rt Amecan Phlosophcal Quatel 6 (1969 252 2 bid 3 George Dickie Aesthetcs An ntoducton (dia napolis P egasus 1 971  1  1  4 . George Dickie At and the Aesthetc A n nsttutonal Analss aca NY  Corel iversity Press 1 9 74  34  5 Rchard Wolhei Pantng as an At (Pri ceto  Priceto iversity Pr ess 198715 6 t is true that nfortnately i Aesthetcs An ntoducton and At and the Aes thetc  occasioally dd speak of the coferrig of the status of art as a knd of shorthad for the confe rrig of the candidacy for appreciatio  7 rthr Danto "The 1 99 3 itey Bieial Naton 1 9 p ri 1 9 93 55 3 8. rhr Dao "Da to Replie Naton 7 ne 1 9 93 758.

8

DC

9 ii Aesthetics An ntoduction 3 1 i "ig  rt, 255  11 For oher discusso o olhem's m sierpreao  see my  sic drstadgoal ofAesthetics and At iticm51 ( 199 3  69-7 1 .  he aidge ictionay of Philosophy ed Rober ud (Cambridge Cam ridg rsy Press 1 99 4 37 8- 79 13  oro eadsley, "Is t sseialy Istituo a   lte and A t ed  agadogse (lanic Highlands N ] Hanes Press 1 9 76 51  51 og cke he At icle A heoy of At(New ork Have 1 9 84  i oo is h sgle bes accoun o he su oal heory o  a 15 Id 8-82 1 Id  9-1  17.  Pal Zi "The Task o Deg a Work o t Philosophical eiew  (1953 5878 orrs eiz "The Roe o Theory  eshecs ounal of estetics d At iticis 15 (1956  27-35  and Wilam eick Does Tradi toa setcs Rest o a sake? Mind 67 (1 958  3 17-34  18  idas o his po have her org  a acle by Mauce Mandel a Fail Rsemlaces d eeraiatos cocerig the ts Ameican Piil Qtely 2 (1965 219-28 19  dscssios o ol Carol's and Sephe Davies' cricsms o he isi tioa to  oth derived rom materal cotaed  my "t uncto or Proda or Cule ounal of Aesthetics and At iticism 55 (997  19-8  ol Crol " Pracce d arave Monist 7 ( 98 8  1456    ol Croll Idetg t i ntitutions of At econideations of ee icies Pilosophyed Roer ] anal (vers Pak Pesylvana t vrsy Press 1 994  1 2- 13   ol Crol "Historcal Naratives and the Phosophy o r oual of tetics d  t iticis 51 19 93 36 3 Iid 32  Id Ialcs m  tp avis enitions of At Ihaca N Corel versiy Press 1991 8  Iid 8  enitons of At anadan Ira ma rve by Stephe Daves  Pilsil eiews 12 (1992o  1 83 8  as enitions of At 243 or a dscusso o he heores See also y : Fcto or ProcedueNatue or Culue ounal of Aesthetics and  itiis55 199  1 9-2 8 9   y "rt Fucto or ProcedueNaue or Cu e or a disc ussio oi ay o clasg theores o at

6 he evan  Ontoogy of Arwork JOSEPH MARGOLIS

I

A dea fiend, Eddy Zemah, hides me in his eeny pubished aeshe is, Rea eauy f having indued in ne f my n piee s a gnmi" eain-ha is, a eain ha is nepuay hepfu" beause is gi" is aing-in eing he nin f embdimen, ading  he fmua he i s f e mbdimen    is n  be apsed in h e is  f ideniy" 1 As Zemah igh y i mpies,  he fmua a s mean  disp ae Ahu Dan s beekn n fmua -namey, ha he  is f as idenian i s n he sam e as he  is f ideniy" 2 I mean i as an iny, beaus Dan expaine d his meaning e anfmake enais ha h eee ae nneve aks  ks f a a aha  speaking a s,ffi Dan, a pey heia uish egadng hings ha ae ea  mee ea hngs" ) bu ha e neve, qua ea , aks !  hs pa, Zemah signas an uningness  eneain nepua i mpvisains h a begin ih a knedgng he n dieene beeen ha is uay ea and ha is physiay ea ihu ye invking duaism) In any ase, I am unn diinay ied  expaining and defending he embdmen am I nede ha my usage equies si equies) defense, beause, as Zemah ey eps, I hd, invking embdimen, ha ne paiu a ud be said ) insaniae anhe paua" 3 Ceainy, I mean by ha  e n he f a dsinive f  heeas - ap,f hasnsa aays ne,seemed f hepues me smehng f desipin f a sma and sanda ha an abe phsphe Dan) ud have s bihey psued hs se anaysis f panings hu eve expainng h his nepin f a seved his sangune sense f beive inep eain  Beynd ha, I hugh I had n 198 hen A a hiosophy ap peed) auay expained he g f he nn and eainy, sine 9

11

MARGOLS

198 I have in an places which Zemach nowhere considers) eturned to the logic and etaphsics o the question The matter is important I eel certain because so man philosopers o art perseverat e in one or anoth er canonical view o arts ontolog in was that are painl indeensible and inade quate to the problems that arise in ou usual discouse about the arts and because the solution I oer points the wa to a more genera solution (regarding the reationship between cultue and I won t protest the disinclination o philosophers to be guided b me But the must srel explain what the wo uld put in pace o th e minima caims o  m embodi ae \ ment thesis rst that with espect to (not redcibe to) psica and that cultual  phenomena exhibit cetain sui thei emboding medim lacs thid that these distinctive propeties (which I denominate Intentional) are indissolb embedded incarnate") in the poperties } o the emboding (nonIntentionall qalied) medim ad outh that ad entities shae since the o the non  Intentiona poperties indicated) we ma speak con venientl o one paticlas instantiating anothe 4 The econom gained brings together  b a single stroe the avoidance o dualis m the admis sion o the concepta distinction o cutua reai visvis physical reait

and theis nimal logical peculiarities o thetoontolog claim that no phiosop o art is likel be viableoi artworks it does notWhat comeI to grips with these consi derations  Neither Danto nor Zemach accepts the charge Zemach does touh on an essential connection e does not bother to aaze whih was on m own part) meant to contribte to the spport ing arguent in avor o embodiment I need to reclaim that connection I hope he will not mind thereore i I take advatage o his observation to expain wh it acta misses the mark and wh m own theor o art and interpretation as into pace so trim -and I trust compeling Zemach sas not acc uatel as ar as m own view goes  bt diserningl enogh)  Reatvsts belve that there s o way or s to dey the terpretad the twork X tsel thoh the vel o ts iterpretatios Bi what we e we  ecessly bas d  w ca ot see the w ork as  terpret ed ad each r ader co ss h rprd drly I a word rprao s all hr s; h trprtad s a  yth    Iterprtrs mut ( as Mols sas thr trpr tato s to th  trprtan dm and drt  terprtrs  mpte dr nt ntrpr aos o he work b ha does o oberae he work X as  s  se The propertes X has as sch e thoe shed by all t stances so  yo kow Xs occureces yo kow wha X s as sch

Wat Zemach reports or conectes here is I  araid ase abot art ase about m theor and a obvos non seqitu to boot Yo have onl

The Devian Onoogy o Artworks

111

to onsder that there ma be no set of propertes (nether phsal nor ntentonall narnate) that all orretl pulled nstanes of a patula Dre r enravn ould be reas onabl sad to share that would not be  uded to be too muh le an atworks least ommon denomnator to have muh relevane for an ponted d so use about the ats   oer ths only as a lue  There are more mportant onsderatons bean on the ontoloy of at that would need to be lad out to make the ase ll dwell a lttle loner on Zemahs formulaton, but  have no wsh t redue the theor  defend to a qubble The deeper lam s worth restatn, and the lue t the soluton of Zemah s puzzle s easl drawn from what Zem ah hmself supp le s The ruh s tha there s more at sake than mee s the ee f ou revew Zemahs mplt obeton, ou wll see that t ress on the presumpon that f arworks ae real enttes the must have ther propertes apat fom nterpretve mputaton whh ou desptve eorts must then ad dress that to mpute (to be able onl to mpute) propertes b alternatve perspetved means (bas n Zemahs terms) snes that there ae no arworks at all, that aworks ae not real On m readn that rsks ol lapsn the derene beween m theor and Dantos-whh s presel the reverse of m  ntent on. t s also a on se qutr. Let me sa-aanst Zemah-that (1) arworks ae real but have na (2) ther natues tures sna rane antl of phsal enttesor; epstem nlude of derent propertesfrom thatthose dsallow an rteral ds unton beween perevn and mputn (or beween desrbn and nterpretn) the objetve propertes o f ven aworks; 3) admt tn (2) makes t mpossble to dsallow the pertnene of a relatvst aount of obetve truth lams about arworks; (4) admttn the realty of psal enttes presupposes and entals the realty of onzn selves (persons, ouselves) and () what dstnushes works from phsal enttes s enerall the same as what dstnushes selves from phs al enttes (the members of Homo sapens), however speall derent selves and arworks ma be from one another for nstane as n possess n or lak onsousness) Treat ths as a ontnuaton of the tall olleted a moment ao read embodment)  do not nd n Zemah-or n anone else-a ompelln ament to the eet that all real ettes are phsal enttes or e modeled (deno tatvel and predatvel) n the same wa phsal enttes ae modeled, or that the ae neessal so modeled n fat  hold that aworks are real and modeled ver derentl from phsal enttes; so modeled n fat that the are embode enttes onformabl wth the troublesome thess that one patula ma nstantate anther.  do not den that m usae s unusual but  see no daman paadox n t-and no better dom n sht The tru th s, we must nvent the ontol o es we need muh as we nvent ou mathemats, seekn onl to make

112

MRGO

S

them plausibe ad coerent and serviceable for o best a nalyses The id ea (Zemach's) tat a rea etiy is, i n al cases, deter minate in al l its propert ies, intact apart rom or iquiries ad interventions , ad that that is the mini al codio o wc interpretive objectivity rests, s, in my opinion, a recip e for conceptualdisaster. I you demu, ten, I must ask you, where is the supporting argent? e imrtace of the quarel rests wi th the possibi lity that, t  all, whats generically true of art orks is, in a im port ant regad, aso genericaly true of (hma) seves-and of everything ese that belongs to te world o hua cultue; and, second, that if the e ntit ies of physica nate ae rea, ten it canot be de nied (on pain of p aradox) tat cutral etities are rea as we ad must be embodi ed in the sense I suggt eres te caenge Eptemaywe cannot admit de terminte pysical etities without aditting the reaity of seves but the re aliy of seves is isepae from the ont stding o the cultal world . Certaiy it is ce tat, uike what may be argued regarding physica obects , cutra peoena anguage, tworks, institutions, practices)  canot have eir properties "apat fro huma selves or huan soci eties (in te sese i wichwether ultiately justied or notwe do say physica obects re idependent ) e properties o f cuta things eed not, owever, be rbitraiy dependent on whatever any one or sever a of us the supse tey d ethey entitedselves to some t of obectiviy but, nateae of human (thesor language d, encute d, ten, existence secondated eers of omo ape wo acquire, in incy, the apitudes tht k te as cultral  atifacts in their o wn right) cao t be wat tey re etirey ar from the aggregated, siily seco nd naed sociees i wich they are rst formed Short of some reductive or eliminative pysicas (which I claim cannot work), it is not in te east strage to supse that the distinctive properties of artorks and selves ay we ivitemay even obligeus to concede that something ike  e emdiment reation must hod among cultal entities i we ins ist on chaacterizig pobects in ( something like) Zemachs way! hat is part of wat I ean by saying that, in the profodest sense, seves (a fortiri, aworks) caot ssib ly exist apat from the coective ife of an ecutued sciey I a word, there is, nay, no point in speaking of te obe ctive or atul properies of artworks without e xpaining te ontic re lationship betwee ata ad culta (cutay eme rgent, or cutuay costituted) etities. I press the point against bo Zemach and Danto Let e coe t te erve of te quarre, a concession ay ontoogy of art shoud allw: nely, tat aworks characteristicay possess representa tioal, expressive, sybolic, semiotic, syistic, genrebound, traditiona, nd hstorica porties I ca suc properties Intentiona, eaning by tat to equate te Itetiona and the cutal (or, the cultualy meaning

The Devant Ontolog o Artwors

3

ul- or intrinsially interpretable)  That permit s me t o aomoda te the notio of the intentional whih rentano ad Husse developed while esaping the s olpsis m ad aultal ast of ther par tiular theo res  These haraterst properties are easily r eovered der terms keyed to our a quisition of a rst laguage They are presupposed (I suggest) in all or talk of art but also i theorizng abo ut the nature of h uman selves -whih as I say motivates my ow ontolog of art I mean to apture all that by te term Inten tional  I lay it down as a formal (but entrely nterpreted) ondition that propertes must be adequated to teir denotata that s  that watev er prop erties are attrbuted to arworks (to any thing n fat) must oere on sstently wit the oeved nature of su thngs (watever tat may be) It s for istane uotroversially oneded that sentenes like he stone smled lterally fail the adequation test oh Seale laims (wthout supporting argent) that mental attributes may be diretly prediated of the brain (tougts ad memories for instae) though (he says) they are not physal I do not agree though I do not endorse physialism er tainly on te usual view ph ysal obets lak Intento nal properties or are assigned tem oly retorially or guatively Danto for one assigns In tetional properties to mere real thngs (physal obets preeminently) ee n a way t at annot meet and te adequation hene n way that fals toi explai interpretivetest udgments ow desriptive (ofaarworks) ould poss ibly b e obe tive I nd this phlosophially unaeptable emah is on stronger ground He beleves that those who lke myself speak of mputing ntentonal propertes to aworks imply thereby that there are o suh entities (they dont est) or alternatively that if tere are arworks they lak Intetonal atures or their dstitive properties are entre ly reolable with p hysialsm  (Why otherwise should w e be obliged to i mpute s u propert es to them ) ema h prelu des the ob vi ous option: naely tat Itetional properes are prediatively so dis tntive that no one modeling arworks on pysial paradigms (emah imself for in stae ) would (1) admt su properties n the adequatonal (2) admit standard sense or rti al pratie teir supposed  desriptive ad interpretive oddites n Stll there is a hallenge tere that must be met Here by way of a promiss ory note I simply introdue arworks as te adequated denota of ertan failiar Intetional propertes M y bet s that they wll resist redutonsm d eliminatvsm Thats all So far then my proposal s viable (against emahs obetion) as well as philosophially responsibe (against Dantos maeuver) I aknowledge that all the old puzzes asso ated wth mid a nd bo dy and utue and natre wl have to be re solved onformably I welome the responsbilt. ut my bluderbuss solution is

114

MGOIS

to treat all cultual etites as ndssouby  emboded n sutably selected physcal (or boloical or electroc partculars paradimatic ay selves n te members of Homo sapens also by the condtons of ther producto patins n pments words n sounds actons n bodily movements touhts n brain states and so on If you rat all that you wll have sered e nomic chare oriinally raised. I sa y te cultural world has emered  n a su e ner s way from the physi  cal ad boloical world Its realty is not  question whatever we ma y suppose ts proper analysis to be t manfests itself paradmatcally in the mastery of atual lanuae and watever lanuae makes possible n spe ccally no nliuistc (linual  ways (as  dacin n te preparaton of food  in ak  love. t is relexively identied (as  s indeed the physcal world by encultued selves who are themselves the preemnent enttes of the cutual world e mportant point s that cutural ettes ad cultural pheoena ae (1 real as real as physcal entites and physical phenomea (2 causally ecacous in both physcal and cultural contexts (3 distnuised by ther possess ion of ntent onal propertes  and (4 onti cally suciet for justfyn as a consequence the objectve standin of nterpretve ad letmative inqures that o beyond the merely causal  steer a midde couse between reducton and em nato n on the one had and duals o te and otherofHence  speak of properties culral asenttes, here-as eboded eir (adequated ncarnate that is ndssolubly coplex qua cultural t is n this sense t may be sad that predc atively a menta or a lnustc or a stystc property has both phys cal and tentioal features and that its ntentonal features are dscerned only n its ndssolubly incanatn features (So the term ntentonal s benly equvocal Furthermore  t is  n ths sense that  treat the  s o f embodiment a s a knd of enttatve analoue of the s of predcatve nsantaton the u e of whc h I restrict to the cutu ra world  he devc e is arely nstrumental n th e way of faclitatn reference predicatio n umercal identty r eden tcatio hece also descripton nterpretaton explanation evaluaton and the lke Except of course for my not bein wlln to scant a reaist read of conditios 14  see nothin strane n any of this unless t is the nearly t otal elect of such nicet es in Enl ishlanua e philosophi es of art and plosopy  eneral  canot see that ether Zemach or Danto or anyoe elsehas ever show the least basis for supposin tat the loi cal ontolocal and epistemoloical ssues  address can be manaed in any serously dierent way or can be smply retred. Fnally if as  beieve the ndvduaton and numercal identty of at  works canot e derved (crterally alorthmcally or by any rule) fro purely physcal etities the (1) to denote a awork as the referent of

The Deviant Ontoogy o Artworks

5

dsciptv ad intptiv discous ad (2) to go on to dscib ad in tpt an awok as such s to pocd  such a wa that (3) latv to phsical ntts th can b no pncipld dstncton bwn th de scrpton and nterpretaton of awoks on th on hand and mutations to that ct on th oth Whth th scond wa of spakng (mputa to s idl o supluous wll dpnd on what th conncton is bwn nttional and nonntntonal poptis and hth ntntional pop ts do hibit th oddtis and ndtminacs  hav bn hnting at  an cas ts littl point in disissg this bt of cauton on m pat i advanc of a actual analsis on th sd. n fact  agu that fnc and pdicatio a inhtl (logicall fomal and that thi nfomalt uns vn dp f w admit nt tonall qualid ntitis   psuadd that fnc is imputatonal f  undstand b that that ing th dnotata of ou discous is in ntl noncitia l cons nsual tolatd b th spotaous lun c of ou discusiv pactics ncapabl of bing d b an fomal ul at all also that  pat of asonng ou pdicabls a s mlal nstantat d unlss p conta Platonsm povs vabl To spak of mputatio s n gnal simpl to concd th insupabl consnsual infomalit of natuallanguag discous Th is (and c  b no algotc connc to cultua bwnwod ou discous about phscal wold discous about th Rnc andtpdcation pstmica hostag aad vh f so th a lativistc tatmt of th dscpton ad in ttatio of atwoks caot b uld out a po  ca put th poit atl fc ad pdicaton a aais not of savor but of savorare but f so th so too a th dsciptio ad tptatio of awoks  t m mnton wthout cmo th si gl mos t compll ig most icon tstabl clu favoig th tho  suppot: aml w st la to spak b lvng as chld amog lnguistcal comptt adults; but th s o a to accout fo ou lunc n lanng ad using languag b  gal infnta statg that pocds rom liabl st ig ctainy phsica maks (souds sa to th dtminat ntntona fatus of n gustc uttancs (manings s a . That ould n ct b mthodolo gcal soipsism faultd b slfftial paado. What hods h holds fo awoks as wll Hb t Figl  ma sa w as fod of spak g i cov satio at last of th man ma poblm that s  of th puz l that fo an dtmat phscal movmnt th a indnitl ma sigi cat actions that mght b associatd wth ( should sa bodid i that movmnt (sgnalng o ptndng to sgnal fo stanc tat

116

MARGOLIS

for y action, there e indeitely my ltertive bodily movemets tt mig t convey the se ctio (greetig other, sy); d tt tere is o legi ble rule r lw cordintig te o sets.S Te "m y "my  problem o bvio sly pplie to lguge s ell I you dd to tis te i superbl e iforli y of reference d prediction (d te iformli of ig the  cotexts  of rerece d predicto), you ill d tt you re comi ted to soe fr of constructivism -if you tke  relist vie of pysic al nd cultul phenoen9 Tese elementy djustents defet Zemc d Dto t  stroke, sice, o  te rguent, there c be no y of prioriizig disc ouse bout te pysi cal orld over discorse bout te cultul d, i dditio , tere c be  o principled disjunction bet een descrip tio d iterprettio i eit er quter If you grnt this much, you see te sense i ic ll trut cli s hve  iputtionl cst ithout (yet) clig io uesio  relist tretment of whtever is entittively posited i eiter pysicl or cultul  ce  This es, very simply, tht t is rel (oever oti clly "inependen  we suppse the rel to be) s, epistem�ally, depedet on ua conditio ns f derstndg d belief I ts sese, the realst reading ofwhat sreal is  inerpretive positte iterl ccustive, so to sy, of i nterpretive tet subect terefore to te istoricl dri of ou concepal scees  I emp asize ecuse, in the orld i ic e describe d the point interpret arorks, it is regully supposedcertily, by Zemc d Dnto 1° tt e cnnot nteret in y sese tt deserves to be clled ojective , ht is not tecedently descrbed or describble (oiterpre tively) Bt this fils to concede tht t is ten to be descriptively reli ble-h e condition on hich ditted interprettios re supposed to perfor teir c cerisic lor-is, o  costructivist teory (c,  clim, we cnot escpe), itself the upsot of  interpretive posit Epis temic ll, e "constitute the intellgible orld e cli m to describe o bj ec tively  bo t the nurl d e cultul orlds onticlly, we posit t e te to e te relity of ntue s it is p t from t e posit s cul ully re real realsm d inealetion Te  nd the of or culul of physicl orld is tue i seprble remis epstemcally m life depende t on the conceptl conditios of hm uiry Te de il of ts enign tioy produces istt d isuperble pd I see no diculty there Cultue, but not tue, is ifsed it Intetial properties  d Intentiol properties re itrisiclly iter pretle  pt forinterprettioere is, terefore,  dul sese i ic e spe ointerprettion: rst, constiutively, i epistec terms (tt is, olistil l, in terms) tht, pa Kt, cot be iitilly ssiged distict subeci e nd obecti ve souces but depend isted o some prior sym

The Deviant Ontology o Artworks

117

biosis within which the (a fortori the epistemic and the ontic) are rst constitted and, second, obectivel, wthin the terms of the rst b which we claim to artculate the meanings and signicatve structures of huan acts hstores, practices, nstttions as well as the meanngs of th artfacts, machines, tecologes, and artworks that are thereb produced I sa ou cannot formulate a reasonable theor o the arts-the e arts-without provdng a pertnent sketch of the relationship between natue and culre For exaple, when Monroe Beardsle treats even the nterpretation of literatue as somehw akin to discerning the phsical propertes of natual obects hence, eectivel concedng (and imedi atel overcomng) the derence between Intentonal and nonIntentonal properties and, thereupon construing nterpretation as straightforward empirl descrpton-it comes as a suprise to learn that Beardsle has no ramied theor of art at all or of how cultue and natue ought to be onticall  and epistemica ll compa red 1 When, theref ore B eardsle distin guishes nterpretation proper from a merel parasitic hardl obective, form of nterpretaton what he calls supermposton (reading Ham let for nstance in Freudan erms-or when he fusses about his inablt to discern with assurance what is in a work of art and what is not (in expressv e or represe ntational or o ther semotic espects 12 he  s surel ac knowledgng ontc and epstemc puzzles of ntentonalt and culture that he fals tothe analze ow, the essential ke t resolving the pules of the ontolog of art and of the methodolog of the nterpretaton d hstor of art lies wth the strategc proposal that, whether with regard to the constructve re lationshp between nature and culture or, wthin the space of the real, wth regard to the descrp tion and nterpretato of Intent onall freghted enttes, the descrption and nterpretaton of artworks and human deeds are inherentl informal consensuall tolerated ua objective, determinable onl collectvel not crteral and such as to def an prncipled disjc ton between what is sad to be dscerned n that part of the ndependent world and what is (onl) reasonabl mputed to the consttuted deno tata of ou truthclai mng discou se he thing to gra sp is hat, eve among the natural scences critera of objectvt ultmatel rest on ther beng consensuall embedded in our ordinar practces of descrption and ter pretation which are not in ther turn, explicabe in crisp criterial was I take ths to be the master theme of Wittgenstens hilosohical Investiga tons and O Certanty correct enoug h as far as Wittgenste in goe s but never actuall dev eloped far enough ( b Wttgenst en) to meet the spec ial pules the arts ad their interpretation present More generall, I take the entre arguent to mplcate the need for admittng the hstoricit of ou con ceptual sche mes whch Wittgensten would never hav e favored but which,

8

MRGOLS

appied o he ogia peuiarities of Ineniona prediabes expains he unaoidabiy of reang nerpreaion in reasi erms. For he mo men I emphasie ony he arguens oherene III

 ngoerian phiosophies of art as in nglomerian philosophy

in genera dsourse abou physia natue s reguary taken o be paradg mati of objetie" inquiry so muh so that exempars of that dsourse are righty thought to goern the right analysis of the ontology of art and of the logi and methodology of interpretation  short reiew of urrent disussions woud onrm ha ha was indeed he genera endeny I s ertany the assupton shared by Beardsey Danto Goodman and Zemah for nstane But its pausibiliy is doubtful at best and n any ase it is patenty inadequate-utery unabe to aptue or eiminae In enionaiy. he entire question of how to onstrue the ontoogy of art is bes managed I suggest by ahering to the fllowing wo onstraints one ha he ogi and mehodoogy of desribing and inerpreing ar works shoud be adequated to the natue of arworks; the other that art works themseles obously hae an Intentional nature I annot imagine a more sensible general I admit that one ae been made herepoliy may bethough ery ite agreemen abouthese howossions o proeed furter or wat preisey suh onsraints entai I mysef th it impos sibe to aoid drawng ertain radial onlusions thers do not - hiey I beliee beause hey aready adhere o sandard iew abou biaene ad nerpretation about a prior onditions of objetiy about ertan ano of realy whe ther with regard to naure or ulture all of whih be  tray a taste for the presumpi e paradigms of phys ia  natue  his is hreaene d n he profoundes w ay by admitng referene a nd predation ad Itetona prediabes I oud add to these worries og nate diutes regading ontext the hstoriy of thinking truth and knwedge he dsinion beween he subjeie and he obeie and our ery understanding of what is re a. But for the sake of a ean haen ge I put a that aside4 here remains at east one desie adequational teorem ha he heory of inerp reaion mus onj ue wih namey a if arorks are onstrued entitatiey (as stabe ndiiduated denotata) then (   arworks may be a ssigned n ueri al id eniy een granting ther prob ema naure and (2 ompaiby wih (   arworks possess deermin ae but not strity determina te natue s" in irtue of their Intentionaiy he teorem s almost uniersally negleted In any ase I d no prot in pursuing the ogi of interpreaton or the alidity of dening what a work

The Deviant Ontoogy o Artwor

9

of art s, without omng to trms wth th thorm ust mntond Th tri is t o s h out what it ntails  Bfo proding furthr, howvr I should xplan that I approah th ontolog of art n th northodox wa I do baus standard disussions Zemahs and Dantos, for nstan) tnd to slght th omplxtis that I sp. Its an uphll eort to explan what turning things arond entails and of ours what would ustf dong so I tae the detour-f thats what t s-to b importt baus, for on thng, philosophal habits of thinking about artworks have so deepl entrenhed the model I wsh to dismtl for other beause the replaement I ntend aords a de isiv lu to undrstandng our own ontolog d, for a third aus making provisio n for th ontolo gy of art involvs a fundamntal rthinking of our general oneption of realt There s hardl  sustaned analss of ultural ntitis that s not ommttd a pror ithr to th phsialst paradgm or to som frank latonsm15 Both optons sm to m tn able for the same re ason  namel the natu re of Int entional predables I hold that ltural ntts form a su gnrs run of ral things alrad mpliatd, as ontia drent, n the ass of phsa natur Wth out admittng their peularties , we annot I sggest) make lear sense of th natural sns thmslvs. For knowdg is itsf a utura artifat. W rtanl othrwis, giv a onvinng aontsort of th puzzes of artannot, and rtsm for nstane of the foowing Howntral is an artwork indivduated and dented nuera if it is not mere a physi al ot? In what sns s t possbl for artworks to b ral n spt of th fat that Int ntonal proprti s a nnot  detrminat or xd n what ever wa we suppose phsia propertes an? What does it mean to sa that th proprts of artworks ar nhrnt ntrprtabl, n spt of th fat tat w annot fn a prinipd stintion btwn what they are an what the are merel) mputed to be  In what sense an we rght sa that the imputed properties of artworks remain obetve (or real), f vrgnt asrptons, possbl vn nompatbl ntrprtatons ma  vaiat n n what sns an th Intntional proprts of artworks  obetivel assgne if the an e atered or ae e b the angin g his  tor of thr ongong ntrpr taton? I favor rtain htroox possibilits hr an I aim to b abl to prove a nied an pasble swer to al these questons n the spirt of ratvsm an hstorsm -for nst, n aord wth th ntrprtv work (not nssaril th thors) of sh grs as Stphn Grnbatt, Mihel Foualt, Roand Barthes Harod Boom, an Stane Fsh1 l this s mere saoding, I admt. But I aniipat that th swrs I hav t to air wll rv s bak to th stntons alra n han So lt

120

R G 0

LS

me coect the scatte red parts of the doctrine aread introduced  Here is a convenient ta of them (1) hsica natue and cuture are dstngushed prmar in terms of w hat ac ks and what n the rea word poss ess es In tentonait; hence the cutua is sui generis and cot be reduced to the phsica (2) Cutua enttes are emboded in natua or phica entties, and ther propertes are corresponding ncanate in natua or phsca propertes hence, cutura entites exst in the sae sense phsca objects do and their properties are as rea as ph sc a prperties are (3) ntentona propertes ae inherent nterpretabe determnabe but not determnate in the wa we suppose phsica properties are hence, whatever we beieve the ogica features of truthbearing discourse ma be when addressed to phsca entites phsica exempars are not ke to b apt paradigms for deing obectve dscouse about cutura entites (4) Intentona proper tes are such that the indvduation and nmerica dentit of adequated) cutura entities der marked from the individuation of phsica entites accordng the natues of cutua enttes are such that we cannot de fen an principe distncton beween dscerning an puting nates or properie s) to them hence, the descr ption of cutura entities is aread nterpretve or mputationa (5) The obectve ascripton of Intentona propertes s compatbe wth concedng dvergent mputatons r descrp tons) thatit, isappied to phsica obects, woud produce contradction and paradox; aso such that objective imputed properes ay actua be atered b the ongoing process of interpretation and reinterpretaton hence, the criteria of objectve descrption cannot be the sae in nature and in cuture, though the are oga reconciabe You see the reason for warnng that th e admssi on of arworks begns to ca enge c anonica views of reat. IV Turn back, then to the most strategic considerations hese fa into wo baskets On the one hand, consderations of refernce and predcato con r the mpossibit of disoning ontc and epstemic questons; hence, the unavodabit of a conjont reaism nvovng nature and cuture On the oher hand, those regarding the ntentiona copextes of arworks themseves within the space of the rst) canno fa to ead to heterodox concessons regardng the ogc of truth cams, the constructed nature of obectvt, and the repaceent of physicast paradgms of reat bout the rst basket I oer the foowing for one thing, ogicay, reference cannot be captured b predicative means at a, and, as a conse quence cannot be captured n any rueke, crtera, or agorthmc wa and for another, snce, episemcay, there s no varant rue b whch

The Deviant Ontology o Artworks

121

o conrm successful predicaion, predicaive objeciviy mus be largely consensual, in a sense akin o the lebensormlich regularities Wittgenstein sketches in his short accout of h man practices . The rst basket collects the remarkable mistake (or, the fated inconclu siveness ) of us Scot uss noion of haecceiy , W V. Quines epistemically irrelevant proposal to replace proper names by descriptive predicates, the epistemic futiliy of Saul Kripkes invention of rigid designators, and silar conceptual lora The hopelessness of all suc maneuvers as, I may say, already anticipated by eibniz The second instruction rests on te obvious fact that, from lato to te present, no one has ever been able to provide a convincing clue about o to discern-or conrm that we ave discerned- laonist guide to the true predicables of ature (whether ide alist or realist or concep tualist) . Tere is no point to a teory of reference (or denota tion ) or predication ta t does not accou t for com muicative succes s ence, tere can be no adequat e theory of reference or predication tat does not groud such success, constructively, in the con sensual tolerance of our naturallanguage practices. But if that s so, then you s ee a once wy a rea lism regarding p ysical nau re implicates a real ism regarding Intentional entities for no imputation of obective reference or predication makes sense if its success is not ascribed to the thougt and action they of languaged world inhabit selves functioning cognitionally within te cultural Te verdict is more powrful tan e may require, because it aects, equally, all pa rts of disc ursive inquiry c orms,  fact, te eistemic de pendence of trut claims about p ysical natu re on a rea list reading o f cul ure and selves You see, therefore, at a principled disjuction beteen description and imputation (even in the absence of Intentional properties) signies a form of cognitive privilege; alternatively, te reection of privi lege conrms tat a viable realism ust be a constructive or constructivist reaism Tere is no principed way to assign the apparent strucres of te intelligible world to wat, disuctively, is brute and wat is co ceptually invented. That explains the sense in wic pysial nature im plicates artorks.e ontic standing of man culture -a fortiori, te oddiies of You begin to see how muc must -and sould -be revis ed to make room for artorks Its one ting to admit tat e orld of hman cuture and man minds must ave evolved from cosmic sources that srcinally lacked ntentionaliy altogeter I ts quite anoter to grasp tat w atever is conectured to be thus a nd so is itself insupera by depen dent on ou r being te competent invesigators that we are Our description of te real world is endogenously encumbered by the epistemic conditions uder wic we function, in spite of the fact tat, witin such terms, we have good reason

22

MR G 0   S

o beieve ha, onay, we have nee eege fo po onions ha ake he Inenona of o a wo I see no obesoe paaox hee I say ony ha he ream of he physia wo pesp poses an enas he rea of he  a wo Tha is y boo ine  a heoe ipiae in he enie abo of phiosophy spanning he wok of Gaeo an Desaes own o an an Hege No poising phoso phy an, I hink, bypass s esson. Tha Zeah an Dano have neve oe o es wh his heoe I have, aongy, aken as a a sign The senos eovey of he wo of he as is, hen , no oe han he obvese sie of he ieib of Ineniona phenoena, one he insepaabii of on i an epse qesions is aie Reaes w be ipaen , howeve, o b e gven a sense of he oa bea ng of hese speaions on he as I beieve  an sas fy he I oes as a sp se o ean how any of he a qaes abo he ob jeive esipion an inepeaon of awoks ae ehee o he isses I have s been aessing o exape, ageeing wh Danos i ha he  is  of as ien aon anno be he s ae as he  i s of en bease he s b no he seon onens he asipon of popees Dano eas as heoa n I oe as Ineniona as we as eaI ai ha  hee i s an n b e no way of invai ng aoks o  enfy ing whao beongs, peaip vey, o hei o  aee, by any eans he physa opees o nae pey physia  eboien8 onne I on  n he qesion ae sse n Dano o Zeah o Riha Wo hei  o Be asey o any of an ay of en phosophes an heos s of he as B if wha I have been sayng is oe, e he nea iei as we as he iis of wha beongs o he ae of an a wok cannot be peced ecept in Intentona tm , hee, nae a epeabe iis ano be xe ivaiany o pobaby o fo he os pa o i ay way ha is episeiay ipeeabe o he ow of hisoy B, of ose, if ha is so, he a he ispes abo he e sipio an iepeao of awoks ae o esponsiby infoe, if hey ignoe as o oogy  on happen o agee wih he Roani, o heenei, heoy of ieae B if yo onee wih E D Hish, say ha he obeive eaig of a Geek agey epes on, n eqies, he aiaio of soehig ike he esseia eeehy of he genre TRGD, aw fo e isoia ehos of he Geek wo,2 0 whih he pay i nsaniaes, yo see a one ha ) objeve aibio wi epen , inesapaby, on soe fo of a eais 2) hee wi b e o pnpe is nion bewee wha, objeivey, is i an wha is eey pe o an a wok oe see ha he saing of sh gees, aiions, paies, Stten o he ike an ( he spei obeivi wih whih we ak o

The Deviant Ontoogy of Artworks

23

te limit s of the interpr etable nature of any arwork a s well as the o b etivity of any attrbution we make wit respet to it, will depend on te measue of obj etvity we a rity aord Intention a determination s n te rst pae. I aim tey an never be more ta onsensuay (never rterially) reularied, always n a way responsible to te historal drift of ones enabn trad ton. I ave aready remarked tat we annot  te nuber of even pysi al obets e ept onsens ually -in e et, Intenionally and interpr etively In addition if, now, we mean to identfy a partiuar arwork tat () is emboded n but is not identa wit a partuar pysa objet beause t possesses ad te oter laks Intentional properties), (2) ests ony as a ntentionally ualied ob et s u tat (3) its ntentional properties are not te same as watever pysia propertes they are narnate in, you see at one that these  onditons anot be satsed eep t by havin rst in terpretvely posited a sutabe denotatum You see the sense, therefore, in hih, at the pont of ndividuation and ertainy at the pont of attrbu ton , a ood d ea of nterpretv e mputatio n wi aready hav e bee n at work. Even f we wer e ear about the numbe r and nature of the embodyin  phys a ob et and inarnatn physial properties in whh a partiular artwork was theoretialy embedded, there woud rean Fei) be no rue by whh the Intentona featues of an ndvidua oudofthe possby be ed onfo rmably  ut, f so, then even the wou arwork ldbe xites embody n entt es woud be put at r sk. B eause of ouse, referene an d predi aton are Intentona.) That is what the naturasts nore Quine and Davidson for instane) Think of the dverse performaes of a Moart sonata or the dverse printns of a Drer enravin or the bearn of the hstory of nterpretaton on the  dentity and renerpretab ty of Hamet or as M inas or Sarrasine or Miss oneyhearts or Duhamps) Fountain  say there s a oneptua ap beween the nuber ad natue of em bodyn and narnatn fators and the number and natue of the em boded and narnated featues o arworks, and that that gap cannot be overcome exept onsensually, within the hanin praties of the soi eties in whh suh uestons ari se ad are resoved If you rat that muh, you see at oe why the desripton and nterpretaton of artworks an not fa to be mputatonal -and why their obe tivity annot fa  to be onstruted We are free to theore as we pease about what to ount as a arwork -and why but, on the arument, we anot epet to ay the matter to rest by any riteria deniton When, for instane,  oneture that Ma Ernsts Jeune e poursuivie par un rossigno ustes asriptons of a eneray psyhoaayt sort or even ooser attributons onerned with the reeption of Freud ian materias n the West, I am theorn n m pt onformty with the ontooa attude I have suested annot be

2

MR  

L

avoded ad canno be bough o cosue n y ay a od eve en dose a uquey vad nepeaon hees o pon o qaeng abo he bvale o muvalen ogc of nepeaon, eefoesay, egad g hch s me hodoogcay co ec f he p aes  o he dspue goe he mpcaed uzze hees no doub ha Beadsey and ao fa n hs espec V  apoogze fo he busyess of a hs abo he uh s Engshaguage phosophes of a have agey avoded addessng he onc compe of a's nenona naue   woud have been que mpossbe o make pausbe he ogca pecuaes of aoks n ems of an onoog ha smpy shuned he nenona ke W V Qunes Word and O bect) . Bu he oc admsson of nenonay has  eaodnay eec on he sadng of oe conca vews  have, heefoe, fond  necessay o povde some evdec e of e she e coheence o f he mode of cuua ea sm a  popose h ee s a coes ee h a deseves a fe   g  mus w eave he age ague o one sde,  ode o come, ay, o he deepe oddes of as nepeabe nae n pa, hs

meas o moeauomacay, h a e de e gene c fea of ca enes o a aoks ,  ve o f es he beng popey appy decy, cosued ea ene s The mos mpoa heoe has aeady be e me oned, namey, ha, oncay, e ndvduaon of a pacua awok nee no ( pesppose the necessay xty of ts natue, o (2) pesu ppose th at ts be ng dete m-

nae n nube enas s beng dee mnae n naue   e o ssues ae qute deent.

 ave now shown ha boh efeence ad pedcaon owe he sa deemnacy o e nfoma consensua oeance of dscusve pacces hence, ha e e cano be any c ea  appea o ed esse nces n conm ng nmeca den  anhee n naue  Wha hods fo nonnen on ay quaed enes hods fo cu uay quaed e es as we  hence, fo aoks ad pesons e pon s ha nenona pedcabes ae deemnabe b no anecedeny deemnae n haeve csp way we suppose obans aong pysca eempas Bu even naua pedcabes ke ed  cano be ce ay deemnae,   a onsm n a s foms ) s fase o epsemcay accessbe 2 I hod, of couse, ha aonsm s fase Te upso s a a vabe easm mus be a cosucv e e asm  Apa fo a, neoa pedcabes agc,  baoque," Moza a,  posode") pove o be deemabe bu no deemnae n an mpo addoa sese hey bu o pedcabes ke ed") ae 

The Devant Ontolo of Artwork

125

trnscally nterpretable -alterable n fact as a result of beng thus nter pretable Tat ll eed to be eplaned more fully but t marks a decsve derence from predcates lke red" Te most contested puzzles of objec tve crt csm and  nterpretaton are I am persuaded, ted to the resoluton of ths s ngle ssue I rest my case on t The reured soluton s straghtforard enough ll thats needed s to brng the mport of the generc clam to bear on the specc ork of nerpreg arorks The rs sep s o explan ha s mean by he ob ecvy of Inenonal properes or, of couse  s lkely o be hough ha predcaon cannot be objec ve f the predcab les ascrbed o exsng thngs are not ndependently determnate there," apart from nterpreta ton tself (I suppose that Zemach and Danto ere arned o the theo rem or somethng lke t, because of such a orry It explans n part the general tendency of recent phlosophes of art to dsclam Intentonal com plcato ns. ) In any case the objectvy of general predcables cannot be secued avodng Platonsm n all ts protean formsunless e locate t n a s lch or lebensformlch ay meanng by that, once agan that predcatve objectvy s not crteral but collectve, consensually tolerant grounded n the dscusve practces of an enablng socey and subect to hstorcal lebenformlch drfantecedently To construedetermnate obectvy ndsa uncton s, eectvely to deny any beeenay subjectve" and obec tve" ngredents n knoledge or realy (I deny that that s tantaount to dealsm but I cannot pusue the matt er here. or present p uposes smply conne the ssue to cultual enttes though t has a der scope here s no other ground for obectvy-anyhere-f the puzzles of reference and predcaton are as I suppose they re. ence to oer no a lax" sense of obectvy for the nterpretaton of rtorks s not to fall aay from a strcter canon (as Zemach and Danto suppose) here s no such canon f the c onstructv st rguent goes tough . (But there s su cent obe ctvy there for all ou need s ) In that sense, f I ay ventue the pont e problems of the phlosophy of scene and  the poblems of the phlosophy of rt are one and the same he upshot of all ths appled to the rts, concedes that Intentonal propertes are (1 ntrnscally meanngful sgncatve semotc, lngus tc, lngal symbolc, or the lke; hence (2) nterpretable n a hstorczed and lebensformlch ay. I hold that all referental and predcatve practces (a fortor all ndvdatve and redentcatory and descrptve practces) re sbject to the drft of hstory, bt hstory tself of couse, s blnd There re no epstemc resouces for xng the hstorcal drf of ou o n epstemc practces, except retrospectvely, from a vantage that cannot chracterze tself n hstorcst terms Practces do change th use, e

126

MAR

G0

S

know; but we can judge only synconcally or systematcally We cannot do otherwse evertheless, we remain aware that, with the passage of tme we shall probably ch ange our epistemic asse ssment o wa has gone eore ncludin g our ass essment of our own cognitive competence ane By tself, that s the ordiny state of aars, aplcable to science and nter pretive criticsm alke It need not commit us yet) to hstoricsm. he pictue changes completely, however, when we ntroduce Intentonal propertes or such propertes e ntrnscally nterpretable and ther ob ectve standng s nelucaly a uncon o he hsorczed dr o her on gong renerpreaon hat alters our sense of bo th the inqu ries of scence and the meanngs of works or example, t s generally acknowledged that the ely forms o f Cubst pai ntng prtc ully in Braqu es work) were delberately bult up from the forms Czanne srcinally developed n his stll lifes and landscapes  But, then the meaning of the socalled geome trzng tendences n Czanne poorly chacterized thus, it must be sad) were will have been) retrospectvely aected by the laer hstory o f paint ng now including and gong beyond Braques nd Pcassos Cubsm ll the oddtes of Intentonal propertes e bruted here In partcular, de termnable Intentional properties will not be able to be increasngly deter mined n the same linear way nonntentonal propertes red, for nstance) aressad to be phlosophers of art, we re likely t o take very di erent stands on what to make of such connectons. My own view is that interpretve obectvity will have to be constructvst in form, will be an rtfact, and will have to make room for the hstorcty of nterpretaton that s or he hsorczed aleraly o s nerprevely assgned pasI judge ths to be te precise couterpt of homa s Kuhn s historczng of sc entic paradgms, once we gve up canoncal notons of perceptual neutralty  That s the ultmate stckng pont  vald account of predicables entals ther being grounded n the consensual lfe of an nquirng socety. hs comts us I should say to the hstorcal drft of ou constructed notons of objectivity But in the natural scences-or wherever our prncipal predi cates e not Intent onal we ress t hstorcty W e nd causal regulties that seem to promse nvriant laws, and we are abetted by predctve and techologcal success n nterpretve contexts by contrast, although the hsorczed mport of our presen epstemc snce remains as blind as be fore, we construe the meaning of an work as rangng retropectvely and crtically over the historicized import of selected pror nterpretatons hus, the meaning of Hamle s, now, a functon of how the play s to be objectvely reinterpreted n the lght of how we reconstruct the hstory of ts past nterpretatons he signcance of Hamlets procrastnation has, as we now see matters, passed tough a phase of oedipal nterpretation,

The Devan Onolo ofArwor

127

which may now hav wand i n rms of culural plausib ily W canno x ou own historicizd pspctiv, our "horizon, but w ar awar, infr ntially, that w must b occupying what, from a latr historical vantag, will b dd as that prsp ctiv W constru th obctviy of ou intr prtiv judgmnts in rms of how w construct (historically, blindly, but prt nntly) our rla tionship to th intrprt v work of th past r is no othr way to procd thr is no sns, comparabl to th indpn dnc of nonIntntionalizd raliy, in which th manings of atworks  thought to b in dpndnt of th drif of human hstory  chif considraons ar ths rst of all, w idnti our intrpr tiv rsoucs in accord with how w intrprt our actual practics, so that appant mt hodological co nstraint s ( g, rlvac) prov to b conrmd only within th sam consnsual tolranc that alrady informs th intrprtations thy would dlimit s cond, th obj ctivi w suppos obtains is dd in trms of what accords with ou grasp of th vry history of intrprtiv practic, lading to ou prsnt comptnc; third, thr is no princpld rason f or supposing that, f thr  is on vaid rconstr uction of th maning o f a arwor, thr cannot b indi ly many constructions that conform with ou intrprtiv practic, yt do not impicat any uniquy vaid intrprtation argumnt s quit uncomplcatd arworks ar but Intntonally dhwhat is so qualid is intrinsically intrprbl; th normsqualof intrprt ation cao t fai to fa within th hist orici zd tolranc  of acual practic; and, thr, conformiy nvr functions critrially ad ca nvr prclud (for prncipl d ras ons ) th validi  of divrgnt, vn inco mpatb, intrprtatons  W ar a t th nd of th haangu I tak th I ntntionaiy of arworks to  iniminabl but problmatic, and I accpt th budn of xplicat ing what doing that ntais I say t cha ngs our concption of what is ra (in th dirction of admitting cutua ntitis as wl as ou concption of obj ctviy rgardin g al such ntitis (n th dirction of rlativism and th pculiar altrabiliy of Intntional proprtis  I hav takn pains to dmonstrat th cohrnc of th ontoogy it rquirs and th pistmic amplitud it acco mmodats h ntir ort rsts with ovrtaking th rsistac of th philosophical caon n ss h philosophical prudnc of rsis ting Intntionali But th caus i s hopss, if, apart fro m atorks and hs tory, w cannot avoid a ralist rading o f th Intno nai o f anguag and slvs In fact, my argumnt is, lly, a reduco for to rct Intntionality is to rct ou own xistnca odd rctionad th tribuna of xprinc; and to admit our stnc is to discovr that w cannot, conforma bly, dny th rali t of history and art

18

MG

0 

S

NOS 1  ddy M Zemach, al u (Unverst Pk : Pennsylv aia State nversiy Press, 19 97) 15 960 The remk appers in Joseh Mgolis, At and Phlosohy (Atlantic Higands, NJ Humaities Press, 1 980) 434 4 2 See thu C Dato, "The Arord, ounal of Phlosohy 61 ( 1964) 5 71 84 3 Zemach, al auty 160 Margols, Art and Phlosohy 22 resolves, in fact, thewnotorious incoherence of Sawson's accout of 4. This basic ticul s, since, now, e can admit that tw o basic pticuls (i n Straw son's sense) can occuy one ad the sme place, if one s cutuay emergent with resect to the other See P F trawson, Indviduals: An ssay n Dsctv Mhyscs( London Methuen, 1959) 5 emach, l auty 15556 6 For a fuler sen se of the Intentional, see Joseph Mgoli s, Hstod Thought onstuctd Wod: A onctl P fo th Tun of th Mllnnu(Berkeley University of California Press, 1995) 7. ee Jo Seale, Th dscov of th Mnd (Cambridge M Press, 1992) 8. I have never found the expression n Fe igs papers b ut i t is, of cose, the cen tral wor of his important book, Herbert Fegl, Th Mntal and th Physcal: Th ssay and  Postsct (Mnneapois University of Mnesota Press, 167) 9  gve the ful argument n Hstod Thought onsuctd Woldad, b y ieces , in other places See Joseph Magols, Inttaton adl but Not nuly (Berke ley niversity of California Press, 1995) 10 See Athur C Danto, Th Tansuaton of th oonlac(Cbrdge Havad Universy Press, 1981). See, so, a very succinct verson of ths overly eas y resmpton (patly drected aganst my o ew) in Rchd Shusterma, Be neath Interpretation Aganst Hermeneu tic Holsm , Monist 7 ( 19 90) 8 2 4 11 See Mooe C Beadsley, Th Possblty of cs(Deot Wayne State University Press, 197) 12 See Beadsey, Possblty of tcs 6 13 I oer, as fair specimens, the gatherng eorts of Stephen Daves ad Robert Stecker Both have, for instance, oposed my relatvstic account of interpretation thout, f I may say so, adhering to the wo constrants I have just mentioned n t his sense, their vie ws, however interestng, are ne ly completely bitra  You ll look in van, for nstance, for a analyss of the ontology of at or of the ade quation between t and nterpretation n ther most sustained dscusons; ad you wil not fal to see that ther objecons ae entirely forma d a priori (that is, nterpreted, never actually apple t o the properties of tw orks)  I take such ndier ence to be the mak of presming on the  aradigmatic standing of the hysical (or non-ntentional) The pctue of hyscal reality that wentieth centuy phosophy has favored is of a in depenent, determnate ru  of enites that (necessarily) either have orack ay paticul property we may speci (Excluded ddle) See Stephen Daves, Dntons of A (thaca, Y Cornell Universiy Press, 199) ad Robert Stecker, Aoks Dniton Manng Valu(University

The Devian Onology of Arwor

29

Pa Pesylaa State Uersty Press 997} he stratey of these to boos should be ewed  the lght of a sympos that appeaed  he oual of A thtcs and At tcsm  whch Daes ad Stecer respod to a paper of me outlg the geeral form of a reatstc accout of terpretato See my Pa ruth about Iterpretato o a Relatstc Mode Daes Relatsm  Iter  pretato ad Stecers Relatsm about Iterpretato publshed together  the oual of Asthtics and At tcsm 53 (995) he pot I wsh to stress s that my proposal s teded to support (has always bee explcly lked to) a ramed accot of what a ator s I but sgle Daes ad ae Stecer the cofrotatoal stylewhch I eoy; theout tuth s thee mybecause dscusof sats who shae ther coct os about balece ad obec tt y ad the r est who also show the ds cl ato to et e to the otologcal thcet s 4 See Magos stoid Thought onstuctd Woldfor a fth er readg of these maers 5 See for e most deeloped recet accot of the Patost strpe cholas Woterstor Woks and Wol of At (Oxford aedo 980) O the rst opto you may of cose tae Be adsley Dto ad Zemach as easoabe spec mes 6 See fther Magols Inttaton adl but Not Unuly 7 See fo stace Lbn lak sondnc ed.   Alexder (M chester Mach ester Uersty Press  956)  ebzs t h leer 8. O he geec pues o cultal ealty (d the use o the tems ate caeer ucty hstory ad the le) see Magols Histod Thought on stctd Woldpt 2 9 See Rchad Wollhem and Its Obcts 2d e d ( ambrdge ambdge Uersty P ress  9 80 ) Valdty n Intaton (ew ae 20 See o stce E D. sch  ale Uers ty Press  967 ) 2 See W V Que Epstemoloy atazed Ontologcal lavty and Oth ssays (ew or olumba Uesty Pess 969); Doad Dadso A oherece heory o ruth ad Kowledge   Erest epoe e d Tuth and Inttaton Psctvs on th Phlosohy of Donald Davdson(Oxord Basl Blacwell 986) 22 See oseph Magos he Poltcs of Predcao Phlosohcal Foum 27 ( 996) 95- 29 23  See homas S Kuh Stuctu volutons 2 d ed (hc ago Uesty o hcago Pess Th 970)  sectoof Scntc 0

7 r and Mann   C  DN O

rouhout the hstory o phlosophca speculaton on art t was tacty assumed that works o art have a son antecedent dentty and that one coud tell them apart rom ordnary thns as easy as one coud tel one ordnary thn rom anothera hawk rom a handsaw say So obvous as the dstncton between art and everythn else that e Greeks ev denty dd not requre a specal word or desnatn rtworks whch the nevertheless udertook to accout or n the randest metaphyscal terms here have especay n modernst tmes been eorts to transorm the ter m art nto a normatve concept accordn to whch ood art s tau tooous can they be both art and bad ew Yorknotcrtcs k nown tosnce somethn dsapproved o tha t as realywere art  say onothn hen there was very lttle ese but art that t could be ny term can be ormatved n ths way as when pontn to a certan handsaw we say  hat's what  call a handsaw meann that the too ranks hh under t he r elevant norms But t would seem queer or obects whch ra ow uder those norms to be exled rom he doman o handsaws and n eneral nor atvzaton mut drop out o t he concept eavn a descrptv e res due   t s wth reerence to s esdue that works o art were tactly hed to be e conzable amon and dstnushabe rom other thns . t the be nnn o the modern st moveme nt s ay n the mdnneteent h c entuy cern problems arose at e boudares o the concept ntally perh photoraphs whch were unstakably pctues  ouh pro duced apsaswth the conventor o the process Fox alot phrased t by he enc o atue here was a doube hs tory unt very recent tmes a s pho toraphers attempted to emulate pantns and panters bean to dstance ther work rom photoraphy by one or another o th e stystc matrce s o odernsm-Cub sts Futusts Dadasts auves. Photoraphy was stll a outast n the era o Stelts Camera Work and perhaps ts lam to 30

Ar an Meann

3

at became vndcated only when the Museu of Modern rt opened he rst photography gallery uder dwa d Stechen. When that happened, the ds tncton be tween p ctures dra wn by atu res encl and those by the handheld pencs of panters dropped out of the concept of at And a tcuatng the log cal structures of that concept proved to be more eactng than anyone mght have beeved, when t had been taken for granted that artworks constt uted a reatvy homogeneous cass of thngs, the members of whch coud be pc ked out easy and  med atey t was cons stent wth ths assupton that the bordernes expanded and dated uder pressures of vaous sort s artcle s of furnture, for exampe, woud have been c onsd ered works of at n the eghteenth century when made of precous veneer s and eeganty desgned by master nises But when acquesLous Davd, assocatng these uxurous obects wth the arstocracy, drew a sharp lne between gh rt and practca at, obects of veru had to emgrate, lke ther noble patrons, and became craf nstead of art he dstncton re mans n eect today, s o that one dsmsses as at anyth ng that ca res an aura of utly, eavng b ehn d the ucomfor table  dea that works of at can have no fucto n, whch s a des perate way of keepng borders closed  hs eaves ntact the assumpton that atworks are a speca cass of thngs, and that one coud wak though any space whatever and pck the atworks out wth a hgh probaby atanngelse a perfect score n thsasrespet the ds tncton between at andofanythng n no way der was understood ent from the ds tncton btween any par o f casse s hawks and handsa ws, once agan From that perspectve, the queston What s at was never understood as Whch are the aorks-to whch t oud be assued that we knew the answ er but rather What ar e ats essenta fe atures  hat set my book The Transguraon of he Commonplace apat from that phosophc al tradton was ts re cognton that th e dstn ton be een works of art and ordnary thngs oud no onger be taken for granted. he queston wth whch the book wrested was Gven two thngs whh resemble one another to any chosen degree, but one of whch s a work of art and the other an ordnary obect, what acounts for ths derence n status" hs would not have been a queston phosophers oud have asked when the derene between artworks and ordnary obets seemed for the most pat obvous and uncontroversal hey woud not have asked t,  thnk, because the s sue had never a sen  n the twent eth centu ry, how ever, though certan nternal transformatons n the hstory of at, works of art began to appear whch ether were, or appeaed to be, obects of daly lfe and use Duchamps readymades (957) were ordnary snow shovels, bottle raks, groomng combs, and,  one famous case, a urnal, and these, before Duchamp, woud certanly have been consdred as en  trely outsde the scope of at My favorte example was ndy Warhols

13

D  T0

Brillo Bo a photograph of whch would be ndscernble from one taken

of the commonplace contaners n which the soap pads were shpped to supermarkets. So why was one art and the other not, snce they looked as much alke as anyone cared to make them? So much alke that the assump tion that we could pck the artworks out was put neradcably in doubt The Transguraion sought to answer this queston, and t arrived at a provsonal formulaton of part of the denton of art I argued, rst, that works of art are always about somethng, and hence have a content or meanng and second that to be a work of art somethng had t o embody ts meanng Ths canot be the entre story but f I could not get these con dtons to hold I am unclear what a denton of art wthout them would look lke. So let me rst respond to certan phlosophcal obectons meant to put my meager set of condtons n doubt George Dcke, founder of the nsttuton al theor y of art  nssts tha t there are counternstances to my rst clam oerng nonobectve patngs as hs example. t would be extremely nterestng to cons der what nonobe c tve pantngs Dke ould have had n mnd he Guggenhem Museum n ew York was orginally called the Museu of onObectve rt and t dsplayed work by andnsky Mondran Malevch and Rudolph Bauer, at the tme te lover of Baroness Hlla Rebay, the musems drector he term nonobectve, f nota rst was certanly usedand by andnsky to desgnate pureused art by thatRodcheno seeks to express ony nner esse ntal feelngs" -and the pas e nonobectv e" s closely synonymo us wth the word sube ctve " he pantngs present a reality, albet an nner realty, or f an outer realty, then one whch has the sae spritual den tty as nner realty nd ths to take the oter seemngly dcult case was Schopenhauers vew of musc t s the language of our noumenal being Smlar stores could be told about Suprematsm and what Mon dran termed eoPlastcsm he ner atmosphere of the Museu of onObjectve rt endeavored to make obectve the spirt embodied n the redemptve pantngs n whch Baroness Rebay beleved, whch hung on ts gray velvet walls, washed over by the musc of Bach Malevch per haps nvented monocome paintng but would have been astonshd to be told that hs Black Square was not about anythng Robert Rauschen bergs allwhite pantng was about the shadows and the changes of lght whch transently regstered on ts surface and n that sense about the real world o be sure I cannot account for every hstorcal example but I am fairly convnced that I could f presented wth any hstorcal case So we are n the realm of te phlosophcal counterexample leached of any content namely, What about a pantng about nothng" I would want to know f t had geometrcal forms nongeometrcal forms, whether t was mono come or strped or what- and from ths nformaton t s a smple matter

r an Meanng

133

o imagne wha he appopiae  ciicism would be and to eict the kind of meanng the wok coud have Sean Sculy paintings e composed chiefly of stipes but they e meant to asset popositons about huan ife about ove about even death We can of couse imagine someone in the spiit of phlosophcal coteinstanation painting a wok about nothng  But thee is a pobem of distingui shing between not being about anything and being about nothing and  incine to the view that nothing is what the panting is about as in an essay by Heidegge So my challenge to Dicke woud be give me an exampe and  wi dea with it Without some s peci cit the game of co teinstances gets pe  tiesome  he second condition was that a meaning is mateially embodied in t woks whch how what they e about his if tue must put me in conict with Hege's fomuation of what he ems symboic t the meaning of which as with a name is extena o athe than embodied in the object though he and  woud be n hmony in espect to the othe two foms he distinguishes cassica and Romatic t Since his exampe of symboic t is the pyamd it can cetainy e uestioned whethe the shape dimensons and vectos do not embody the meaing appopiae to its mmied tenant But thee is a moe immediate objection to my second conditon namey that something can at once possess aboutness ad yet notboxes be aofwok of t t has fo instance beenembod pointed ts outmeaing that theand odiny Bilo in the stockooms of supemkets ae abou something-Bio-ad that they embody thei meaings tough the designs on thei sufaces. Since  wanted a deni tion hat woud distinguish awoks fom ea thngs howeve something ooked  cannot have succeed ed since the deition whie i t ts Whos b_ox ts eualy we the odiny boxes fom which  was axious to dis tinguish t Ths was aised as a fiendly citicism by Nol ol ad it euies a somewhat inticate answe3 hee e wo senses of content that in which io ctons physicay contain s oap pads and that in whic h we may spea k of the contet of a wok of t which may in no physical sense whateve be in the wok What he conen o Bro Box as a wok of at mgh be was a matte of ntepe tation havng nothng to do wth openng the box to see what was thee. The combnes of Robet Rauschenbeg possess content in both senses they physicaly nco poate odny obe cts -cas f nes booms oke botteswhch then contbute to whateve ge meanng the woks may convey. he way in which these odiny objects get taken up and tansg ued is in Rauschenbegs case ptly achieved by heeding what one might ca the poety of the commonp ace The ob ect s of the househod fo ex ampe e dense wth meangs we begn to gasp when they ae ost o boken o won out hey den e the stuctues of life as i  is ived and if we

34

D T 0

know how to read the obects of vanshed fors of lfe, we have access to what it eant to lve those fors, and hence to the nds of t hose who lived the Indeed, we can learn a great deal ore about those for s of life fro what Rauschenbergs ieces arorate than fro those ieces the selve s, whc h were exce edingly stran ge when they rst aeare d in gal lerie s in the 950s, for exale, a stued goat rnged with an autooile tire, which call uon interretatve resonses only tangentially connected with ou antecedent ality to recognze autoole tires and stued goats It follows fro these cons derations that it bec oes q ute out of the ues ton that oe dent the conten t of works of art on the ass of ther vsal q altes, and ths ales not erely to conteorary or near conteo rary art but to art of the dstant ast nasuch as t is always ossble to agne ojects indscernile fro gven works of art but cased y fac tors n ters of whch they cannot ean what the works whch resele the ean Thogh ths dd not occu to wrters n e erod n whch the deton of art was a less vexed queston han t has ecoe in our own entuy-whole ooks today are ulshe on the qeston of arts deton! there are asects of the concet of art which have fro the egnning ade t clear that peole were worried aot fakes and copies and these reoccuatons can always e hrased in ters of ndscernles even f teerge, s thoght dierences wll s ooner or later and as wewth wll Nelson wonder,Goasodan we nowthat do wth the pantngs of Van Meegeren  how anyone could h ave suppos ed the orgnal  It was i ortant for colex otves that Van Meegeren not e told aart fro Vereer since he was anxious to e consdered as good a panter as Ver eer hs elf was y coon consens s Perhaps the discer niblty wol d have een ovou s were t not for the exerts  sch as the unfort ate se calst Professor Breds of the Netherlands, who new ore abot Ver eer than anyone then lving e suised that there had to have een an Ilan   and an enco er w Cravaggs - to whch Van Meegeren s rst antng aeared erfectly to oint So Breds was ore caale of beng fooled throgh his specialized knowledge than others who knew far less-bt who accepted Bredus as the great expert So eware of ex erts! Of couse  t s a crazy antng, t what Van Meegeren eant n painting i t was profond ly deren t fro what Vereer could have eant, had he, per possle , prodced one niscernible fro t In fact Van Meegerens Chrs a Emmaeus is a vadevlle of Veree rlike anneris s one of the heads s exactly lke an authentic head by Vereer, and those ltle dots of lght whch we see n Vew o De are used n ways havng nothng to do wth the dots n the great landscae, where for soe they ply the se of a ca era oscur a Another diens on of conc ern arose n connect ion wth restoraton, as with the Sstne ceing Is it the sae work

Ar an Meanng

135

Mchelangelo panted, or has  t been changed by the remov al of someth ng essenta to ts meanng When the panter Morrs Lous ded, he e up ward of sx hund ed panted cavase s wth no n dcaton of how they were to be stetched. e staned hs canvas by pourng and when the ant was dry, he roed t up and stored t t was decde that Cement Greenberg, who kne w the wok well shou d be the authoty as to whee the stetcher aks should be drawn, and ths unseted the art world n whch some hed that these were not Lous's but Greenberg's works No need to sete the mate now but t s clear that some decson has to be made even f we have no clear dea what Lous would have one had he lved n any case t may be assumed that there were enough actua derences between Br B and Br lo bo xes that we ca even n ow te them apart easy But those deences w not tell us whch of them s an arwork and n m plyng that they bo th are the foce of Ca olls o bject on s to expan how we are to acco unt for ther derenc e hs  w now seek to do  n my orgna scusson  used the two boxes to ase the queston of why oe was at ad the othe ot ad hece to ask how to daw a phlo sophca ne be tween art and reaty But t has snce come c lear to me that the e a Blo boxes mght themseves n eed be consdeed art and that what se t them apart fom what Warho fabcated was the deence beween e andtocommerca art, comca t mght have souded t o any one but mysef thnk of Wahos boxesasas e art n 96 when the wee st made and show  was oblged to make ths concesson when t became undenabe that the cartons satsed my wo condtons, whch woud requre me to nd a thrd cond ton to get rd of th e probem, or j ust acce t that the dst ncto n beween ne and coeca at was no moe ad no less press ng than the para llel dstnc ton bewee n ne art and craft he ·cartons were certany about soetng; ad snce  was usng about ness to dstngsh at fom ealty the cartons wold make the st ct And t seemed to me no less cear that they old make the se cond ct as we, that of embo dmen t he pshot was that the cartons made an nsat sfactory paradgm for a real object, snce they were aer a embedded n a system of meangs as  s hall ag e n a momen t. t then became a prob lem to determne what p aadgm to use for a rea o bect ad that turns out not to be s o ea sy  t woud re q ure dng somethng whch does not derv e some part of ts dentty fom a newok of meanngs and t s not clea that any can be foudt s lke seekng for somethng that s not n the mnd n an eort to rebt the cams of Bshop Berkeley the moment you d t t s no onge otsde the mnd. It was not mpotat fo me to step o the edge nto metaphyscs, snce the phlosophca tradton sed as ts generatng paradgm beds pant ed by artsts and be ds blt by carpenters  and no one can deny the aa of meanngs suroudng the bed as a ste of

36

ANTO

uerng and oy So he lne beween comercal art and e art became a problem In my ely esay e t World I nvoked a knowledge of the theory and the hstory of art to olve the prob lem and whle t hs ta ctc worked I now th we mght talk a well about d erent struct res o f at crtcsm connected wth the wo object . Or hree objects f we expad our group to nclude the rllo box by the appropratonst atst Mke dlo who n an ehbton at the runo shofsburger Gallery n Zrch ntaled n the same congraton n whch they were shown at the aadena Mueu of rt n 968, eghy ve rllo boxe whch he had fabrcated he how was called No Andy Wrho So let u mot the usual exhbton I try to mage when I ds cus these aters-the Warhol box the Not Wahol box and the real rllo box made famou by W ahol bu t alo not Wahol but no t Not Wa hol ether I ak you to grant me ther relatve ndcernbly n that the derences beeen the object do not penetrate the derences beween the works nce they could a readly be magned as belongng to the others nstead of the one they belong to n fact If you look at Who box here  a knd of drppng where the pant s stencled on showng a certan nderence to cean edge ut the Wrhol could be clea ad the dlo drppng Or they could both be clean ad he real rllo box be drppng ths -orreaonng at least ome of u them aythe a bad batch ere no reaon protract So let apply tructres of artscrtcsm to theto three and magne that they look entrely ake and that no vsual bass  to be nvoked for dcr mnatng the wo examples of e at from the one example of commercal art  or for th maer dcrm�atng bewee n the appropraton and the approprated It s no  well known that one of the reasons t he desgn of the rllo box s so g ood s that t was done by a ne artt who was oblged to practce commercal art when Abstract Expressonsm faded n the ealy sxte h wa Steve Harvey abut whom I would lke to know a great deal more than I do In a y case hs rllo carton s no t smply a conta ner for rllo pads t s a vsual celbraton of Brllo. he box s decorated wh wo wavy zone of red eparated b y one of whte wh blue and red le ers Red whte and blue ae h e co lor of patrotsm as the wave s a propery of water and of ags h connect ceanlness and duy and transforms the sde of he box nto a lag of patrotc sataton  gves wo con nected reason for ung rllo whch s prnted n proclamatory letters -RIO, he cononat n bl ue the vowes-  and  - n red e word tef s dog Latn namel y  hne  -whch ha a double meanng one of whch s const ent wth the condt on of emboded meang e w ord conveys an exctement whch  cared out n the vaous other words n whch the doms of advertng are dtruted upon the srfaces of the

Ar and eanng

3

box, te way te doms of revouton or rotest are body bazoned on banners and lacards cared by strkers  Te ad s ae AN. Te roduct s NW. It HN AUMNUM FA. Te cato n conveys exctement, even ecstasy, ad s n ts own way a masterece of vsua retorc, ntended to move mnds to te act of rcase and ten of acaton And tat won derfu band of wte, lk e a rver of rty, as a atstor ca orgn n te ardedged abstracton o Elwort Kely and Leon ok St t coud not ave been done beore tat moveent, te cean edges o wc gve a certan aable conteoranety to Brlo Even n 64 t was rgent to beong to e es e neraton of wt t yout  Harvey deserved a rze, and Waro, wo ad won rze aer rze as one of New Yorks eadng commerca at sts, woud ave been te rst to ar ecate ts vaue  Tat, n genera, s a sketc of te art crtcsm for Steve Harveys Brlo catons, and you can see ow meanng and embodment are connected Wat Havey wou d never ave tougt was tat t mgt b e ne rater ta comerca at n at I suose because  ne at by s crtera woud ave been te antngs e admred by oock and de Koonng and otko and maybe Kne So wat Wao dd was to make sometng vsu aly of a ec e wt s  but wc as a work of ne art And one w ave to note tat none of te at crtcsm aro rate to Harvey bo x s arorate Waos ate t a was notw  nuenced by arded ab  stracto n etoreroduced fo Waro rms of an artst o was ony bec ausegetey were tere te way te ogo of te non of Ortodox abbs was tere certfng tat Bro w as koser (as t was n 64) It was es sen a tat e reroduce te eects of watever caused Harvey to do wat e ad done wtout te same causes exanng wy tey are tere n s Bro Bo of 64. So were does art crtcsm come n It comes n because com mera art was n soe way wat Waros at was about He ad a vew of te ordnay world as aestetcay beautful and admred greaty te tng s Harvey and s eroes woud av e gn ored or condemn ed He oved te srfaces of day fe te nutrtousness and redctablty of canned goods te oetcs of te commonlace Aer a te Brllo box was but one of te catons e arorated for tat rst sow at t e Stable allery a of wc ad ter retorc but none of wc were as successful as Steve Harveys Bro box By 64 real obects ad enetrated at as sub e cts for reasc dect o n a case n ont s te sgn for Mobe gasolne  te yng ed Horse n a caracterstcay auntng antng by Edwad Hoer And tat crossng te ne sows a osoca s from reec on of ndustra so cety wc woud ave been te attude of W lam Morrs and te reaaetes to endorsement wc was wat one mgt exect from someone born nto ov erty and n ove w t te warmt of a ktcen n wc a te new roducts were used So te cartons ae

"v'W

�

( O f

13 8

D A NT 0

't�

C t·

�

h

b,

�

"

d·

_

[{ l

�k \

(I

{I

1/

«f l I�

as philosophcal as e wallpaper of William Morris, meant of couse in Morri's case to asfo rm rather than celebrate daily life and to r edeem it uglines into a kind of medievalized beauty. Warhol boxe were a re action to Abstract Expressionism but mainly with repect to honoring wat Abtract Expressionism despie d That is p at of the art critic ism of o o and tere is a great deal more But the two pieces of art criti are disjoint: there is no overlap between the cime explaaon of WarhoL Warhos retoic explanation of Havey and has no immediate rela onship to at of the Brillo boxes a t all Ad this is ue of Bidlo s work as welL B idlo appropriates famous woks in order to undernd what it mut be like to make them-what would it feel like is helps him understad e object He is currenty making rinal since the entre generation of urnals from whic h Marce Duchamp drew hi notorious Founan  9 has disappeared from the face of the earth He is making so to speak handmade readymades He did the sme in painting Morandis an d Picassos and egers It happen at his boxes look as much like Harveys as like Warhos but tey are about Warhols and not about Harveys and ey are about what Warhol made with no pecial furer interest in why he made it It is cental to Bidl os poe ct that the number and array of his boxes be conn ected with e nmber and rray of may Warhols boxesadventitiou in Paadenaand In Warhols cae byacontrast thein nmber have been te arrangement maer of dierence Bidos was in some way an instalat on whereas Warhol  wa just a nmber of artwork I do not want to prolong my discussion pa t ths po int e claim is that all of thee dierences are invs ble that the actual box before you uder determine which work it is Warhol Harvey Bidlo It i important to the problem that in all relevant visual repects they are entrely alike. That is what I have meant in saying so ofen that what makes omethng art is not omething tht meet the eye And that make clear a well why o much rests on meanng which it i e sk of art criticsm to make ex plicit Te works are not as i t were  synonymou  Thi is not to say there are not visibe mark by which to tell Wahol from Bido and Bidlo om Harvey here are and thee w ould be enlisted in the connosseurship o important to colecting and selling art d after all to how we look at thee ings nd think aout them. We dont want o discove that we were thinking about the Bido when we ought we were thinking about the WarhoL Still teling a Harvey om a Whol from a Bidlo while it i tell ing a work of e art oma work of commercial art and an srcinal from an appropriation i not in any further ene telling e d ierence between e art and commercia art which rets nt ead upon ph loophy And t his s tu e even if you are telling the d erence between a work of ne art ad

Ar an Meanng

139

one not  work of ne rt. The crter my deend uon mesuements, nt smles, mode of mrntng, nd the lke, none of whch ertns to the concetul dvs on b eween these vrous obec ts The denton of rt remns  hlosohcl roblem And we cn conrm ths f we thnk for  moment on how the fgged roertes of the connosseu re recsely those on the bss of whch fkes re co nstructed. Th e forger s n consn symbos s wh h e conn os seu, ttemng o oufnk hm by ncororng s mny of he relevn roeres no hs fbrcons s cn be found The gre Morell bsed conos seush on roerte s o one hd d tte o to, whch oened ossbles u for forgg r Lo L  such  wy h  Morell could mske  for lo  Bdlo, doubless  order o demon sre he rrelevce of cono sseush  o ds gush hs work from Wr hols mde no eor o dulce he ltter mllmeer for mllmeer or o emloy us he sme lywood Wrhol used-whch by now would rob bly be s dcul o nd s  oken of he sme Mott Works unl tye o whch Funain belo nged  Bu  he on  s h ellng r from onr f we c n defy he ltter  ll  s  o lk e dsgushg w o works from one noher when her sus s r s o  uesos wh o nd lno Bu hs reus me o he dsnco beween r nd rely, from whch he recog commerc lofrndscerbles, dvered mehe rue hlo I hve rgued h whoheofemergence sohcl ueso n ws recogzed hs w y gve w o n dscerble obe cs, one r d he oher no wh ccous for he derece? The su cenly consdered cse o f comercl r dd o belong o hs ue son, hough  logous roblem rose  cse someone hough h com merl r mus n every nsnce look dere from ne r My vew, n y cse, ws h once he ueson rose, nyhng could be n r work d h,  conseuence he hsory of r cosrued s he ues for selfconscousess, hd reched s ed Bu I would lke o mke n observon cocern g e shec resoses o ob ecs  he oshsorcl erod, s I hve come o cll he hsory of r snce  cheved wh I hnk o s hlosohcl selfwreness Wh does  men o lve n  world n whch nyhg could be  work of r? A fmly ssho,  moswed os er, n lu mnum kettle,  hwk,  hdsw? or me  s o nven  suble r crcsm for n obec wheher or o  s  work of r hou gh f  s o oe f for s nce  s o bou some hg  he crcsm s vod. I s o mge wh could be men by he obec f  were he vehcle of  rsc s eme I rece ly vs ed he Mus eum of Modern Ar  Sn rcsco nd wen he ex teroo o lunch wh he grdue sudes n r hsory  Berkeley As I heded for he elevor I ssed  room o he rs foor

140

DNTO

which was clearly being emodeled. hee wee lanks and sawhoses and tied steel shelves an Sheetock as well as some owe tools hee and thee, and I thought: I coul have seen something exactly like this in the museum a I one so, I mght in tuth have been tilled an would have thoght o the meaning o such an in stallatio n Not long ago I sw an insllati on by aim Steinbach at the Sonnabe nd Galley in Soho i n which a oom was lined with mos tly emty steel shelv es o the kin  we might see in a stoe oom On one thee was a ai o  uning shoe s On anothe a television s et In one co ne thee was a andom stack o ab oc e chais, beneath which thee was a ile o san hee was something melancholy abot t an m y comanion ob seve tha t it looked j st like some oliti cal heaqa tes in the Negev Wit h this the ossibilit y o a mean ng came into vew concening the state o Isaeli culture. o be sure, the head qar tes themselves ae eloqent on that matte all the moe so i they esemble Steinbachs wok. he omes disaray an barenness exess the atti tes that the latte eesents togh exemlication It is clea that a istnction beween wo modes o abotness s what we now eqie b ut awing it can sael y be le to the o essi on as a way o bing ing the de  nitio n o at into lne with actual a ctice

NOS  Arth C Dato h ansguaton of th ommonlac  (Camridge Ha vad iversity Press 98 2 George Dikie A Tale o Two Artworlds  Ahu Da no and His itc ed ark Ro lis ( Oxford Bl akwell 993) 73 78 3  No  ol "Da os New Deito of Ar  ad he Prolem of At Theo  res Btsh oul of Asthtcs 37 (997)  38 6- 92

8 A Susanable eno n of ((Ar" MARCIA MDR A

TO

Abou a decade ago I soewha presumpuously decided o aep o develop a deiion of he r work of ar. The presumpuousness lay no erly in he fac ha he eld of he philosopy of ar is srewn wih faild aes o dee his crucial c oncep bu in he fac ha any phi losophers for who I have he uos rspec have argued forcefully ha such a deniion can no in principle be ari culaed . oneeless I believed hen and I believe now ha philosopers in sisnce a we canno dene ky ers in a variey of areas has no diinished pracic al nee ds for a leas  working dniions ousid of he acadey. As David ume insised one can be a skepic bu only in ones close can one preach and pracice pur skepicis As soon as one goes ou ino he real world one us ac as if one knows cerain hings-and hisncludes knowing wa ceran wor ds ean and wha cr ucial c onceps enail Ther are poliical educaional social econoic and oher deci sions ha require an udersanding of how ar is used wha i eans, and wha one iplis when one uses i in one way raher han anoher Wha aciviies should be suppored, fr exapl, by he aional ndow en for he Ars The sinking budge of ha insiuion is iself vi dence of deba e concerning he naure of ar Wha sors of hings shoul d be prsened in useus in concer halls, in agazines, on  Wha should be augh in our schools ar classes Wha oneary value could and should be placed on o  ecs ha go by or ry  o go by he nae  ar  Rlaed quesions arise as one ries o deal eecively wih environen al issuesany of which involve conflics bewen aeshic, econoic, and ecological values  Aes heici ans, I beli eve hav so e rsponsibiliy o help ansr hese pracical public quesions. They hav an equally srong responsibili y, I believe, o help people deal wih he confusion hey ofen fel when hey encouer puzzling obcs and evens in useus concer 141

42

AON

halls, o othe venues whee t s, supposedly,  that s beng pesented. I do not see how we as aestheticians can fulll eithe esponsibility with out akng s oe aept to chaacteize what functi ons are be ing fullled when the te  wok of at  s use d; o, to put t  oe pesup tuously  to atept to dene the te "wok of at My own wok in aes thetic s has been geatly aected by event s in the eal wold - o at least n the eal art wold In  97  I was teaching at t he ni vesty of Copenhagen wen a exhbit opened at enarks pestgous ouisiana Museu. he exhibit consisted of pats of a slaughteed hose displa yed in jars. his  show ceated  not srpisin gly a public up oa I decded then that t s a stake fo aestheticias to ean outside of o at the argns of such contovses so I s et out to answe, at leas t fo y self, whethe o to what extent, jars of hose parts deseve to be dubbed woks of a rt In ths chapte I want to ev st the den tio n I suggested n the bo ok that esulted, A n Non: Reecion on n Onge Ce n  Mooe C I ave ade soe key evsons snce tt volue appeared that I want to explan. I have also woked to analyz e futhe cetan key tes n the o gi nal dention, and the denition becoes cleare n light of this additonal wok I hope On the whole, y denition has poved to be sustainable, Iognally beleve Intended, have alsonappled n areasalfo t was notshow partcuthelardention to envonent ssuwhch es, and I shall how it can be useful thee as well Indeed I want to addess n geneal the quest on of whethe and how such a deni tion is helpf ul inally I want to show how y answe to the queston "What is at suggests an answe to the equally potant (ad dcult) question What s goo at It s in this context that we dscove how at es o f uiniy ae cental A n The denton of "wok of art that I suggested in y book Non Reecion on n Onge Ce n  Moe C in 9 83 was this

 is a work of ar f ad oy if

(  is a arifc ad (2  is dicssed  sch a way ha formao cocerg he hory of proco of  irecs he vew ers atteio  o proper es ha ar e worhy of atteio!

The rst condton, atfactualty, s essentaly ntended to captre the wok part of the te artwoks are objects o events that esult fo soe knd of intentional action that poduces soethng o altes a ediu n soe way. ypcally ths acton s coplex-n the case of sypones o fescoes, fo nstace In the twentieth centry the acton has often bee n nal ( digging a hole o picking up a piece of diftwood taking it hoe, an d puttng t ove th e epla ce) . Inde ed, it s ths nals th at s n large part esponsbe fo ceatng the need to dene "art at all

A Susainale Denn f A

3

he second condton s uch ore coplcated and nvolves several other concepts that ca for furthr expanaton I sha not repeat the ds cusson f ro y earer book  Brey y arguent s ths  If one s rveys dsc uss ons of art- rangng fro erudte art hs tory to etters to daly news paper edtors beoanng the stat e o f pantng - one fals to d an y spe cal vocabuary or topc that provdes necessary and sucent condtons for soethngs beng an arwork. here s tak about foral propertes (coors rhythms stylstc devces e tc. ) sub ect atter an authors b ogra phy a works s ocal and hstorcal context or purpose audence respons e and so on  But non e of these s alw ays present n art talk nor ust any of the aways b e presen t n order for us to know that t s art and not soe thng else that s under dscusson hus a deton of work of art s not forthcong when one look s for t n WHA s sad about art If how ever one consders WHY the thngs that are sad about art are sad cues about the natre of art do begn to appear When one descrbes a works balance or content or geness or consequenceswhen one provdes nfor aton that I refer to wth the ubrell a ter  hstory of producton  one  s aways pont ng to the work and n partcuar to propertes o f the obect or event that are thought worthy of pontng to. hey are proper tes cons dered wort hy of attenton- worthy of percep ton and reecton  Thus  charactered arworks those artfacts that are dscussed n ways that drec t attenton to theseaspropertes. A word about the pas e  worthy of attento   s n order T oughout the hstory of the phlosophy of art, theorsts have dered as to whether "art s a noratve or descrpte ter or both. f one beleves that ad a s possble-that f soethng s a work of rt at al t ust be at leat a lttle goo d- then one wll ns st that any adequa te deton of "art ust account for ts evaluatve functons. It ght even appear nconss tent for e to want to ake roo for prely descrptve uses of "work of art; the pase "worthy of attenton n y denton sees to necess tate that all arworks are wwle clearly noratve noton. I have explane d elsewher e how y denton  s cons sent wth a p rely descrp tve use of "work of a rt   Brey t dep ends upon seeng that an obect or event ay have the sort of propertes (shape, ages, rhyths plot pro porton etc.) consdered worthy of attenton n a cutre wthout havng the "well wthout possessng the n such a way that the propertes are salent or pleasn g The coorng ay be dul the pot udded or the rhyth borng . Other propertes ay overwhel these copletely. ow ever, although  beleve that "art can be used purely descrptvely (sply to pck out a eber of a class wthout  plyng anyth ng about ts value ),  als o thnk that a n ade quate deton w l shed ght on the honrc uses

144

 O

N

of the ter At the very least, it is had to see how a cultue would coe to consider roerties worthy of attention if there were no obects or eents that resented the in satisfyi ng or in teresting wa ys I believe that I was on the right at h in y src inal aticula tion of a de nition of "at owever, as the denition was initially stated there were wo serious weaknesses One was an obvious istake, the other a vague ness  My revisions of the denition h ave been directed at thes e weaknesses  irst, the istake A key ter in the denition is "discuss Soething cannot be a work of at, accordin g to the early versi on, unless eole talk about it  This s ne in cul tues where in fact uch of the activiy suroud  ing at does inolve tal But there ae cultuescertain atie Aeric an cultures, for e ale -in which discu ssion is not a c entral art of the ac tiviy surouding at Indeed, as was ointed out to e soon afer I had ubished the denition, in oe cutues at is considered sacred, and, indeed, so sacred that it is a sacrilege to nae or talk about it Thus, u wittingly, I had ade at iossible i n all such cultues In one sens e this istake was easily retied I oud substitute treated for disussed in the wording of the denition or in those cultues in which it is taboo to talk about atistic atifacts, there ae nonetheless always ways in which those atifacts eceive the secial treatent necessay to distinguish at fo non art sense, the istake was less easily rectied, and in dealing In another with this roble I have been forced to c onfront the vagueness roble The istake of incuding "discussed cae fo a Westen o Euocentic bias  (This bias is als o aaent in the any exales that I resent in Ar an Nnar. ) Thinking about this bias in tensied y aw aeness o f a vague ness i n the denition What, ecisey , are the oeties to wh ich secia discussion or treatent directs attention? And given that artistic institu tions and ractices di er s o uch fro  one cultu re to another, who get s to decide wha t oe ties are wothy of attention ? In o ne s ense the answe is se with in any cutu e what ae dawn attenton to are aeseic o erties B ut, of course, n another sense hat cou ts as an aesthetc  roery s exactly what needs to be exlained in detal in order to reove the vagueness Cultues and subcultues dier treendousy in what they take to be roerties wort hy of attention Aesthet ic roeries are a subclass of these  In ste of the deences in secic oetes consdeed valuable, what all aesthetic roerties have n coon, I ague, is the fact that they ae inrinsic to the obects or events Aesthetc attention is drected to roer tes in thngs that are egaded as eayng the eceton and eflecton that characteie those resonses that we identfy as aesthetic esonses One ays attenton to the color of a suset, the haones of a song, the

A usanale Deniin f <Ar

5

rhyh of a poem he shape of a saue he lo of a movie and so on o all insrinsic roperies of ay aricula r ob ec or even are cons idered worhy of aenion e recise number of eihh noes in a symhony is no somehin mos liseners pay aenion o he shae of words on a ae is (usually) irrelevan when one reads a novel (I will say more abou wha makes somehin r elevan la er ) e observaion ha aesheic roperies dier from culue o culue bu are noneheless always some subse of somehins inrinsic proeries resuls in he followin deniion of aesheic roery F is an aesheic ropery of  if and only if F is an inrinsic feaue of  ad F is culually idenied as a proery worhy of aenion (i.e of erce ion or re fecion  Bein  inrinsic bein in somehin has usualy been inerpreed mea hysica lly Bu I refer o inerre i episemoloically Since erceion and refecion are a he cener f aeshe ic exerience wha maers mos is ha smeone e cn ively enaed w ih an bec r even One lo ks, lisens ouches ases, smells somehin roperies ad considers he naue of hese roperies and ways in whch hey are arraned and oher  wise relaed Jus which se of proeries one car es abou is deermine d by ones orofsubculue aymay close o over in rinsicculue feaues wha heyWine drin kcooisseus - feaues ha be aenion comleely looked by nonconnoisseu. his is no because f he meaphysical naue of he wine; i is be caus e of he coniive se of h e aser In en eral he aes heic radiions of a culue deermine wha members of ha culu e look or lisen for. Of couse he naue of he ob ec is imporan, bu us as m ora is he naue of he experiencer hus I dene inrinsic as follows F is an inrinsi c proery of  if and only if direc inspecion of  is a nec essary condiion for veri fyin he claim ha  is F e wine exa mple is aain helful One mus as e he liquid o know if i is annic I is he same wih all aesheic proeries One mus erceive a work andaesheic apropriae erceion is all (and ofen eveyhin) i akesfor o oneself, mak e he  udmen e perceivin however, is cu lually bound  Aa in, he wine exam ple is a ood o ne. o eeryone would aree ha wine asin is an aes heic ac iviy hus no everyone would aree ha bein anic is an aeseic rop  ery Bu amon hose culures ha reard wine as havin inrinsic proer ies ha repay serio us er ceio n ad refeci on an d ha ideniy annin as releva, ere is no quesio n. Aain we can enerali e Arworks or oer aeseically valuable obecs or eens (e sunses or hudersorms for many eople) are valuable recisely becuse ey ave inrinsic roperies

46

TN

considere wory of atention ut e vauing is cu tra he ow of ine s in a feae nde state wi not be ought (a t east pubicy) to repay at tention in cutres were w oen are suppos ed t o b e covered fro head to foot e eaning of "aroni c is uite di eren t in Eastern an d Western usic ht is found uorous va ries not ony fro cutre to cu tre it aso varies fro fiy to faiy within cutures Cuta bondedness is at east a paia expanation of the fact that so any peope beieve that the ost basic aesthetic property, beauty, is awa ys in te eye of e b eoder Since atending to intrinsic properties considered worthy of atention witin a particuar counity or cutu e s at the h eart of aesthetic ex perience, whatever brings tat aention about is aesthetiay reevant at is, watever one can say or do tat causes soeone (o r onesef) to per ceive or reect upon traditionay vaued intrinsic properties wi aer aesthecay ough ere are standard ways of des cribi ng ( or otherwise treting)  fors for exape, po intng to co ors or tepos or propor tions or po or etaphors-a priori noing can be said to be aestheti cay irreevnt ne ca create scenarios in wich coents ost ikey to be non seuiturs wi in fact get soe one to no tice an intrin sic property at ight otherwise have been overooked "It was wrien in Cairo or "My grandother used to pic k her berr ies there or "Lincon sept here ay uifyproperties   one neeWhat ds toakes d o is show that eaeseticay rea rk direc aention at estetic soeting re tsevant is not te content of the reark ( or ge stre) , but rather the fact that o ne reaies tt he response it initiates is directed at and caused by int rinsic poperties of the object or event If I a de igted (or repused ) by an obj ects coor, for instance, en it aers not whether yo have goten e to notice the coor by sying, "Look t te cor or by saying,  Lncon sept here Given these revisions and expansions, y srci na denition c a be re  sted  is a work of art if d ony if   is n aifct and 2  is eted in aestheticay reevant way s tat is,  is treated in such a way tht soeone who is fuent in a cute is ed to direc t atention to intrinscreection) propeieswithin of  considered wort and/or that cutre andy of aenti on (perception 3  when soeone has an aes thetic experience of  he or se reaies that e cause of the experience is an intrins ic property of  considered wory of atention within the cutre oug ready to revise it if convinced in the fute that I ust again go "bc k to te drawing board, I a happy with the deition as it now stands Chenges reain, however o theorists for who I have the gretest respect, rth anto and ed Cohen, have estioned not is

A Sustainable Denition of
14 7

denition e se but the oject of dening as I have conceived it Danto has oclaied the "end of at; so denitions of it ight see at ost eheea l Cohen thinks that the ente ise of seek ing denitions was tes te, fo  even if disc oveed denitions do no eal wok in his oi nion . In both cases, one ust be eady to answe the question "Why bothe tying to dene at   It i s a bit easie t o dal with D anto since he descibes hsef as "n es senti alist   n ar t theoy and hence is oe sy athetic than Co hen toward aets to catue the natue of at. In his ecent book Aer e En of Ar Conemporary Ar an e Pale of Hsory Danto agues no t eay that at has ended but that deveoents i n art in the ate half of the wentieh centuy (aticuarly in the visual ats-the at fo in which he is ost inteested) have des toyed the ossib ility of a cetain kind of at histoy In the West fo the feenth to the wentieth cent ury, at histoy con sisted in oviding causa, chronologica nar atives O ne eiod was constued as following and as being, to a geat extent, exained by the eiod(s) e ced ing it Now we have eached a oi nt in ou cutu e when, as Dnto uts it hee ae no oe eiods in soe aste naative of at      6 Peole continue to do and ake things that we and hey call art hus the wod continues t o have a eaning both an intension and an ex tension he Dato, is deteined by the aifest oeties of eaning objects oaccoding events (thetosot of thing I incude not unde te "intinsi c oet ies ), bu by theoies deve oed within the aw old the oose colection of a ctices and in stituti ons suouding at "At hen is a theoyboud notion, and as ong as aking o doing fals ude o is coatible wih a heoy "anything goes 7 Fo holes in the goud to stading stil, anything can be at, ad thee is no naative, Danto cais, that can cau saly con nect the any onge Still Da nto insists that we can dene  at As divese as theoies ae ad can be, "o be a wok of at is to be (i) about so ethig ad (i i) to ebody its eaning 8 Whee he se aks of "e bodying eaning, I se ak o f o eties consideed wo thy of atention loc ated n an object o event. I a  als o incin ed to agee that woks of at ae aou soething at least if t his is co n stue d boadyif fo instance what a wok is a bout ight be as sie as insatiating oeties a cutue enjoys eceiving o eecting uon hee is uch in Dantos osition with which I agee oweve the theoyboudedness of at is, I believe, secic to cetain techoogicay advanced secular ad ateiaist cutues It is ot tue in al endofthe wentiethc entuy soci eties  Peceiving and eec ting uon ways in which theoies ake os sible aost anythi ng is soething that  ewards he at tention of only cein cutues My own den itio n aows fo s uch sa tisfac tion wihin sec ic cultu res b ut it akes oo fo othe cuures  uling it

148

EATON

out More to the point of this chapter, the end that Danto attributes t o art preclude s nei ther his nor my atempting to dee it. Ted Cohen's objection is very derent He has argued that the queton of whether or not somethng s a work of art does not really mat� I ink it does; for only when one knows that one is dealin with art ad not someing else will the right sort of atenton (second condton n m y denition) gronded in e right sort o f realiz ation of its so rce ( third co diton) be likely to ani fest i elf But before I exp lain this more fully, it is help ful to see why Cohen is skeptical that distinguishing art from nona t ca help us much. Cohen believes that determining whether something is really, truly a work of art , even if poss ible , will not do ay really, truly important wor If you wnt a thing to make no claim on you and yor sensib ltes , or n o ther clam, you cn eithe r admt that it's art and j udge it either poor or at least without nrest for you, or you can deny that it is art at all. What is the dierence , he ask s9 What really maers is whether or not one unde takes a cer n knd of relation ship," whether, that is,  You take a responsbi lity for apprehending it with seriousness, and it is responsible to yo for making this engagement signicant" 10 Just as we can c hoose whethe r or not to form relationsh ips with other persons, so we c n ch oos e whethe r or nothappens to form when reltons wthtoobjects or events, asserthns . Thisass what wehips choose treat and respond Cohen to certain okes or sports, and trying to captre these relationships wth denitions  s not ne arly so ipornt as understandng the reationships themselves; i n fact t s probably tle to try to d a defnition tat captues the impotance What I think Cohen has in ind is something lke this  One might try to dee, sy,  mother "; but so do ng wll n no wy ensre tht one unde stnds tht reltonship, let lon e e nsre tht some one will le arn how to b e  good mother or child. The important work, as Cohen puts it, remin s untouched by anything that can be stated in tenty ve words or e ss  The irrelevance of determnng whether something is art does no t imply, Cohen insists, that individuals make the decson to enter into th e art relationshi p all by themselves. There is a kind of commun ity of appreciators, a group of people who shae a sense of what the relation ental Just as what constitutes ben g a proper or good mother  s bas ed in comm nl trditons so being good or even proper rt depends upon the share d derstanding of  culture (or subculte) Cohen unbashedly, even co  rgeously, refuses to  ow l comers For exmpe, Duchamp 's rin and certin works" by Jon Cge ae such tht it is impossible for Cohe to hve the proper reltion with them, he reports Even if Duchamp and Cge insist tht their cretions re  rt," Co hen doe s not feel compelled t gree, becuse I cn t see wht to do wi them f ey re 11

A usanale Denon of Ar

19

Clearly n denng "work of ar I, le Cohen, sress he reaonshp bewee obecs ndvduals, ad ndvduasncommun es Whe re I ds agree wh Cohen s n he  mporance o f he very ac of namng somehng " ar Cohen hnks ha le rose s, ar by any name wl eher smel swee or oherwse I beeve ha here s a cruca role for namng On a very warm and humd Augus day my famly prepared o s  my paerna grandmoher Wachng my faher don a coa and e my broher asked, "Dad, why are you pu ng on hose ho clohes ?  "I s my moher we are gong o vs he reple d Obvousy  was he relaons hp ha he was honorng; bu namng he rea onshp heped ohers o dersand he parcular pracce n whch my faher engaged So  s wh ar amng somehng a "wor of ar heps o po n ou wha s expeced of one when he or she s n or aemps o be n he rgh sor of relaon Cohen rec ognzes ha couny expecaons are a work e wres "My hess s hs o decde (or dscover ha somehng s ar s o dersand ha hs hng s an objec for a commy of audors, and ha you belong o hs couny  Arwors bnd us ogehr I woud go fuher and say ha we have an obgaon o seek such bondng Or a eas we have an oblgaon o respec he es ha bnd members of oher commes ogeher hs wl requre ha we know wha oer communes denfy as "ar nowhch care wheher hoseohngs reaes o as aru are he same Cohen as hosemay hngs ohers reae as arheand conversely Cohen  s, and knows he s, already a lly edged membe of a co mmuny of apprecaors e knows wha s asked of hm when he eners no he ar reaon  o a are so lucky C hdrn ofen do no know wha s exp eced of hem namng heps "rea her as you would (should rea a moher or "rea hs as you woud (shoud) a symphony Cohen can refuse o rea Cages work as a work of musc only because he already knows so we wha "mus c usually r efers o   I doe sn maer o hm wheher we ca somehng "ar precsely because he aready undersands he ar rea on u o hose who are curous as o wheher hey are beng asked o ener no a speca sor of relaon "Is a work of ar may be ve hep fu arfac ndeed I wll ndcae haofone mus aendwhn o nrnsc properes of an consdered worhy apprecaon a parcular cuure Pu and nerpreed smplscay he "Wha s ar? queson can be dsmsse d as  s by Cohen, as n o maerng -as a queson he answer ng of whch does no mporan work u pu and nerpreed as "ow am I requred or a las requesed o rea a parcuar obec or evn?  can generae more nelge n debaes abou he pa cca pol cal soca l, econo mc, or educaonal ques ons I gave exa mples o f above, and can help people who are confused (and ofen fe dmeaned) by objecs and evens presened o hem as "ar 

1 0

 

N

I am ysel oen one o e onused I on attended a onert o ontemporary mus by te Cago Sypony on te apus o te nversty o Cago Ding te interssion , several o te usans ngled w members o te audiene (probabl y as part o  an eduatonal exer se I asked a vo ln st weter tere would be anytng be autul n te seond al He merely lauged (at me, I supposed an d said soeting to ts eet  s s ontep orary mus- don t expet beau ty e ost you get s nterestng I was not elped How mgt my own denton elp n su spe ase s  I oer anoter bit o autobi ograpy as an exam ple As an aestetan operatngas any o us doat te rnge o te onteporary art sene, I was, n te 180s, vaguely aware o te work o Jeny Holzer Students o ine wore sirts d splay ng so e o er ru sms A Strong Sense o Duty Imprsons ou, Abuse o power omes as no srprse, and Murder as ts sexual sde  ese ottoes, I kn ew, ere some o or undred stateents tat Holzer ad pasted on ew ork Cty walls ad enes next to posters and advertseents. But wy, or ow, were tey onsdered art ey seeed no derent to e ro advertsements or a Hard Rok Cae or a moo lke A woan wtout a mn s lke a s wtout a byle tat also adorn te sirts ta are omnpresent n Amera ultre-lever peraps, but ertanly not Gueca. n a lass wt board Rembrandts selportrats or Passos Holzers mes Square anounem ent, Prote t e ro wat I want, ws, peraps, ore proound ta te adonitons to Smoke Caels on te same bod But  te orer was art, te garete advertseent, t seeed to e, sould b e too and ts I was no t prepared to a ept Wen olzer was asked to represent te nt ed States a t te Vene Be nnale n 10 ad subse quently won tat exbtons Golden Lon Award or Best avlon, I sply so ok my ead wt lots o  oter people But n De ember 1 3, I went wt so e nonaestetan rends to t e Dallas Muse o Art were one o Hozers roos ro he Venice n aaon ad been rereated My ends response was not aypal, I sue Wats ts dong ere (Expletves deleted Is ts art Know ng y lne o work, tey trned to e or elp But ts te, nstead o ust sakng y ead, I atually asked mysel i y own detion o work o art ou ld elp- ould t, n Coens terms , do any real wo rk ? Clearly we ad an artat But were tere intrnsi propertes o ts artat at ould, i n our ultre tat s, e ultue o e ad y riends be onsdered wort y o perepton ad/or reeton In or a t tept to aswer ts queston we were greatly aded by an normationa broure at te useum sta ad provded  Here are some o te trad onaly grounded ntrns propertes to wi o r atenton wa s alled by te subu lture oposed by at sta-a subultre wose s et o vaue s

A uainabe Deniin f Ar

5

tersected sucetly wth y roups values to allow us to develop soe terest  ad even derve soe pleasure ro the nstallato olzer works  the tradt o o ncororat lauae rae ts or both copos ton and conte nt that has had pronence sce the Cubst s ad Dadasts olzers edu s lauae, but lauae as t has been eb  ded n stoe el ectr c lht k ad ED olzers hue roos explot eatres o the sace (e thethehh cels ad arble loors o the Dallas Museu) that express tdaton one oen eels n the chabers o the powerul olzers work s suble  the sense Edd Brke theorzed about, where e ar provdes the bass o delht he raw truthuless o olzers truss s atched by the raw edu ED or neon , or exale  Whe oe o  y reds c oared and contasted olzers laqu es to the colorully ebroder e Bless hs ouse that   her raother s lv roo,  t s ar to s ay, I thk, tha t she was ean  ar crtcs Carette advertseents could, I supose, enerate such dscuson; typ cally they do not - ether the works nor ther akers do uch n the way o My vt oe too treat theoasart works art help eole to enter nto the deton ork ca,othe relatonsh that Cohe rhtly asserts characterzes our encounters wth soe artacts It can do ore ear the ben o ths chapter I en toned the act tht I have used y deto o work o art n cotexts where I dd not ysel th o us t whe I ornally artculated t Its w 4er aplcablty not oly endorses ts useulness, ad, I hope ts cor rectess; t rther ndcates how portat havn such a deto s. Coplex ublc polcy decsons nvolvn aesthetc ssues are ot re qured oly wth reard to what cots as art o who deserves suort as artsts Aesthetc questos also lay an creasly ortat role  ds cssos about how t o aae ad reseve the envro ent esl aton  at both the natonal and local lev el oen ncludes exlc t eton o aes thetc value  he Evroental Polcy Act o 6 or n stace, deands due aeto to aesthetc vale as part o envronetal act studes Many ctes have hat can clearly be called aeshetc ordnaces -stu latos about own rass or about the sort o ladscan oe ca have  oe s ow rot yard. he EPA condto -roo that on e has aeded to aeheic concerns has caused cosderable cotroversy Desners, landscae archtects, or esters, etc are oen at odds about what ths enals ow does oe know that one has provded an aehei aays s  Sppose oe knows that a ar

52

EATO

N

ticular spot is popula wi toists. Can one auto�atic lly infer that it is popular for aesthetic reas  ns ? O ?vI �sly not. C rta th gs must go on the to i t ust engage m speCal kmds of actIOns , for mstance-be fore

oe c now wether he or se has sougt out te locaton because  t as aest etic value ( s be autfl, sublme, etc  ad not because it s a goo d lac e to sk or to go mus rooming or us t to be s een by ot ers. T at s not to say that skng or musroomng or seekg social status s ncomatble wt aestetic exerence uman beings are capable of dong more thn one thng a t once - of sking  admirng te scenery, fo r nstance But f we want to knw weter a sot has aestetc value for eole, then we must knw that they ar e actng and respondng i n aesthetc ways  I beleve that we know a landscape has aesthetc value to people b ecause tey act toward and resond to t i n ways s milar to ways they act towar d and resond to works of art namely, tey attend to ntrnsic ropertes of te landscape tat ave been dentied witn er culture as worthy of attenton Tere are many derences beween works of art and natre te former but not the laer are produced ntentonally by a uman creator for one thng But most landscaes that we experence at ths point n uman hstory are not truly ristne comletely utouched by or aecte by uman ands Obvously gardens rural landscaes, or natonal arks are are as aare result of a tremendous degree of uman manpula tionwat Sometey pr oertes unintent ional- the consequence o f air o llution, or nstance; but much i s intentional Indeed man landscaes t m de niton o art ver close ly the are artacts wose in trinsic roerties are aended to because the are considered worth o  ercetion and reec tion witin a artcular culture and the aenders expect tose ropertes to cause aestetic leasure. ow do we know wen toursts visit a spot or aesthetic reasons Pre csel when we know that te exect to be rewarded b aending to te sots intrins ic roertes . Tese exectatons are, o course cultural ly saed. And again the can (usuall probabl do) coexist with oter ex ectations te ope o being reward ed wit exciting sk slopes an abun dance o rare and edible mushrooms interesting history increased social status. Wat is essential is tat aestetic imact studies will be vad onl  one can show tat people do n act aend to culturall re erred ntr n sc roperties and reso nd avorabl or unavorably to them O ne mu st be able o sow ta eole resond o and value landscaes no exacl as e resond o and value works o ar, bu noneeless n a wa smlar enoug o e was o ar a  counts as aesec a least in par. So again Cohen  e conrar being able o answer e quesion Wa is ar does ave moran consequence s Coen d oes oer an imoran nsgh we n he nsis s ha rean g some

A Sutanae Dentn  Art

53

thng as art nvolves uttng oneself nto a certan knd o  relat onsh wt h an ob ect or event  have sad tha t ths relaton conssts o attendng to n trnsc roertes More needs to be sad about ths, however Beng n a relat onsh s a actve ursut  The artact acts on e -cause s e to have certa n knds o ercetual and reectve exerences  These exerences n turn act uon the art act certan eatures o t are brought n to ocus, de tals are select ed or fu rther attenton Aethetc exerence should no t be thought o as s ly erce vng roertes that are avalable or ercevng ad, esecall, reecton are uch ore colex The artcular natre of ercevng and reectng wll, of course, deend uon the cultural tra dtons that one brngs wth one  Lke everone else ,  sea k ro  own cultral backgr ound, n  own case a back grond that  s rarl Euro centrc owever, the bts ad eces  have learned about other cultures lead e to beleve that uch o what  sa ales across cultres Perceton ad reecton tycall are at the heart o what we ord narly call nterretatn n act, one wa  thnk about wh at art s ght be to call orks o art nterretaton delver devces The or at least one relat on that e establs h wth obects and events that we cons der art alost alwa s  ndeed I  nclned to sa alwas) s one n whch the art act calls or an nterretaton, and we resond n was that oten lead to the ratn g urthercentr, calls orthe nterret  n Western art hs  torartact n uchs gene o the tenteth ntrnscaton roertes consdered worth o ercet on havetended to be oral roertes -balance, shae, roorton, structre, or rht But eectn has never really straed ar fro the deas works resent Manulatng ad relatng thoughts are as ortat as arragng shaes, colors, tones, or etahors A varety o questons are osed What s ths about? What does ths exress?  hat s the artst trng to do here Whats gong on here? Whats the ont? Wh s ths here, rather tha there Wh s ths here at all? The best works o art grab us-the ake aswerng these ad other questons coellng Is the sh cong toward the ra or ovng awa? s ths secton grevng or heroc?  the ghosts are gents o her agnaton, howca caths others the hen she descrb the?  no usc, realldent be a dace We nterret, e es exa I theres e ntrnsc roertes agan, we reect, we renterret, we go back or aother look or lsten, e thnk soe ore about love or le or evl or the natre o the relatonsh beteen usc ad dace), we revse our nterretaton, we con sder what others have t o sa  about the work, we re nterret, ad so on ad so on   own exerence, I have oen beneted b beng told that soe thng s art t alerts e to sto ad ask whether  wat to enter the rela tonsh-whether  want to gve the artact a chance to delver the lea

154

 A

ON

re  nterretatn Even when I d nt lke methng, r even when I have been repelled b t, when m ne el e tell me t  art, I have nd that makng mel tp, perceve, and ree ct pa  t akn g mel , Wh d I dke th  r Wh de th tr n me   mch    a wa  makng nterpretatn dever re prbable I t help n dealng wth thng that  dn t ndertand, n m wn r  rm anther cltr I methng de nt call r an nterpretatn, I am ncned t thnk tat t  n t art I am re there are te w wl nd th vew mch t cere bral r cgntve What abt te rle  emt n   the wll ak  A mene wh regla r en crn g at mve and cnder the dp tn t evke ch repne an ntrnc prpery wrth  aentn an atde hared b man n m cte, I d nt, n e mphazng the re  nterpretatn, ntend t negate thereb te cntrbtn  emtn t aetetc experen ce I pck t te re  n terpretatn beca e  beleve t   crca t  mainaining nd/r susaining the relatnp wth artact that  centr al t arisic experence We have  een tat Chen d n  real e  r te etn I t art  I, n the cntrar, beleve at an armatve anwer t the etn  an nvtatn - an nvtn t pa aentn t ntrn c prperte, t advanc nderta ndng, t create the ndatn  r b eent c gntve and em tnal repne anngarmatve negatve prvde an beanct wer r eve nt, b ththne nece ar  cntext In rhrt, knw hw t dealrwth ne wn c lte ad a ne trve r acce  t hat ther clte have t er I an answr help,  mt akng the usin Art repa aentn g d art repa  taned at entn  Interpretn an renterpretatn are at te eat  the tane attentn necear  ne  t reman n a lngterm reatnhp t a artact and wth ther hm an be ng , bt at  anthe r tpc  I ppe t  pble tat ne mgt retrn agan and agan t an artwrk t r te emtnal charge t prvde Bt  th ccr, I beleve t  rare What tpcal appen  that ne tr eat an artw rk a ne treat a rend -a  methng at bear repeated aentn beca e t repa the atent n anew, bt al  n d erent wa a te relatnhp deepen  A el metaphr cme rm eclgca degner wh make e  the cncept  newa w hn lman Le wrte, Were nate evlved t a level  nte dvery, hman have egne real m an ageable rmy and    have eplaced nate ende ccng and recclng  materal , prcee at e cre  e eart peratng  tem, wth an encmpang  tem   newa w, mvng the materal at pprt e n vat antte rm rce thrgh cnmptn t nk  One example    n nreccable platc packagng e pla

A Sustainae Deniton o Art

155

tc cove ae eoved dcarded and ton nto a du hee neve ued agan the only take u valuable ac e Thu enegy lo  n one a onl and end u n a n Sutanable enegy ue allo o tec lotough or ut another a lo bac kan dorth he ue o oxgen b anal ho then dcad cabon doxde u ed b lant hch dcard oxygen ued b anal that dcard carbon doxde and o o n and o on ad o o n)  an exale o lotough At ha oete bee n though t o a a onea  lo te n the ene that ob ect and event are een  ovd ng leae  or ndvdual ho ue the u and then ove on Even the takng u o valuable ace nd an analogy n the art orld a ueu torage aclte are craed and a od and ght oveload huan ecetual and concetual te ertanl there are lenty o artork that ae eal conued and that one  llng to thro out rather quckl All o u have had the exer ence o heang on g that nta ll delght but th at then coe to be alot anul l bo ng uon eetton  Mch o hat bobard  eve da  the aethetc eqvalent o latcaed at od Sutanable at  a lotogh te and good at  utanable art A ok  exeenced, the exeence da oethng o t bt then n a ver real ene t oethng back nto the ork Reetton doe not relt n boredo or a the exerencer change, thethe orkalo change Othe exeence exeence, hen one lean about have an nt nto the te Intead o takng leae n an obect and then ovng on to the next, one atacton  a t ere, t back nto the te he yte  the hole context n hch the artork ext-a conty o ceato and exeence ho act eact and nteact th the atork and other eber o the cot  Actvte  ( uch a thoe that conttute a goo d at educaton ) that da attenton that  read ce ate tanable elatonh a ell a eeated lea e  Art dertood n ter o utanablty goe beond the tanng o ndvdual att enton , h oever  have borroed the concet o utan abty o othe dclne-artcarl  oal hooh and ecolog In ethc, con deaton o dty ando coneqence ae ncea ngl kng a or con deraton o  the acto that contr bute to an  tanance e tanablty) o eronal relatonh-o uch thng a the legtac o hong ataty to ay o end n ode to kee the relatonh alve, and o the dctate o erc a ell a the dc tate o tce  he nted at on dene  anablty a ollo A tanable condton o th lanet  one n hch thee  tabty o both ocal and hcal te, acheved tgh eetng the need o the reent thout coro ng the ablty o ute generaton to ee t

56

  O

their on nee s   A theor o s ustainabe art has in comon w th ethics and ecoog a realization that at east tee interrelated conditions must be ullled   What we care about ( personal reationships ecos stems artworks ) must exst and continue to exist. 2. Practices acti ons o r institutions must exist that generate and regenera te proper att ention to what we care about 3  hat Practices actions o r institution s mus not lead to the destruction o we care about

Communa practices that invite nterpretation hep to guarantee that inter pretation w not wane and that aesthetic attenion wi be sustained. It is memers o a communit o corse who attend. But the attend to what a cmmunity vaues  and this n rn contribut es to the s ustainabiit o the comnit or cutre A ul understandng o the natre o art enta ls I be eve reco gniz ng ts roe in he susa ining o comunities or cures  en Dis sanaake has ar gued that art deveoped as human bengs evoved, and that it paed a ke roe n that evolut ion . Art bo th as pla and as a element o rtual contrib uted to the so ca coheson necessar or hu man surviva  Whether this s true or not, is intwentrst triguin g Just as intriguing question o whether as humans enterit the centr art s sts he required comntes, and hence ndviduals are to srvve. Accordng to m deton art does not ex st outsid e o comunte s b ecause the inrinsi c properties to which attention s required to be paid, according to m teor, are communa ident ed here can be no prvate art or the same reasons that there can be no prvate anguages; arts ver exstence depends upon pubc shared conventons, rues, practices, and reerences But is the opposite true can there be no comuntes without art One ca onl speculate here. Certanl I  aware o no commntes without art, but whether or to what extent their existence epens upon ther art is another, perhaps nanswerabe, question One might turn t o histor to see  the clres that srvved the ongest ere the ones wth the most or the best art Or  the shortestlived had the least and the worst Woud az erman ha ve asted onger i its arte ducationa prac tices had been ess ri gd, or i art ists and music as had greater reedom  A ormer governor o Mnneso ta asser ted that it s spor ts that hold commn ties together ave sports repaced the arts as the socia gue in the nited States I w not even pretend to be abe to answer such questons. I, at east, can onl ges s or hope what the answ ers re. Srel art s one o the thngs that cltures seek to p reserve ( aong with langage , ood dress etc ) as the tr to preserve ther denti t What is i t about art that makes this s o

A Sustanable enton o A

5

Agan Cohe n's noton o  enterng nto certan nds o relatonsh ps th artors s suggestve Art objects enable, even requre, one to enter nto a relatonshp th ther maers and th other audence members Surely the survval o commnt s depends upon persons' beng related to one another The derence beeen beng a resden and merely an nhabtant les n the ay that one relates to others n the same area t unctons to establsh and mantan relatonshps: tough the presentaton nstllng and repetton o mportant deas and values by provdng shared ave nues o expresson o emoton and thought, by creatng and perpetuatng mages, metaphors myths, and prototpes that are essental or commun caton The soc al construc ton o commnt es nvolves moral mort ar o the sort oen provded by great or s o art9 A colleague o mne , Sandra Pet er son uses George Elot's Mlemch as a text n her ntroductory ethcs course. As students read the novel along  th class cs n moral phlosoph  they are ased to oer moral advce to the man characters  la stotle Mll or Kant I doubt tht a Harlequn romance or The Bes of Ma son Coun  or the latest rap or countrestern ht ould or as ell as Mlemach Each generaton s challenged to renterpret Shaespeare because hs ors reard the percepto n and reect on o ndvdual mem bers o a and communt; sharng sdeas n rn to bndOnly the member together the comnt to that extenthelps sustaned tme can tells hether artsts such as eny Holzer or horse parts n jars ll succeed at ths The ntrnsc propertes that one values are valuenacommuny. Art sts, le other members o that communt, have responsbltes to t, and to ths extent al or succeed to contrbute to the commnt' sustan abt In ths century n Eurocentrc cultur es the "arorld has too oen been taen to be a narro subculture to hch only artsts and patrons o a certan l -a largely economc ally suc cessul l -belong Ths seems to be changng as more and more artsts and audences tae serously the ays n hch objects and events aec the comunt a large Falure to

r

commnt gve due regard selosha see nll moresusan and more eherasananndvdual's aeshec alure atenon or he  he teneh cenury n Europe to grea poers one n Germany anoher n Russa, aled o susan hemselves  s no,  beleve, smply a concdence ha he ar preerred by he auhores n hese to naons has proved nsusanable The art heors and ars avd Hcey has s ad ha ar represen s our desres 0  so, ar ll be susan able j us so long as hose desres are susanable In complex echologcal socees  s dubous ha ar alone can creae sustanable desres I does seem o mae a conrbuon The ntrnsc propertes sngled ou by a commnt as a

18

 A

0

soce  atacto n  e at least one de termnant o t he communtys  and aty to svve  that satsa cton generates perceptve and re ectve relatonshps th others   optmstc enough to beleve that the commnty ll be sustanable NOES 1  Maca Mueler aton Art and Nonart eecton on an Orange rate and a Mooe all Rutherf or  Faregh Dckins on Unversity  ress 1983 The eton s otvate an scusse there n eta  2  dsc uss ths  n the al chate r of the book cted above 3   revous rtcles I have agued that drect nsecton s a sucent coni ton for verfyng a cla that n obect has a tcu l aesthetc roert but  have recently gven ths u Although rect nse cton s usua lly enough for ver caton when one knows the eanng of F t s not always the ca se f one kn ows what tanic ens all one has to o s ri the wne to see whether t is tannc or not  assung one ays aenton has fctonng t aste bus etc  But there ae aesthetic roertes eg reresents At abel that ay requre soe nfo ation beyon that rove by rect nsecton onetheless rect nsection s necessay  scuss ths n ntenton Suervenence an Aesthetc Reals rth ournal of Aethetc 3 8 (1998 279-9 4 I wl equvocate on the terms comunty or culte Both are widey use but nether has a very cle ening oites re erhas ore lke subcu ltes whch have a cult ure of the r own n since this  s what  generaly have n n in y current writng  ten to use the ter coi n lace of culture 5 n an ennote n a recent atcle oh Bener says For aton aesthetic roerty sees to refer to any featue wareness of whch ght be relevnt to akng aesthetc u gents of the work Ths s exactly what  think o B ender Reas Suervenience and rresolvable Aesthetc Disutes Journal of Aethet c and Art rtcm 54 (1996) 3 8  Ath  Danto Aer the n d of Art ontemorary Ar t an d the Pale of H tory rnceton rnceton nversty ress 19971

i s fther scusse th Dnto1981) The Transguraton of the om 7  Ths abrge monlace Havdnniv erstyPress 8 Dto Aer the End of Art 194 9 Te ohen The Ve dea of At Natonal ouncl on ducaton for the eramc At Journal 9 (1988 ) 7. 1  b  8  11 Ibi   12 b  1 13  a gratefu to athy ck o f the May er Lbray at th e Dallas Museu o f t for roving e wth ateras fro the exhibit

A Susaale Deo o Ar

15

4 For more on dierences between  t and nature and the apprecia tion thereof see Allen arson "ate Aesthetc Appreciaton and Knowledge  ournal o Asthtcs and Art rtcsm 53 ( 5  3 3-400  5  have gued esewhere that an excelent t edcation should ssue such invitations and help sudents to com e to accept them This is why  support at c ricula such as Discipline Based At Edcaion which integrates criticism history and aesthetics with tstic producton For a discusson of ths see my "ontent riicsm and Art Educaton Putng Meaning into the Lfe of Ssyphus oua 24 (0 7-0 Ds for Sustanabl Dvlomnt(ew ofAsthtc ducaton 6 ohn Tillman Lyle gnratv ork o Wiey 4  5 7 This deiton and discussion of t and other inerpreations of ecological susanably can be found in Richd Forman "Ecoogcaly Susanabe Land scapes n hangng Landscas An cologcal Prsctved saak S onneveld and Rchd T Foreman (ew ork Spr ingerVerag  0 262 8 Elen Ds sanayake What Is Art For (Seatte nversy of W ashinton Press 88   discuss hese noions n "The Socal onsructon of Aesthec Response Brtsh ournal of Asthtcs 35 (5 5-07 and "Aestheics The Moher of Ehcs ournal of Asthtcs and Art ritcsm 55 (7 35564 20  Hckey made ths remk i n an address a the  nversiy of Mnneso ta in the fal of  6 

9 r: Le aer ea GEORG

W S . ALY

Paradox though t may seem -and paradoxes are always dangerous things -t s never theless true that Life imtates t far more than At imitates Lfe. Oscar Wlde Sted buntly, the task of theory n the age of the avantgarde has been n fact to provide the means f or expaining how the myrad of modern subversons of tradtional expectons about art-or at lest some subset thereof-could count as art Nol Carroll

I Ifheanone is in doub abou hefoll imporace quesion Wha arare or she should relec on he oing  ofis he id  hed  a eisno in a posmodern, plralis period in ar hisor. his vie o f or crren  siaion is no neural o ha ar is us he opp osie i aes for g raned a relaively narro and highly probemaic anser o Wha is a Such a anser assme s even greaer sign icace hen sed  o  si he c laim ha in maing e ransiion o posmod ernism e have reached he end of ar  signican period in hua hisry u e are no a he end of ar e hisorica siuaion e ae in is one ha requires  accon of ha ar is in order o expai n hy a suvves Wha is i abou conemporary paining, for exampe, ha eeps ar alive   is no js ha people coninue o pain or ha e coninue o paining, abel habuhey becase pain hisorically a Ar srvives individuaed no simp ses ofbecase painings people (ad eea idep vaiey of oher pes of objecs) coniue o be he focus of a complex enfranchising norma ive socia pracice he deais of his so cia pracice ad he pes of hings pon hic h i is focused provide a anser o he qesion "Wha is a  In rn, he anse r o his quesion e nables u s o undersand hy a has os  none of is sign icance 60

Art e aer Death? 6

Explan ng hy e are not at the end o art requires understanding art status as a and relating this phenomenon to the notion that art has a proper function I e assue that hen e call vastly dierent things art e are attempting to l ocate them in the same cate gory a category that involves specic nterests in and concerns th all o the things  call art then hatever it is that keeps this category alive mus t in some ay apply to the ide diversit o the k inds o things th at are art Ths ide diversit must include both ork that conorms to the notion that art is an essentally progressve actvt ad ork that sustains the vie that in art there is no such thng as progress there s only change  

Stated n its most generic orm the anser prvided here to the questio What distngushes art rom nonart is that art s a tpe (strctly a meta type  and that sets o objects o varous tpes ( realst paintn gs by Harold ruder or Dada appropriations such as  Mu 97, by Duchap or example) are instances o ths metatpe Specic tpes and their istances are art in virtue o being the ocus of a netork of normative attitdes and behaviors that in trn are grounded n certan kinds o beles.  reer here to a set but o attitdes ocusedocused on the on objects to byasart and its cognates not collectively thingsreerred categorized nonart These atttdes constitute a normative base to hch elements are added and removed over tme thout so alterng the concept o art as to make it more reasonable to say that an altogether ne concept has come to be assocated th the ord art The atttudes making up this normative bas are focused upon the thngs that people ho accept the distincton beteen art and nonart classify as art Here "people reers to people in general not ju st to artists art historians art critcs or philosophe rs o art ess genercally somethng's being art consists n its being an instance o a (primarily autographic) tpe hose members are ( or ill be ) the ocus o a netork o rights and responsibilities or the right reasons Under o Ruth Millikan's staning hat makes notion reasons o proper right unction reasons involves familiarapplying intentional a and/or n analog unctional analyses o art such as the vie developed by rthr Danto and last Nol C arroll's notion o hstorical nar ratves e pos ton pre sented here s a varat o a social concept o art, and so s indebted to the pioneering ork o George D ickie  8 Understa ndng the thess that something's b eing art consists in ts b eng the ocus o a netork o rights and responsibltes or the right reasons requres understa ndng hch are the relevant kinds o rgh t and re spon sbilit ie, and understan ding hat is requ ired or their cultural emergence

At Li a ath? 16

The commtments to hch Scher reers are moral commtments. For ex ample, e have a moral commtment to take pans not to arbute orks to people ho dd not create them In categorzng somethng as art, e morally commt ourselves not to arbute t t o someone ho dd not create t s s one aspect o the socal practce that xes hat t s or somethn g to have artstatus Moral commtments determned by ths socal practce thus are nternal to the not on o art. A second tem n the rst category ( the rghts o and ou r responsb ltes toard somethng's author s the aut hor's rght to contr ol the dsse mna ton o replcas o hs or her ork. Ths rght s one bass or copyrght la A thrd tem s the author's rght to have hs or her artstc actvtes understood n l ght o one or another descrpton o hs or her arthstorcal context Art hstory s relevant not merely as a descrpton o art's past, but because arthstorcal de scrptons n part determne ho e ought to relate (n a varety o ays to the author o a specc body o ork  example o ths s an author's rght to credt o r hs or her ork's n luence on the character o other artacts here such nuence exst. In catego rzng somethng as art, e assume a responsblt or credtng ts author o nluencng other ork hen such nluence s dscovered Gvng bre descrptons o some o the tems that make  p the second category rghtsdrectly and responsbltes s accomplshed here explcatng th descrpths tons thatoocs on orks Ths s smpler than aspect o art status by descbng so me o the obl gatons people ndertake toard somethng hen they categorze t as art Hoever, the rghts de scrbed here derve rom such oblgatons In the second category e nd the ollong someth ng's b eng art nvolves ts be ng granted a prma ace rght to be taken as be ng more spec al tha most hman artacts ( n some nspeced ay. Ths aspect o artstatus s manest hen the State o Ne York passes a tort la enttlng artsts to sue or damages   someone ho purchases ther ork alters ts appearance or allos t to deterorate No other category o artact enjoy s ths unsa l orm o protecton . Part o the rght to be consdered specal and taken serously s cond toned by a correspondng promse on the ork's part to en gage a spec al knd o hstorct that looks both backard and orard As art, an obj ect both promses to b e and s somethng that o ght to be located hstorcally and s so methng that oght to be so nderstood Also nvol ved n ths cate gory s a rght o the object or ts traces (as n the case o perormance art or example to be preerved not just or the mmedate uture bt or the ndete ture ( or ts los s may ell be a loss n an evaluatve an d not jus t a quanttatve sense,  not to us to others or to ture generatons Fur ther these condtons ental the approprateness o locatng the object not

t Le e Deth? 65

First, somethings enrachisement as art involves peoples consenting that ts author deserves credit or certain o its virtues (i ay) , ad behavig accordingly (as, or exaple, hen people acknoledge cases o plagia rism) Second, ths enrachisement involves people's consenting that the object deserves to be taken seriously (even i terrible by their standards) ad behaving accordingly as a gallery director does hen she presents a sho juror i a partcular sub mission she is condent that the juror ill agree is ithout redeeming qualities, rather tha setting the submission aside so as not to aste the urors time Third, this enranchisement in volves our consenting that e ought to attempt to understand e obect, and to behave accordingly, as people do hen ey rerain rom orming evaluative belies about an obj ect until they hav e learned something about its history n each o these exaples, the existence o the normative net ork o attitudes and behaviors that in part distinguishes art rom nonart is a unction o implici t consent o a sort poss ible ithin the context o the relevant socal practice Nothing is or as art in the current sense o this notion beore it became a hstorical actualit or obects to be the ocus o such consent. Here the e xpression such consent includes also netorks o atttudes and behaviors existing in the past rom hich the examples presented here evolved Tracing this history reveals that orks rom an cient times that are art ere in their in onsocial timesconsent) e ocus o netorks rights and responsibilities (grounded rom hich ouro current netork evolved (his is not to say that these objects ere cla ssi ed or otherwise understood as art in their ow times) The existence o the attitudes and behaviors constitutive o this consent does not require that people be aare that hat they are doing can be descrbed as it is here all at is required is that people thik and act in the appropriate as The currently existing netork o rights and responsibilities arising tough implicit consent made possible by a social practice is part o the content o  the soc ial structure t hat Dickie and o ers attempted to describe hen they concluded that something' being properly located in a social practice is part o at it is or it to be art.  eing the ocus o the social practice  describe here gives something art status n order or some ing to be art it must have artstatus  or the right reasons Explaining hat makes a reason a ri ght reason re quires introduc ing an analog o Ruth Millikans notion o proper  unction Millikan gives a recursive deition o proper unction according to hich  has F as its proper ction only i either (1 )  is a reproduction or cop o some prior item(s) ith properties K that are reproduced in  and the items

66

A   Y

coie /e  ed ave eomed F because o popeies K� ad A exiss be a   ese peomances  o 2) A oiginaed as he poduc o oe o device ha given is cicusances had peomance o F as a pope u ncion and ha unde hese c icumsances nomally causes F o be peomed by means o poducing an iem ike A his is a deived pope u cionY One iem is a epoducion o copy o ohe in v iue o he wo iems shain g appopiae sucal and e iol ogic al chaaceis ics M ilikans woking exap le is a hea A heas pope uncion is cicuaing blood because each hea is a epoducion o copy o an ogan ha exised beoe heas exised and ha possess ed he popeies nece ssay o cicula in bloo d hese pope ies ae epoduce d in a hea he ogans exising pio o a hea ha ae epoduced o copied by a hea ciculaed blood because o hese pop eies and heas exis now in pa because hese ogans c iculaed blood  Milikan se sse s e eeological impo o his noion o pope u ncion ad saes ha bo naal kinds and aiacs have pope uncions She noes ha he deniion o pope uncion may also be ead as a heo eica l deniion o ppose   12 he olowing is a hypoheical example o he pope uncion o  aiacual pe ahe han a nara kind such as e hea Suppose ha

aselling buggyiswhip sayed in business ae hehe isedev o he by o podacoy ucs as adi o aenn as Suppose ices auomobile ha coninue be poduced by he onceuponaime bugy whip acoy ae epoduc ions o copies o a buggy whip he acoy used o make a possessed he popeies necess ay o eceiv e adi o waves a�d sup pose hese pope ies ae being epoduced in he devices Suppose ha some o he buggy whips copied by hese devices have eceived adio waves because o hese popees e buggy whips o whi ch i was  s discoveed h a hey had e popeies necessay o eceive  adi o waves o h e salvaion o  he ec o nomcaly aiing buggy whip ac oy . Suppos e he devices cenly bein g poduced by he acoy ae being poduced because he ancesal bug whips eceived adio waves Unde hese condiions ilikans noion o pope ncion s he devices creny being poduced by he acoy ha ae epoduc ions o he bugy whips i used o p oduce he pope ucion o he devices bei ng made by he a coy is o ece ive adio wav es  ahough his was no he pope uncion o he devicess anceso he buggy whip his expla ins why i is appopiae  o clas si hese devi ces as ennas ahe han as bug whips and povides a basis o answeing When did he devices poduced by he ac oy becoe anenas  When aemping o chaacei e a in he manne being deveope d hee we mus emembe ha an aiacual pe need no shae is pope nc ion wih s aiacual anceso his is impoan because o he geneal

At L a Dath?

16

concern that social concepts of art cannot be correct because they entail that there could be no rst ork of art The argument is that the coming into bei ng of the soc ial practice that must precede anyt hing's being art can arise only in respon se to the pr ese nce o art in so ciey tilizi ng Millikan's notion o proper nction, e can account or the rise o the practices that make arts existence possible by reerence to the properties art shared ith its nonart ancestors Arguably, these ancestral artiacts include, or example, some o the masks and other artiacts people created many cen turies in the past solely or religious purpose s, objects e hav e every reason to believe did n ot have ar ts proper unction in the context in hich they ere srcinally created and used An analogue o the use o the notion o proper unction to nderstand the hypothetical relation o buggy hips to materially indiscernible antennas provides a basis or understandg the actual relatio n o some nonart religi ous and other artiacts to art he notion o proper nction ascribed here o art is an analog o Mil likans not ion There are important respects in hich the notio n o proper unction applied to art as a metaype or a category o artiacts o idely varying kinds diers rom the notion as applied to biological kinds For example, Millikan s re quire ment that something be a reproduction or copy identies the set o items to hich a specic proper nction is atributed in termsbyomembers assumptioo ns the biolo sis andarguably physicalmay struct ure shared th about e set While thesegical ass gene umtions apply to premodern art, they do ot strictly or narroly apply to modern and postmodern art What does apply is the identication o arts proper nc tion in terms o the complex relational propertes common to the variey o kinds o things tha t are art her e said properties e xplai n hy the nely created objects o these various kinds survive as art Examples o the com plexproperties being reerred to ill be provided shortly (It is important to note here that not all o the mem bers o a ype have to ulll the nction ascribed to the metaype in order to be members o the metaype Were this not so bad art ould not be a poss ibiliy ) As understood here, an artiactual ye has something x, as its proper nction hen its having (doing/being x explains its continued existence (its survival over time Arts proper  unction is the nct ion it has ( i any) that in act explains hy art continues to survive his suggests that arts proper nction ill turn out to be having positive aesthetic properties, or being expressive or being a metaphor or the artists statement or even being properly located ithin some thory o art Each o these alterna tives presents interes ting poss ibiliti es A disjn ctive thesis e mploying these alternatives and describing arts evolution rom one such proper nction to another is perhaps even more enticin g Hoever hile dierent orks o art may be seen as having one or another o these unctions, art has

68

B A

IL E Y

ot a oe ot survive ecaue its instances have had or curently have tee o oer o te amiliar fuctions that philosophers rgue are neces  andor sucient conditions for something's being a ork of art On the other hand the notion that art has had or does have such fuctions and ou abilit  to experience objects as perf orming such fuct ons, p lay a crucial role in explcating rts primary fuction and in explaining hat akes a reason a right reason for making one object but not others the focus of the socal practce denitve of artstaus (Warhols ro os butArt nothas realsurvived rillo boxes  for exaple) the amazingly many changes it has udergone because people did and continue to infuse objects ith artstatus People engage in this enfranchising consent because hat they believe about art enables them to see obects as, for eaple bearers of aesthetic properties 14 or expressions of emoton 1 or metapor for an artists statement.1 When people endo something ith artstatus for the right reasons such as, in part believing generally that art is a metaphor for the artists statement and seeing a specic object as such a metaphor they enfranchise the ob ect as a ork of art rt's proper fuction, then, broadly described, s to engender this enfranchisng consent -consent f or the rght reason s (Wy not consent for the rong reasons? ecause in the long run this ill not sustain Saying art broadly, as a s ignicant that art'human s properactivit) fuction is to eng ender consent for the right reasons is not to say hat is involv ed n mak ng conse nt possble and actual in specic cases n part, hat is involved is the creation of histori cal narratives and related theories of art that make it possible for people to engage n the task of se eing so e things but nt other things as objects ith the requisite hstorical identit, theoretical signicance, and so on. rt's proper fuction is to make possible and actu al the complex social practice that makes arts existence po ssible and actual hus, in a manner of speaking, arts proper function is to exist for its on sake Considered in light of the assertion that art is at an end the proper fuctio of art is e suvival of a rt for the sak e of he suvival of art W ere peo ple in gen eral to come to see individual orks merely as objects hose proper funct ion as as thearts survival of artHence for the of the survval art, to thisseemght suvival thesake signicance of beingofable an notartpromote indivdual ork of a rt as an express ion of the artists fe elngs or as a meta phor for the rtists statement or as an aesthetc object, and so on. Art's proper fuction is to engender conent for the right reason s Sayng that arts proper function is to engend er consent for the right rea sons also is not to say hat distnguishes reasons as right reasons ght reasons involve historical nrratives Whether at really survives Warhol's ro os remans t o be s een ut if it does this ill be because t he hs 

Ar Le ae Dea? 6

torcal  arratves that  upo Bro Boxes ad other such ob ects that ca be classed as by Warhol eable ad codto o ably to see these obects as for example metaphors for Warhols statemets about co sumersm arratves groud efrachsg coset by lkg to specc orks ad bodes of ork the fctos they emphasze as cosequeces of the hstorcal etologes they descrbe   much the maer descr bed by ol Carroll Coseque tly both peoples b elefs about ecessary or su cet codtos ( usually derstood as artstcally releva t fuctos or as a artsts tetos rega rdg such fctos ad the ar ratves  hch such belefs are located are cruc al compoets of hat t s for somethg to be art ( compoets of hat actually dstgushes art from oart 

 Sce I  borrog part of hat Carroll tells us about the mportace of hstorca l arratve to art ( to detg art  hs cas e  I must empha sze here the use to hch I put hs deas ders sgcatly from hs o use Carroll ams to reveal the structe of ats hstorcy th the follog x s a detfyg aratve oly f x s ) a accate ad 2) tmeordered report of a sequece of evets ad statesofaars co cerg4)(3) has a ed s ube cta complcato ( geerally the produc tohere of a dsputed ork hch a begg ad a ed 5) the ed s explaed as t he outcome of the begg ad the c omplcato her e 6) the begg volves the descrpto of a tatg ackoledged arthstorcal cotext ad here (7) the complcato volves tracg the adopto of a se res of actos ad alteratves as approprate mea s to a ed o the part of the pers o ho has ar rved at a tellgble asses smet of te arthstorcal co text  su ch a ay that she s resol ved to chage ( or reeact) t  accordace th recogzable ad lve pposes of the prac tce 17 Carrolls ve s that  order for a hstorcal arratve to detfy the arratve must be true I dsagree th Carroll o ths pot I beleve that sct adherece to truth s ot crucal to the role played by hstor otarratves cal fcto asthey somethg do erebeg they ot art Itbeleved mght to be be thattrue arratves  someould eak sese of "beleved to be true but ths s ot obvous arratves eable ad codto ou seeg obects ad evets as fulll g specc fu ctos ad playg specc roles  specc hstorcal cotexts It s ot clear to hat extet o r see g ob ec ts as such requre s a rm commtmet t o the truth of the propostos that strctly speakg are logcal mplcatos of the ves abot the ate ad hstory of art that make sch seeg as possble he atstry of decepto ad especally of selfdecepto s a very sophstcated dmes o of huma culte Strctly speakg arra 

170

B IL

Y

tive s a creae wat Jerry Fodor once described as virtual histories are jus as e ective as real histories . in producing belie fs �bout art's funct� on

ha in he conex  of such narraIves enable an appr opae form of "seeg

as" and so ground people's consening o cerain ri ghs and re sponsibiliies oward somehing whose arhood previously was an open quesion Real or virual, such narr aives play a key role in keeping ar alive  Consid er for exaple he quesion of he accuacy of Arhu Dano's hisorical narraives Daniel Hewiz mainains ha Dano's case sudies

of he1 8avangarde misrepresen arhisorical evens in several signican Suppose Hewiz ways is righ I noneheess is rue ha wha Dano has creaed in he way of hisorical narraive in defense of his heory of ar acually has caused people o give arsaus o objecs hey ohewise would no have nice, or woul have iscoune as ar People i an o his in par because Dano's narraive enables heir acceping as arisically relevan he funcion s D ano aribues o he obec  or obje cs in que sion or example Dano enables people o see an objec ha is iniscernible from he ordinary manufacued can opener i once was as a work of ar whose ominous bladelike exremi embodying aggressiveness and mas culini conass formally as well as symbolically wih he fivolous d minishin g helix, whic h swngs fee ly  bu upon a xe ensavin g axis !  an is pue helpless feminini" 19 He enables people coherenly o eperience his work of ar in his way whil e wihholding hes e same aribuions fom ordinay iniscenible can openes  he pespecive Dano hus povies eshapes how such people experience a muliude of objecs pas presen and fuure. When enfranchised by arsaus a hos of objecs of kinds such people peviously wee incapable of seeing s fo example, hisoi caly an heoreically siuaed meaphors addressing suble phiosophical issues are ransgued and can no more be seen as mere commonplace real hings his enfanchisemen occus in consequence of such people's ine nalizaion an expression in pracice of Dano's heory of ar, as presened by him in his exensive carefully developed arhisorica narraives he quesion of whehe Hewiz's ciicisms of hese naraives are liealy corec has no ec beaing on he aequacy of he accou of he naue of he a an he expanaion of ar's suviva hus far) being presened phenomenon I am describing was no iniiaed by Dano, and here does no usually begin wih any phiosophe of ar Vewed n he sho em i begins wih he creaion or appropriaion of he feaued objec, an even ha eiher eicis arsaus hrough conforming o ou curen ex pecaions o pesens us wh a ecision as o whehe o no o consen o somehing's arsaus. his ecision canno cohereny be mae ne penenly of someone's possessing a narraive ha eeciey locaes he objec's fucion or inended funcion wihin an evoving se of hisori

A; Lie e De 1 7

cal evens  Dano has been nluenal n peoples enfranchsng objecs as ar by suggesng funcons groundng hs ac n a hsorcal narrave In Danos case  s naural ha he phlosophcal dmenson of he work n fuses hs undersandng of boh arsc funcon and ar hsory As Oscar Wlde once sad lfe maes ar and ar ells capvang les.0 VI Thus far, wha s beng mananed s ha, n par, ars proper funcon s generang he narraves ha n urn creae a derence beween jus any reasons for whch people m gh consen o so mehngs arsaus s beng economcally proable o do so, for eaple) and rgh reasons for such consen. A far queson a hs pon s why should anyhng more be nvolved han merely denfyng somehng as ar relave o a hsorcal narrave Why nss ha beng ar nvolves beng he focus of a nework of normave audes and be havors much less ones engage d for he rgh  reasons The shor answer o hs queson s tha he purely hsorcs vew s no sucen o accoun for ars survval whch as Tolsoy em phaszed s somehng accomplshed a some epense, boh moneary and socal) A longer answer s based on an observaon made by Carroll n ob ecng o Dckes nsonal heorydoes of ar Carroll noes ha Dckes heory no provde sucen conen o he socal srucure  descrbes o rule ou s applcaon o nonar socal pracces. The same can be sad of ryng o characerze ar erely n erms of an denfyng narrave n whch a major role s played by belefs abou spec c arsc funcons ha are he e nds" or lve purposes of he pracce" as n Carrolls aemp o capure he srucure ofhs noon of hsorc Amos all f no all) of he funcons ends, purposes) acuay appealed o by arss hsorans, and phlosophers n her dscussons of ar are ndivdually or collecvely shared as he deng funcons of some nonar knds many of whch also are undersood hsorcally knds as df feren as phlosophy and polics, for eaple. Snce Carrolls epress am s o use denfyng narra ves only o den fy ar my presen concern rases no problems for hi provded ha denfyng ar  really s concepual ly n dependen n nonrval ways from ndersandng wha  s for somehng o be ar. B f we wsh o se denfyng narraves o undersand wha  s for somehng o be ar, as we do here, hen we need more han den fyng narraves The addon requred s wha s descrbed above-he noion of somehng beng he focus of a normave social pracice ha nvolves consenng o somehng arsaus for he rgh reasons

7

B I LEY

II g reasons as s noon s used ere grod an ac of consen a s focused upon soeng (e consen I cla  s ar's proper fncon o ensue s long as ou dersandng of ar s led oe den sos of ars sorcy as Carroll eores we do no ndersad wa  s for soeng o e ar as well as we g We ay know a soeng's beng a nvolves people's elefs aou arsc funcons n fored roug sorcal na rraves Bu we do no ders nd ow ese ngs pull ogeer as rg reasons a grond enfracsng norae consen nd so ypcally plosopers sden one or anoer of e relevan fcons suc as eng (nended o e epressve or avg aesec value as a logcally necessary (or sucen condon for soe ng's eng ar Or f s sees workale plosopers gnore suc fncons alogeer d ry for a s ocal accoun of wa  dsngus es ar fro nonar a ls self o appealng o gronded consen of soe sor or worse a appeals o non norave soc al pracces s uc as erely eng presened as a caddae for apprecaon Neer of ese alerna ves does jusce o e coplexes of e pas or presen pracces  ake  possle for soeng o e a raer an jus oer arfa  anBu a ake ar'sreasons survvalrg possle wa akes reasons? Wc narravespecc elefs aou fcons cou d wc do no Ulaely s s a queson ao wc narraves ense as suvva If e vew descred ere n  correc en e qeson of os porance s wc reasons are e rg reasons for consen swerng s queson requres deerng wc sorcal narraves (real or vrual sce o provoke consen n suc a way a ars longevy s enaced raer an nde rn ed Wor ng wn s fraework soeone lke ck Zangwll (a recen Beards ley conver wo eleves a e oy genne asc vale s aese c vale  wll anan a e only narraves a  wll ens e ars suvval oer e long run are nrraves a gve cener sage o a Beardsleyean noon of aesec value In opposon oer plosopers wll nss  f Beadsleysle aesec narraves were o gan exclusve do nce ey would e e end of ar ese plosopers wll anan  's sval requres a conually evolvng seres of elefs aou ars c fncons eac locaed wn s ow copellng narrave and uned der e gray rella of a Hegel eaarrave I  an eprcal queson weer eer of ese alernaves or soe oer or any oer wll connue no e fue o cre pracce f focng upon ngs we oew se wold negle c norave ades a wen eld for e rg reasons enfrancse ese ojecs as ar For e

Ar Le er eh



ediae presen and e very recen pas we cao ye apply our cre ron for weer reasons are rg reasons We mus wa nd see weer our curren narraves suce o ensure ar's survval Wa s cler n e presen s a we ave no ye reaced e end of ar as a sorcally sg ncan penomenon

OS 1 See especally  rthur   Dato Ae the nd f At ntempa At and the Pae f t (r ceto  rceto Uers ty ress 1 99 2 For s pl ct ote  w re fer to p atgs by way of eap e recogg that what s sad of patgs appes to other at forms  3 rthur  Dato The Phpha Denfanhement f At (New York olb a Uerst ress 1 9 86  85  4 aod rude r eals gh  ow  O ut prese tato at ast ol a Uersty Sch ool of rt Octbe r 3  1 99 7 5 uth Garet Mlka Language Thught and Othe Bga atege ( abr dge M T ress 19 84  6 See for eaple rth  Dato The Tanguatn fthe mmnpae (ambrdge aad  erst t ress   1 98 ntutn 1  7 Nol aro f A Rendeatn f detfyg Gege ke Phphy ed obert  Ya a (U ersy ak esylaa Sta te Uerst ress 1994 27 8 George Dcke The A e A The fAt (New York ae 19 84  For fther deelopet of ts approach see also Stephe Daes Dentn f At (thaca N Y  orel Uers ress 19 9 1  ad Yaal nsttutn f At 9  Flt Sch er a tg aer rt oets o ollhe   At n The  ed hales arrso a d aul ood ( Oford lackwell 199 2  11 16 1 bd 1114  11 uth Garett Mlka  Defese of roper Fctos Phphy f S ene 56 ( 1989 28 8-32 12 bd 291  13 Suc h a oto d ers sgcatly f ro obert Stecke rs thess that a tem s a atwork at te t f ad oly f t s   oe of the cetra l at fors at t ad s  teded to fu ll a ct o at has at t  t  s a atfact that achee s ecellece  lllg such a fct o  Fo r oe thg that s oethg has a ge proper f c to s depedet of whether t was teded to hae that proper fcto ad s depedet of whether t achees ecelece  fulllg ts proper cto See obert Stecker Atws Dentn Meanng aue (Uers ak esyla  a State U ersty ress 199 7 4  14 See for eaple Moo e    eardsey Aethet Pbem n the Phphy f tm� 2d ed ( daapols a cket 1 9 8 1   1 For a copelg crtq ue of the cotug appeal of epr esso  theores of

174

BAILEY

at see Stephen ve s he Expessi on heoy Agin" Theoria 52 ( 1986)  1466 6 See fo exmple Dnto  Transguration of the Commonplace.  Col, Identiing t 2 1 8 nie  Heitz Making Theo/Constructing Art: On the Authori of the Avant-Garde ( Chicgo: Uni vesiy of hicgo Pes s  9 93) 19 thu C  Dnto twoks nd Rel Thin gs Ar and Philosophy Readings i Ahetics, ed W E Kennick (New Yok St. M tin's Pess 979 ) 0  2 Oscr Wilde Nues mittion of At" in A Modern Book of Athetics, e. evin Rde (N ew Yok Holt Rnehat nd Wnston  1 97 9 ) 2 6 2 Nick Zngill Doughnuts nd Dickie" Ratio 7 ( 984) 63-80  22 Bedsey Aesthetcs

0 Garin Oissions in radiiona eo ries of r P E G E GLI BAD

Whn curen phlosophca aeshecs, varos heores of ar" conne o be propose d n s pe of mdcenuy m sgvngs ad agans he back drop of early Greek orgns rooed n he erm echne meanng craf" and no ar"  When Wgensen qesoned he ery enerpr se of denng as he puvew and pupose of phosophy, he broke he hsorcal chan-dang back o Pao and Asole-ha sogh o denfy he essence of ha nqey hma acvy no coecvey abeed ar" The comon per cepon phlosophca aeshecsand bega a someoward ndeermned pon n me andha progressed rumphany predcably some goal unl s recen demse Arhu Danos end" of ar cor Burgns end" of ar heoy s a myh. 1 I nvaraby porray Wgensens nuence on he ed-evdenced n he wrngs of Morrs We and ohers-as an rre parable and caaclysmc break n he chan. The ressance of We o ay aemp o sae he denng properes of ar" consued a severng of sass n he ongong heorng abou ar a break n he narrave of ar" a colapse of he longsandng nson In no nceran erms, We arge h heory- he requse casscal sense-s never forhcom ng n ar."  If hs pronouncemen had been acceped as re, here wold have been no posWgensena proferaon of heores abou ar Bu  here has bee, and anayc aeshecs has been quck o rvse s pcr e of pas phosophng abou ar and Wengesens role n  The break  he chan was renerpreed as a emporary aberraon quckly repared ow, a he end of he weneh cenury, we nd ourseves no ony heorg abou ar bu aso cassfyng hose heores no caegores We lve n an age of fnconal procedral, hsorcal, ad nenonl heores of ar whereby he forme r dene ar " n erms o f he que fcon  fu 75

6

BRD

creaton of art n terms of ts accordance wth ls whle te ae  cas he

cerain rles and procedes. Many theories ae also labeled  contextual"

snce k e odf ashoned fcona accouns hey ulze an nayss

of

e at- hstorcal context of the work.

hy ae here so many heores d why parcuary-n conras o eds such as lerary heory femns ar crcsm an subdscpe s of os ophy ha have generaed nuena femns  heores  n ehcs e ps eoo gy and phosophy o f sc ence has no femns  heory o f ar ganed romnecehneozn psophca n l s g  of ye�s g on araesdohecs gender Why and race f aleay o pahr y a gn of femn s cn roe even n recen conexa heores posed as hey are o ead us no e nex mennum Ts caper w vesgae he ro e of femns  eorzn g  reaon o dona aeshecs Secon  w expore womens ar as  has evoved no a sep arae caegory of femns expresson and wl ask he queson Is ere a eory of femns a" ong ha femns arorks have arsn wn e conex of a pararcha aword domnaed for housands of yeas byae ass crcs heorss and phosophers he second secon l ook at te story of that context as t mpacts phosophca theOy

by pnponng e narrow range of paradgms use n denng  ar" I w

 ecpausby vson of a poshsorca  pasc g sDanos possbe" a fue  everynof ha nfornaey ressfue upon n wh pas  concep of as he ar" The hrd secon w ndaon fou e e sa tes d n the t consttu ton pose on wha the ques rst sect to rast ont ask n c and where mgh  ead n of ar erms of he e of ory e a fens  rzng I w consder Sephen Daves suggeson ha eo os opca e fue of eorzng abou ar es n an exenson of Dckes nsu ona eory one a rees upon he democrac sruce of he nsu on of  I w revew a socoogcal approach proposed by ane Wo  one way of aswerng som e of he qesons pose d by Daves   d na ly  I  sues soe gudelnes for an unconvenona femn s heory of r I TH A TH OY OF FEMINIST ART ?

ere s ar au women and here s femns ar In addon some ar s reaed by ae ass whe some s creaed y women Femns ar s ney aways prouced by women one s hardpressed o hnk of work by a ae ars a as come   be cae  femns" n comon pa ance I s a ske of cose o hk ha us because a wok of   pro duced b a wo  s necessarl y fens  I  s aconsc  hough no oay napproprae o cal  a work fems" whe n  was creaed befo re e 6s and s Amecan and Brsh femns poca movemens

larng Omon n Traonal Teore o Ar

1 77

I s conov es al o call a wok fem ns when s ceao f laly denes  Consde he case of eoga OKeee) Coovesy howeve can fuel good makeng; much of he my sque and popula of some cuen a  ss-Cndy Sheman, Kk Smh, and Sue Wllams-can be abued o he delbeae use of abgu ha allows vewes o nepe hem as ehe f emn s o  no  Fo ea ple, A hu D ano has cla med ha C ndy Shemans ealy black and whe lm slls seve as a fulcum fo asng he deepes uesons of wha  mean  o be a woman n Am eca n he lae weneh cenuy  C c e Peone asse sses he lae wok s d eenly Sheman poses heself n Payboy lke centefolds     thnk some people men

lke t so much be cause some ctcs a nd colecto s men lke a lttle bl onde eved up n ucy coo hat he photogaphs ae ostensby about female epeentaton n popua cultue seems bes de the pont

ende plays a ole n a ha s nehe sublmnal no seconda o aes hec concens aecng no only he nepea on bu also he evaluaon of Shemans wok I plays a cucal ole n heozg abou he a Wha I hope o sow s ha hs ole has been lagely gnoed n phlsophcal heozng abou a n geeal, begnnng, as  pcally does, wh eek culue as he s  and p ma eample of a Snceha Wengensen andcone Wez,asmany heoes offaco a have been po posed nclude an a he necessa dsngushng odnay  bjecs fom he ndscenble a counepas Auhos of po cedual deons have posed condons o ules) ha heoze a fame wokan awold o an suon of aby whch he dsncon can be dsceed. hose ules pupo o capue he esablshed pacces o convenons) of an ongong a adon ha have bee obseved n a neual, obecve way. Wha s eally capued, howeve, s he hsoy of a n only) he Wesen wold, as peceved by cean eople, as hey have been pvleged o see  and pomoe  o ohes Only cean people have appopaed he auho needed o sancon only) cea n afacs as a Begnnng· wh paachal ecoRoman culues, po ceedng ough he Renassance, andawold evolvngwhose no he weneh have cenuy, he wold of a has naowed o an convenons been esablshed and pepeuaed by a elavely ele goup. he oles of a s, cc, phlosophe, and hsoan ave been populaed by whe males who have successfully conolled he nsuon of he awold Wha has come down o us s an a of ecluson. Egheenhcenuy phlosophes se he paamees of aeshecs nneeenhcenuy ccs and hsoans opened musems and woe he hsoy of a. A s boade han he combned eos would ndcae Unless, as Daves suggess hee can be moe han one awold) 9 he gla ng omssons n adonal heo

18

B N

des o r re he om men and pepecve  of women, peo of oo , nd e a pedae and oveadow a naowy ccumcbed opeanAmecan awold conex  oe wod, wen a ae amed n adonal eoe of a, women ae uuay omed. onde oe gan g exampe e ole of women n e oy of a e oy of omen a  ony begnnng o be ampy docmeed i eay, caogue, and book, ncudng ome caefuy gedebaaced  o ex e pevave pacce of epeening women n a i

a ndcaion e impoan oca oe, bu Lookng   ucea fa back e oeof of women a ceao exend back, ow we come aco evdence of e peence of godde woip fom e Paeoc o e Neoc peod 40,0008,000 BCE  n e fom of a ee of coveonalzed image " a panned weny  ouand yea 10 T ouad mniaue cupe of cay, mabe, bone, coppe, o god a epeen e femae bod ave been excavaed fom a oa of ee ou ad e n oueaen Euope One mage made famou n a ioy x  e ma meone ge oigna y caed e Venu of Wen dof ad ubequey enamed Woma fom Wedof," wc dae om c 2,000,000 BCE. ll Tee evouoay dg, niaed b aja Gmbua, poved a e cue caed Od Euope pendo opean cuue of Eope fom bewee 6500 ad 500 BCE  wa caacezed by a dmance of wome  a mafoca ad pobaby manea ocey a wa egaaan, peacefu, ad focued on e wo p of a godde o excuivey ncanaed e ceave pcpe a oce and gve of a 1 oweve, e pooIdoEopea cuue a epaced  beween 4500 and 500 BCE wa paaca, ieac ca, and waoiened  ubequeny epaced e ong and powefu femae dee wi pedomnay mae on Te ogandg adion of depcn women in a conued e eae coveno n ac ceaivi, a cuua afac focued excuivey o women, ei poce aive powe, and e domnance wi e cuue n a ima manne, e  we ex a uvve  of Smea on, dang fom e id menum BCE  i a aced naave a  a e cyce of e godde a oybyfocung o a femae pogo mae GeekInanna, epc eoe nealy wo pedae ouand yea 14 n   e poduc of a cue i wic women ed mpoan ega ig uc a ownig pope ad engagng in bune Wien n pcogapc cefom, dozen of caved one mage ave been dcoveed a  ae e ex Iaa i e main caace epeened, uuay wi nu eou wope  aedace ycadc a fom e Aegea Iad 00 C  ao pedae acen Geek a and con of mage of oen ey ae e mo common fom of e giou a foud in Aegean

larng Omon n Traonal eore o r

179

graves sacred hlltop stes and paace snes and may have represented goddess es, priestesses , or ema e worshipers n these cases n whch representatons o women are ceary predoi nant we canot know who created them, but it is possibe that women partook n the creative production in these eras ven recent theories abou he creaon o Greek ar creaed n a pararchal cuue manan ha women parcpaed n he sudos and workshops o various medims in cluding sculpue painng, and pottery makng Wheher or no women partcpaed n the actua creation o the thousands o artacts predat ng Greek art these obects show us that the orgns o art are steeped n cu tua practces that ncuded women as subect maer Gender now pays a mportant role i n re visionist histories o art l ike Stokstads )  hey have not however been utiized as aesthetc paradgms Aesthetcs has been content to remain ted to the concepton o a patrarcha arword concev aby begun n acent Greece that incuded ony male artists he varous oes women payed n preGreek art were not an soated ccurence n the hstory  art. Rather there s a cntnuum o women who unctioned in he roe o artst ecause they ignored the medieva norm o aonymt, we know o women manuscrpt iuminators: nde c 975), Carcia who promoted herse in a seportrat and signatue o the boo part o the on a page o a who wethcent psater), and Hidegard o eer ingenQ (108117) was not onyGerman an ab bess o signicant repute but aso a composer, author and iustrator o sprtua vsons experenced n her sixt years o regous e Soonisba Anguissoa was he rst woma to gain recognton in he Renaissance, oten exchangng her deicate drawings o ntimate amy sengs wth Mcheangeo oogna was a ct that boasted a nmber o woen schoars as we as wo dozen women panters incuding the re nowned Lavinia Fontana who eventualy become an ocia painter o the papa cout ad a avorte artist o the Hasbugs As a daughter who apprentced in er athers studio, Lavnia pregued a number o artsts such as the aroue aian painter temisa Genlesci, aso a painter o regious scenes n Hoand, Judth Leyster gained repute as a portrait panter So dd her successors Anna Mara Sibya Meran a panter o owers rus brds, ad insecs and Rache Ruysch primariy a oer painter. he eighteenth centuy wtnessed the achevements o a number o sgncant women zabeth Godrey was a renowned London siver smth Angeica Kaumann was a hstory painter who  1768 became one o ony wo women among the oundng mebers o the Roya British Academy o Panting ad Scuptue She and Mary Moser were deber atey excuded ro Johann oanys ous pantng Acaemcan o e Royal Acaemy o 17717, repesented instead as busts se on a wa

Grng Omssns n Trdton Teores oArt



of art Aow me to exp ain a few exa mpes of recent f eminis t scho arship docuenting reasons why women have come t o achieve on y a sma  mea sure of recognition and success within art theoriing  97 Linda Nochin prompted an entire ream of new schoarship based on an nteres t in gende r by askng the question Why hae there been no great women artists "  She in itiated the ex poration of accoades which consistenty euded women in the arts She began investigations into the uderpinnings of arthistorica rakings and artcritica evauations Her work resuted n uncove ring the socia , economic, and poitica dimen$i ons of ife that precuded womens f prticipation in the arts through the centurie s She di sco sed the condit ions by which wom en were consistenty nurtured to be es s than creative, autonom ous , and independent bein gs or exampe, uder the aw, women were denied the rights of fu citienship ega representation, the right to inherit, the right to vote Ofen the ratio nae was based on weent renched but unc haenged phioso phies by which the status of women in the sixteenth trough the ninete enth centuries devi ated itte from A ristote s categori ation of them as deformed mae s hey were seen as ess rationa, ess virtuous, and, in ine with eary and medi eva Cistian theoogy, antithetica to the higher pu rsuits of the mi nd d spirit 8 hey we re the repository of bodiy based passions and unco ntro abe emotions Evedary was to considered personication of these evis she of was not ony secon Ada (i ethe , man in genera but aso the source his downfa  As  ess than fy rationa, wom an was es s than fy hua n Wit theores that advanced eves of huan nature determined by sex, coor, and cass, women were cons istenty assin ed an i nferio r status It is no srpr ise that basic rights to educati on were den ied and that w hen femae artists, writers, and musicians appeared, they were considered anomaies and excuded by phiosophers from the ranks of great art"  or these reasons, feminist schoars have considered it futie to assess the productivity of women in terms of maedened criteria hey have been suspicious of the most basic concepts of art history and art criticism, such as  genius and master piece " ( the atter douby f raught with sexist pretation and racist and overtones, udgments andofhave vaue question heyedhave the standa soughtrdtoparam impement eters of other inter modes of iquiry in order to try to uderstad the ack of esteem which womens art has su ered  heorists Griseda oock and Rosika arker extended the anaysis of women artists to issues of cass, citing the sexist ideo ogy of eary art histori ans who purpose y faied to in cude women i n the ocia history of ar t as i t cae to be recorded hey aso unsuccess fuy attempted to nd a term equivaent to od masters as evidenced by ther tite, Od Msesses omen Art nd Ideoo Most importat, feminists have come to designate a particuar type of

1

B R D

has been ar t as feminist t ." The  g ebte essays, of al colection critic rd's G D. ay a nd M

livey. Norma Broude The Power of Femnist

e rst twenty-ve years of feist art incuding a variety o  ening " em nst a tP Fo nstan e at ist Judy Chaes o o ap

Art, cr oncles

a o sug gests

Tr e eminist art embodies a alue system based o the opportuity or empower ment or eeryoe rather tha the otio o striig or power oer others whch is the patriarchal para�igm.23

Crtc Lucy Lppard considers feminist art an ideology, a way of life .24 But

aodin to Linda Nohn hee is no suh thing as emi st at n gen ea" ay Key onus hee  s no suh thing as eminst at ony at inoed by dieent eminsms." n spte o theoeta suspiions even yog omen atists adm it the inuene o  emns m on thei wo Ann aiton (bon in 1956) wtes You nt sepaate you ie om emi nis Ho an you now what you e woud be ie wthout that nd o ontext? "  At the vey eas t a haateaton o em nist a t in udes  tsts ntention to potay a poitay based deoogy o gende ep

esentaton and ge nde e qualt y Thus emnst at is ty pially dened 

o o the 19 60s to the pesen t As stated ea e t woud be anao nst d mistaen to a eae wos by women eminist Pehistoi ee enassane and othe wos may have been eated by women but the y are not consdered feminst.

hs tee have been many emnist theoies about womens at with o tee beng one denng theoy o  emn st at No wi thee be oe oo ng t s a mstae to tanspose phoso pha goas o denng " to enst investgat ion s As Rita Fe s has agued emin st it  s does not need an (autonom ous) aesthet."  t s uia to eogne ta te a o suh a theoy does not indate a sgnant aue on the p o teoists t s not that emnists wtng about at see a denng teoy that nvesay on e and o a denes at" and sets the paam e tes o ts ntepetaton and evauaton Rathe the esistane to one oea teo omes om wth n emis m tse  As n em nst theoin g n ets epstemoogy andsees the ph osophy o si eeand no to oneaow theoy naes. enst shoashp to avoid essentiasm odom a poeaon o vews n the eognton o puast ta appoa hes  eists atuay ai to agee wth eah othe Phosophes o ouse dsaee as e but the agenda is aday deent hey ae sti en esed n the tadtona entepse o ndng the b est  mo t usve  ui vesa denton o a t" t is sgniant to note that the age o  puas m as oy eent been anowledged by Athur Danto Feminist and othe osode teosts have been atvey engaged n estabishng a age o

aring Omissins in Traditina Teries f Art

13

p uasm or d ecades emn st art has bee n expan ed  n terms o cont ext snce t began n the 160s Any theory o emnst art that derentates t rom emnst at necessay taes the context o the atwod ts past hstoy and ts contnung conventons and nsttutons nto accont. n act gven ts potca natue (Lppad once caed emnst at popa ganda"   one mght say that thee can be no theoy o  emnst at t hat s not contextua n natue Gven ths pedspos a o emnst theoes towad contextuat  how do standad contexta ph osop hca  theoes are PHL O SOPH CAL HEO RES AN D DE ONS O AR evea ss es bea emphaszng when we oo  bac at the hstoy o wtng about at n tems o ts ntena dnamc compex nteactons as we as ts nteconnectons wth phosophca aesthetcs. At tmes one seems to pedate and detemne the othe whe at othe tmes they wo n t andem  Atstc and hstoca ctea o evaat ng at d d no t ase n a vacm compete y sep aate and outsde phos ophca nteests  Lewse the ph osophy o art was not mmne om ovewhemng nences o cetan tpes o at hed n hgh egad hs was especay te dung the tme n whch at hstoy was beng wtten" n the nneteenth centuy wth the musems that and the demacaton Hgh o Atartom t s pe hapsse nooconcdence Heges hstocaotheoy was ow a podct o ths tme. At no tme n tese theoetca deveopments-o museums at hstoy phosophca aesthetcs -wee women atsts o theos ts aowed to pay a ea oe  One wod hope that sch ns art was shot ve d But even n the twenteth centuy especay wth egad to the domnant phosophca theoe s o at womens npu t has been negg be  he ente hstoy o art has been based on paradgms  s the hstoy o the geat mastes" wos o gens and mastepeces" he hstoy s ceay taceabe bac to the Gees hghghted wth the names o such scuptos as Poyetos and Paxtees n spte o the Renassance wte Vass ct ng sevea women n h s enowned Lives f te Artists� mae art sts hve domnated the estabshed hstoczng o at as a schoay ed and academc dscpne. Pessue om emnst at hstoans has oced the canon to become moe ncsve bngng ecognton to othe atsts as we moe exapes by atsts o coo new expanatons o Amecan ndan atac ts an d cutue and ente econcep tuazato ns o the way at hstoy had been pevosy cast o nstance the casscaton o cetan peopes as ptve has been ethought the oots o Acan at have been taced bac to the zenth o Egptan cvzaton the at o Asan and Pacc ctes h as gane d n statu e the co ectve abe o othe s no onge attache d to any ctue deent om the pe domnant Weste n

84

 R D

d  ener dse ton o te hstorybyprdig m pproch hs become td rd prt e n t of chges o f eitism seism rcism nd homo hoi  The isto ry of rt hs coe under scrutiny s hs its fondtion of esthetic criter -crter estbished by whte mes f n uppercss eighte enth cent uy uropen societ who use red n t he bir th o f moder esthet cs

Phlos ophers, who rrely rgue fr the rtstic sttus of  work of a rt tht

hs not redy been deemed  pardigm b rt critics or rt historns

continue to res upon versions history its Thus phi osoph c theorizing neyntiuted three decdes behindofinartupdtng prdgms ven this f ct t is n o s urprse to red voumes o f writings i n esthet cs nd d no references to women rtsts If one rere  s to on mitton eut is the ide  but one cn ony srmise s to whethe r women -who ere owed  roe i n the Repubic i n wging w nd governnce - woud s be o wed to prticipte in the rts In reviewing rsto te on trgedy e re re nded t it ws inpproprite for  feme chrcter to be

nly or clever de to her nfe riorty In ddit on, "r ' deed s it-

tn ir onic y ecuded women from performng wom en s roes on stge! hen eih teenthcentury empiric ists i ntroduced gender into esthetc ds= corse ntre nd rt becme feminine (the betifu) or mscune (the

sim e)8fuoes t coe s ny thtethempr e sbe ws rnked ns roe wssrise s pssve of beut goo bove d ony  ? Wom the bet t Some weknown theories of rt were promugted ked oo n bei fr  sever of the most not orio s miso gynists n the hstor y of phiosoph e Schopenhuer nd ie tzsche ee in eepn with istote cie d tht onknd" is constituted tough suppression. This does ot e n tht their theories of rt were necessri misogynistic but it

certainly insred that their base of artstic examples excluded women as artists o  pr with men .

ve these phiosophic  convictions women were denied ctive roes

in the estblish ing of the philosophi cl foundt ions of esthe tics d ened

recoition s rtists in the production of rt nd ecude d from estbish

i the criteri for coniz ng rthistor cl stles nd pe rson e 29 Aesthet

ics s edered scuine from the be in nin g These ae strong chrges i ght of phi osophy's c ims to prsu e criteri  for deton nd evu to tht  purportedy univers nd obective Wht feminst schors hve tried  sho nd I wi continue to gue beow) is tht ny th eory rortin to be univers but bsed on b ise d crteri with   imted rng e of apicabii is nherenty lawed .

esthetic eorists pc ed signicnt emphsis on the noton of disint er estedness seting the stge for the dvent of esthet c itude theories nd sotist theories tht precuded contetu dt fr om being reevnt

Glrn Oon n Trdtonl eore of Art 5

to the aesthetic experiencing of art Information about the artists srcins and intentions was considered irreevant and the theories of Stonit and eardsey among others s ought to iso ate art from its s ociohistorica con text at a cost Consistent with their predecessors twentiethcentury aestheticias appropriated their paradigms from the same art history as did previous phiosophers In order to meet the chaenge of expain ing Duchamp s ountn Warhos rllo ox ad other conceptua art in conjunction with Wittgensteins antiessentiaism-theories arose that took socioogica (institutions of art) and arthistorica contexts into con sideration wo main eaders in this move were hur Danto and George Dickie heir writings contained the germ of theories subsequenty pro posed by Lucian Krukowski Jerrod Levinson No Carro and Marcia Eaton According to Stephen Davies' Denton of Art theories of art divide into three categories functiona procedura and historica/intentiona Even within contemporar theoriing about art however the range of paradigms he cites is grossy skeed to white mae artists he probem with these theories is n ot j ust that omen have been eft out o f the wrien and conceptua histor ies of art nor that they sti fai to fnction within  history rt criticism and aesthetics as paradigms of art" or good art" Rather its thatincompete theoriingand about art-as guided by this tnarrow of paradigms-is conceptuay inadequate cannotrange encom pass a rt because the stipuated precedents from history and criticism prec ude the broader spectrum of what counts as huan expression and creativit his expains continua chaenges to existing theories: What about the case of drifood Savador Dais pe of rocks Absrcina art Naive art Grati art Digita art Lt us ook at some o the anguage used to stipuate the narrow range of paradigms and the way such paradigm s are estabi shed  n D icie' s to vesions (and reated writings) of the nstitutiona heory no woma art ist is cited athough the deitions a per reativey genderneutra n the rst denition a work of art is an artifact that as been bestowed uon it the or art status Dickie of artthis bymeas someone thequaied continuum within of practices-conventions the ongoing institution of that constitute the ongoing practice or institution of rt Davies desig nates Dickies theor as inadeqate and ahistorica" since it stipuates roes that embe rs of the artord hod without pro vidi ng an particuars of those ro es  n other words Dickie fais to haraterize the roles t hat geerate the strtre of that istittio their o ies, their lmit atios, the rmsta es  er whih the hage , the oitios for their opa, a so o

6

BN

d to Thus D ic kie as faile

mpify te details o art istor which unction

as te  a    s teoy teeb eaving open to speuation te spe is o  o as oupie tose oes in te past wo oupies tem now an o i oe to oupy tem in te futue. (Moe on tis in te ti se  tio n) hat is in spite o Diie s ovesim pie   ai  tat anyone  ou" be  atist witin the atwo soe eetion on te soioistoia esti tions on women suh as those esibe by Pae Poo an

No lin (see seti on 1 ) wou pompt us to questio n is gene aizati on. e o evise vesio nwho o te tutiona  teoy about alt ough eae,itstill seesinstimoe inomation the autho o  o avies

as s pes os i te atwo by wi tey ma   ne te status o atoo  

Fe ini sts ve aske te sam e tpe o ques tOn o eas t oug not n te sae teinolog. Tey too  have hallen ge te autoit o te phi-

osoes o taste o the eighteenth entuy, te histoians o at o te ietee t ent, te at itis an theo ists o te twentiet ent  t a eas tat piosopes ave ome ate ate to te uamenta ques tions tat a enge te vaiet y o poeues by wi enitions o at ae oe to be oie iven tis state o tings te poeua ap � poa a be suspet in a its manies tations e t's tae anote exampe. n Aer the n of Art Contemporar Art Pale of istor At anto isu sses te expe ts who aoe a th te stats o t to Wao's Brillo Box an Duamps ountain Th exerts reay were experts in the same way  which astroomers ae experts on hethe somethng is  st hey saw tht these works hd meanings which ther ni scerible coterpats lacked and they saw as well the way these works odie those meanigs

 ee tese expets e at itis we pesue empowee by te at o antos theoy) an autoize by te institution o at on Dikie's te ory). Wo eeme tem expert? I is uclear, althoug te

a t astonomy impies tat tese ae pesons euate an ex eee in nowing about at, emnisent o Hes quae peson  taste.

tataiatwos by women ai toe be itewh as paaigms an to be onsiee expet xpains the paagms itis at e epesentative o te atwo popuation s is an y t eai ess esting given ant s eent au stment o is  amitte pi y inte seat eess a  onenng t e eat o at  n po wit ngs   a e tat at, in its inea pogession  a Hege) , a eae it e   a at east eae te point at whih it ha neay tune i isophy He as subsequenty eonsiee an now enes te ese ent in at as open an at te onution o essentiaism a s .

rng Oon n Trton Teore of Art

17

As we seek to grasp the essece o at or to spea les s portetous ly, o a adequate pilosophcal deito o artou tas is iesely aciitated by the recoi to that the extesio o  the ter wor o a t s  ow atogether ope, so that i  eect we lie i a tie whe eerythig s poss ible or atsts

Sti boowing om Hege e caims tat eedom dees o postis to ca pe iod o at it stip ates o moda te s o isto  The sese i which eerythg is pos sible s that i which there are o pror co stats o what a wor o isual at ca loo  ie, so that ayth isibe  ca be a isua  wor Ths s part o what it really eas to le at the ed o at hisor y

s sod come as good news o women atists wo woed otsde te pae o isto (e aced pae/wte o so ong and o eminst teosts wo deveoped atenatve teoies o at tat deviated om te caonca nom  we ae t ving at t e end o at isto sevea pos sibities ie beoe s  One is to consde oseves at a moment n time wen we ca sa good iddace to te od excsvi o at isto and wecome to te new t t's n ot ce a wat ato o esees as te new s to no ow  t w come to be geneat ed He cit es Woin wit i s een s ense o stoca modai  tes-naowness o poss bostac and impossb sstoas gi de bte sKennet exam pesCa ee ct te consevatveasat and obet Hges8 n anto's vsion o te te te ange o pos sibties o at st extend no te tan Gnewad e eboc enin oicei Loenzo d Cedi Caavaggio Pintcco Cobet Giotto Cevantes Gecino Feebac anet Possin te oognese mastes Paxtees Va eegeen Vemee bens embandt te po·stmoden mastepece o te Ameca pante sse Cnno ad  te te mastepiece o te te eoes o  postistoica peiod poststoca mastes  Koma and eamid t appeas tat at paa dgms n a poststoca peod ae no dieent n tems o gende om ones om a istoica peiod ao ma simp aswe s cage b caming tat women atists imp ict om pa t o te canon o at bt is negigence in ctng tem  prgmgt ead s to vew s esponse as ad oc ad na de ae  women aiss ccs and e ss ae pa o te posis oica age o p ai sm w ae e no m enone d paod oe ponted given tat Cono's wo consists o joint ng bens's Rpe of te ugter of Leucppu and Pcasso's eoee Avgnon wic e women ben g caed o b e two oseme n ae imitatons o Picasso 's women (aead an app opation o Aican at  ow do we nepe ano's dgmen o s as a masepiece  mc ess as comc ? e ing wa is nn can be de icae gende ad ace specc4  is esionabe o some emnists wete an ape scene can

con s an arisic maserpece  mc less weer a parodi ed rape scene can ever be conside red comic  even if approp riaion is fashion able and somei mes fnny in he 1990s

Consid er severa l oer sorical e ion s as well  Lcin Krkowski akes e lin of conempory ar  wi is p as and fre a bsolely e pici41 Similar o Danos eory is accon siplaes a ar sas is dependen upon saring eseic properies wi esablised arworks In oter words, what coun ts s at are tose tings tat sae properties

i pas and fue ar If owever as I ve poined o wa is cons id as ar" is sspec ed  en n eo ry a necessarily lins a o eredpapst is similarly suspect. Of cose, it could be te case tt Kukowthe skis noio n of pas ar wold inclde qils by American women poery by African naives nd absrcinl bark painings b e as no made is elici  and is relice pon esblised arworks limis im o e same old traditional cnon of art history.

ol Crolls eory is necessarily ied o a narrowy deed ps s ell4 2 is siplaion a ar is a clser of clal pracices direcs a enion awy from ps arworks o pas pracices ad  e pers ons r espon sible for ose pracices Like Dickies insiuional eory, Carroll's eor

relies pon  model of isoricl evolion wi an empasis on well esablised" pracices I embeds crren eoriing of e noion of ar"

in practices structred within the artworld as we know it. This mens t hat ineried biases nd narrowness deermine e same range of pradigms.

errod evin sons isoric is deniion of a also relies pon

iss in

tention s tat tie teir cretion to past art.43 The artist's itention must be regded in one of the wys in which past at has een regar ded correctl But t e notion of being regarded correctly " packs a considerable amount of preceden and bis, as in e oer heories

Even  rci Eaons eory is sspec Her eory wic relies pon

"talk bout

a

"

s bot a nec essry and sufcient conditio n in dening

 siplaes  arifacs no alked abo are ony poenil works of ; eydo no con s ar nil ey re alked or wrien bo wiin

aestetic trditions," that is, within the trd itions of history, criticism,

nd  eory4 omens qils ae menioned s an eam ple of obecs a

by aenion" other works women tht re lly ingyrecognied as wory of serios bhave er been eoryso exclude many inevitabl ould

f igored by ose wo roinely alk abo ar e reqiremen of n asthtc dion precldes ordinary alk for emple alk by women bo eir qils from elevaing qls o e sas of ar e silence srodig womens ar leaves innmerable emples of poenial   depenen on  mledominaed arworld s Eaons coice of aori ri ges from e isory of ar criicism leaves er open o e same cage of rown ess

A FNS HORY OF AR Pehaps a spe eedy fo the naowness of phosopha aesthets s sp to add woen and st" t to do so s to sdestand the oe of gende n tansfong the anstea the aon and the tad to n and to spee ve the po ssbt of t nng theoes of fenst at nto oe ope fenst theoes of at. Consde a ote fo Ath Danto egadng the pota atvtes of the sbvesve atwod gop known as the Gea Gs The group hastobee exceedigly i its o meas and i itsis aspirit It isheld euiely collaborative the pot that theradical aoymity its members ercely secret apeaig i gorila mass i s a metaphor or that d the at o t his superordiate etity is certaily a orm o direct actio  ts members paste the walls o Soho with rilant itg posters But the message o the posters s that ot eough wome ae epeseted  museums i  mao shows i imotant gaeies S o it evisages atistic success  the taditoal let us say usi the cocept white male tems Its means ae adica and decostuctive ut its goas ae atogethe coservatie 

Coentng on the soewhat paadoa haate of the Ge a Gs " Dato ee pes a tp a s ndest andng of the fenst agenda he Gea Gs have oe to syboe the ebodent of fenst pot a atvt  as stateges  they ae ted  detened , ad skf4 hey ae ot n foe, opeatng openy n the atwod patng a banaa on a pb  po d o postng a a noeent deyng the op pessve gende po ts at the Whtney h ey ae not o ny atteptng to ba ae the nstttona saes so that gende et ght be aheved n the atwod bt they ae aso atteptng to aday a te the atwod tsef Danto seosy destates the ase n tes of both ntentonat and pota aheveent  askng why they stve fo atst sess n tadtona, onsevatve, whte ae tes Dato s eay askng why they don't jst eate the own atenatve atwod o why they aen't ore fenst he rony s that as woen seek the attenton, respet, and pase of at ts, often the foothod ganed s dnshed by what gets sad abot the hey seed n seng ta attenton whe beng staneos y derne d her goas ae dsms sed as ato gether on sevatve" ther otvaton s reded to a dese to be aepted on hte aead tes" On the onta y, ost fenst s do not wat o break nto the atword as t now ests tradtona heaha, onsevatve, ad foded on whte ae tes." he goas ae to be nded n ses as those ses start to weoe a vaet of works n a tre sprt of openness they want ajor sho ws ad port at gaer es t o vae the r work for how t edenes o d sads astepee" ad gen s" hey seek to ov e be

19

B R D

yo e ae o at stoy y eatng t he next ta e a one that vae s ato caus they dvege fo the whte, ae vewpont and tad

tona aesthet nos of evaaton. (Not ony when they aese and pf, as n the ase of Shean ) A ty new age wo d nde  oen and atsts of oo  s ng ad a and deon stve eans towad the en d of ateng (pehaps ab oshng ) the atwod. n pho sopha tes, ths wod ean the n x of fenst theoes of at nto aesth ets . What ght sh theoes ook ke ne sgested deton, as en toned fo eae, s theofnstttona at.8 Daveswho dststs  teoy ts ak aatontheoy abotofthe atsts have Dke's the a thoy to on fe the stats of athood b y vte of the opyng a oe wtn te atwold to whh that athoy aahes. e estons how a peson oes to ae sh athoy a t a pat a te and not othes, and ow the atwod pessts togh te Dickie needs to sa y something abou the history of at not in order to expain why awoks ae as they ae now but athe to explain why he Awold is as i is ad hence to explain why the pocess by which at status can be achieed d the estrictions on who mig ht eectiely use this process are as they ae

A k gane bak at Danto eveas that ost f not a peope ae abe to soethng at Fo De totheoy. hod theDaves sae bntodes ee f wod not be ake nonsstent wthnttheo ondtons of hs a new te to Dkes theoy, deoat, ntended to haateze the nate of the oe of atst n h stoy. Aodng to D aves: Dickie should descibe the stuctue of the Artwold sowing how dieen oles wihin he insiuion aac o hemsees dieen amos o kinds of auhoiy To thatstory he shoud add an account of the ogaic hstorcal natue of the n siuion in ode to expain how i migh come o hae is pesen "democaic stuctue

Atogh  eognze the ogeny of Daves' (and othes') te of the vageness of the nstttona theoy,  beg to de wth hs aot he atwod has neve been deoat hs s te fo Daves exapes of the fteenth enty hobby pantes be no atsts, as we te enteth entywhen Fo nstane,  wodod wagenot that woan odas ave poded Fountan hat s , even f soe woan, fo exa pe , Meet ppehe o annah h, had dated and sgned a ans na, t wod neve have eted the sae aenton o aa as Dhap's. (ay fo .Q and othe asne Dhapan gestes.) Ahogh Daves dssses the hstoans and soa anopoogss ap poah, they ght be exaty what s needed.  shod be no ed a hs pon ha  adona aeshe s ha s neve been eage o deake a sooogal appoah o a ea Maa Eaons

aring Ossions n Traitona Teores of Art

191

wnng n smss o socoogc ccouns o  ke  o mxs eshecs Oe o the problems with a xism ( and other sociologies o a t is that it assmes a coectio betwee art and so ca eatres that has yet to be show to exist hat is it presupposes the exstece o lawlie coectios betwe social actors and atistic creatio

Gven he sk eptc sm bout the em pc vecton o such connect ions, Eton smsses ny suc h ppoc h s estetc socooy : Marxism ideties atwors with their cotexts and hece does ot allow us to see what is specia abot them here is a sese i whch arxist aesthetics ceases to be aesthetics at all

ut mnt nn  stctue s bout wh t couts s esthetcs  s pecsey wht mpees pogess n pusung ccton o the soc ctos su  oung te ceton n stbuton o t A contextu theoes, n cung Eto n, e bse pecse y on suc con necto ns such connectons consttute the ounton o  contextu theoes o t Eton conms ths when she sttes tt outse the context o soc n cutu pc ces n co nventons ,  t  oes not m ke sense   Wht s neee s somethng ke  emnst ccout o the two tht hs ooke seousy t the wy the oes o the nsttuton hve been mete out to  ptcu supoput on coss the centues   women n pesons o coo hve consstenty been ene ccess to these oes, the two cnnot c  t se emoctc  they continue to be  ene , the t wo w nev e be emoctc  e uthoy b y whc h the two po cees em ns nst tut on y nct e hecy, the pvie n o powe, n he en  o ccess emn nsttu tonze  ( n the most negt ve sense o the tem) : ozen n p ce. hee s n o wy ou othe tn c ep  te om t e ongon g soc pctces e c estuc tung  vocte  by te Gue Gs n ote emnsts s pecsey wt s neee Fo tht y ye s, emnsts hve been nvove wth th e pocess o esh ng out wht  ety o such theoes mght ncue Gemn, Fench, tsh, n Ame c emnbout sts ve the ntseg  vey o ppoches to theozng teAsbte  bck the pts 1970s,oGse Ecke popose  the oowng : Femiist aesthetic theory must sst that al iestigatios ito at hae to be thr gh genered    A truly gederised perspecte would mea that the sex male or emaeo both the artist and the critc is take ito account his aso implies ther relatio to gederaues i the istitutios ad wthi the theories they appy

Mny othe teo sts e su pote ths vew Gven the suggestons o Stephen ves , one pomsng ppoch s p o

arng Om ssons n Traona Theores of Ar

93

Daves na sggesons do no seny ove sh  agenda fo wad Hs a fo a poedas appoah dssses he fonas appoah by whh a s dened d gaged by ndvdas eaons o a paa ss o dsss he fnonas appoah s o deny he poane of he dves of eaons a  nspe He ens bey o these aes when he sae ha he pay fon of a s o po vde enjoyen d ha  a  have fae ahng soa be nes as we   hs a ha  Good awos, popey appoahe d and de sood, aod en oyen s  nvoes a sdad of pope ed n he pas Consde hs onaon of hs oo bawad Stndd for the roer roch o twork e governed by ntereronl con venton of the Artworl d [whch e gronded n t he htory of the rctic e of the rtworld nd e no ebihe by ulion 

On he onay, onvenons ae ofen esabshed by spaon by e an pesons, n paa oes, whn boade onexs  s a sae o hn ha he soa onexs of hose who have been aowe o se he sdad s es abs h he paes, d esabs h he onvenons ae no eev d ha ony hsoy ons Wha s enjoyabe  aso be gen eaed no wha s good hs s he esfang of Hes pobe of he sdad of ase os fo heofAf o he as nd appeao has no wha  beoe paasofenjoyabe he sadads he awod nsonaz ed n he Wesen wod he deoazaon of enjoyen has no payed a oe n he hsoy of a ebes, n a vae of oes whn he awod, have spy efsed o aow   Fnay, Daves as ha nenona s neessay fo soehng o beoe an awo  he spaes ass nenons as foows he a ae s nend he po d o be vewed n one o ohe of he ways n whh a has bee n oe y vewed n he pas  Agan, he pas ses  he peeden Even he sess of ogna depends on he agens havng a  eogned, esabshed poson of ponene whn he Awod On hs vew os woen, fenss, pesons of oo ae aoaay exded  o sp ae ponen e n he awod as a pees e fo havng he aho o  eae a begs he eson   sgges a en o a oe fonas ao, paay aong he foowng nes Gven he onvenns of he adon aeady n pae whn pho sopha aeshes ,  onvenona fens heoy of a wod n de he fo owng   A eognon ha he pas hs oy of  s, heoy, and pho sophy has b een do naed by a pa a sbpopaon wh a pa a ase d a paa agenda  he awod has b een deoa fo he sa d si onnes o be

194

BRAND

rctin that the oles of author wthin the arworld have had  s in objecti ve criteria and that value udgments issued by such "xpr ae subjectve ad �diosyncratc.

2. A

3 . A rciton

that the HegelI n approach to the lineariy of "art is

 i fails to eco gnize at from a varie of cultes ad across a i ict lenh of tie, art that may not the narown criterin  ilit  4 . A rcti n that seist nd racist assuptio ns have permeated ilic al aesecs a nstitu in the eighteenth andted wenieth the ineteeth cent uries. cenry and c it 5 . A ec giti 

that D-le have bee flled in ways that the arwold

h fald to recognize. th gender and race e essential component of the

6. A rciion

cx i hi ch a tork is c eaed and hus cannot be excluded  cside rati i procedu al ( hisoric al, intentional) deitio ns  a."

F   essetializg  feminist heory of art, these suggestions serve

  t pin  futher discussion beeen philos ophes and femiit i  The unis closed con �entions of the rwold are only fuly ci  li t as rcent schlsh I p develops  Sugge stions 1 - 6 stand as k  cknowledgment: demads for "recognition (or re-cognizing) called for by al covenios

Davies (1) is a geer al  he "iee s ee cll  ateio o the demogaphi cs of the vast maoiy of a t

rcies h have esablished d dominated an democratic a trl (2) onshes he gues who have i stitution alized aworld role s

 at edicate up he pesumption of objective, unive sal ci

eia. (3) erie he pevasveness o a strict, liear concep of "art

h ail  recnize is ore complex epeitio us and cyclic al nate; h ccei epee heavily upo he nsis tance on srcnali  as an ric cieon, o ha hteve is new coun ts as valuable a  thus eiv. (4) sinle u the legacy of plosophers, especially as they

e cntd  he undatins  at citicis m nd at histoy, as ell

 ter prctice f deriving aesheti  criteria  m those instituto ns and

cll ciplne (5) atteps t cmplicat e he phils phical notion f te D-wk by iiting eection upn acual archeological evidence c  ic  l angenily een cnsidee d par t o the continu � o "r. Towr  end it might b e helpful to expad the unctions

ll ied t elyJwks : beyond the agical , elii us, n d il Fill, (6) ptes  mre inclusiv e ode of oniz ing the

cnens  u e cntex ul theories of at. A crollay might ephasze te viu pe  ere f feminist a and sciological aesthetics

arng Ossons n Traona Theores of Ar

195

that have already ase apat from the aalyt tradto Perhaps a re osderato of at  terms of geder rae lass ethnii ad sexal oretatio wold add a ew dmesio to ftioal aots of at that mght be sed  osort wth proedal de tos hs the glaig omissios  taditioal theoies of at a be or reted Femst theories of at a serve as models for exp adg the ra ge of paadgms wth aesthets ad hallegg ngraed l hes As Hlde Hei remds s, Feminism creates new ways of thinking new meaning s and new categories of criti cal relection i s not merely an etension of od concepts to new domans   

Perhaps, eve wthi the most hstorally bod phlosophies of at, ts tme has ome NOES 1 See Arthur  Danto The Transguratn f the Cmmnpae (Cambridge Harvard University Press 1981); and Victor urgin The End f At Ther Crt sm and Ptmdernt (London Mamillan 1986) 2 Morris Wetz, "The ole of Theory in Aesthetics urna f Aesthets and Ar Crtm 15 (1956)  2 7   3 Arthur C  D anto Aer the End f At Cntemprar Art and the Pae f Hs tr (Princton Princton Univrsty Prss 1997) 4 Stphen Daves Dentn f Art (Ithaa Y Coel Universty Press 1991) 5 anet Wol, The Sa Prdutn f Art 2d ed ew York ew York Uni versity Press 1993) Wol, Aesthets and the Sg f Art 2d ed (Ann Arbor Universt y of ichgan Press, 1993) 6  Danto, Aer the En d f Ar 1 48  7 e Perrone, "Unnished usness 1982 ew York Overvew, mages and ue (anuay/ebrury 1983) 39

fact, snthethetitle f a tetCentur by Albe oime 8 Ths, n Bas The rt  f Exusn Representng Nneteenh Washington, D CASmthsoni an In sttuton Press 1990) I nend the term more broady that is to refer to more than ust the nneteenth century 9 Davies Dentns f Art 97 10 aij a Gmbutas The Gddesses and Gds f Od Eurpe (erkeley Unver sty of Calfornia Press 198 2), 1 0 11 ailyn Stoksad A Ht (ew York Harry  Abrams 199 5  39  2 ales (men and animals represented "spontaneous and lifestmulatng but not lfegenerating p owers Gmbutus Gddesses and G 9



B

  t ssay givs vidnc that disputs this s Larnc Os born, Th  irs g Fr 7 8  557 .  i lsti ad Samul Noah amr, nnn Queen f Heen nd   k ap & Ro  83   xi.  ostad ots that svral omn a mntiond i th ancint ritings o y  ld  At Hstr 27  s o 9 9 , ov 5 prc n o t sts i th Unit d Stats a omn ho   t o artists o a invitd to paticipat in gallry and ms ss    al Pllips h bbott, shosWmen ar blndly jud 3 ratio 5is 2 naly According hal andtohal th n the Artsth t s o omn i th Arts in Washinton, DC., updatd statistics   9798 saso sho only 7 out o 45 soo hbitions at major U.S. mu ss o o  agan, only 5 prcnt  .  ssy s rprtd n Lnda Nochln, Wmen At nd Per nd Other Essays  o rpr and Ro,  88     vv Lloyd, The Mn f Resn "Me nd "Feme n Western PhilosopJ,d d.  apolis: Unvrsty o nsota Prss, 8 4  3 and  a  es be Sex Sent Regus nd Phsph Cnep tons of Woman's tre Bloomngto : Indiana U nivrs ty Prss,  3 . 9 ll tat ay o th omn lstd r mmbrs o th Royal Acadm  i y sssl artists, and cout paintrs It is at istory and posophy   ss nty omittd thm rom th  hstois.   o isti Battrsby, nd Genus rds  Femnst Aesthets  s Prss,  8 Gender Bl oomington:  Unvrsty Prss,   o r ndana  msi mith Cntngenes f Vue Atrnte Perspetes fr Crt cal Theory Caidg arvad Univrsity Prss,  88  ilda Pollo ad Roszka Pakr, Od Mstesss Wmen Art nd de ogy  o Pathon Books,  8.  o Bod ad May D. Garad, ds. The Pe f Femnst Art The Aercan t f te s Hstr nd mptN ork: brams, 4.   Ii, 7 3  Ii.  .  y Lola ighing in o minism, ARTnes 6  7 42    ls, y mnsm Dosn t Nd an  sthti c d Wy It Can t Iis  i Femsm nd Trdtn n Aeshetsd Pg Zglin Brand  l osyr Univrsity Pak: Pnsyvania Stat Unvrsity Prs , 99,3  to r te Ed f Art 7   Br, A Phsph Enqur nt te Orgn f Ou des f the Suble and  d J T Boulton Notr Dam Univrsity o Notr Dam ss 98 9  ag should not b considrd as rrsnting a signicant co pl to his td. Apat rom hr popuaity wt music ducators, sh is ly  i sthtics asss or nludd in astht cs anthologis. 30   Zgli Bad, minism in Contxt A Rol or min ist Tory in

arng Omssons n Tradona Theores ofAr

19

Aesthetc Evauaton  n Cntemprar Phlsph fAt adngs n Analt Aes thets  Joh W B eder and H. Gene Bocker (Englewood Cls NJ. Prentce Hall 199) 10621. 31. George Dcke Art and the Aesthet An nsttutnal Analss (thaca N. Cornel Unversty Press 1974) 32 Daves Dentns f Art 94  33. George Dcke  The Ar Crle A Ther fAr (New ork Haven 1984) 34 Danto Aer the End f Art 1 95  bd 197 35. bd. 36 37 bd, 198 38 bd 199 39 bd, 199210 40. See y orthcong Pardes as Plts whch dscusses enst theo es o huor n copson to tratonal theoes wrten by Pato Arstotle Hobbes Hutcheson, Kant, Schopenhauer, Keregad, Bergson, reud, and others 41 Lucan Krukowsk A B ass or Atrbutons o Art,  urnal f Aesthets and Art rtsm 39 (1980) 6776 4. No ro Art, Practce and Natve, Mnst 71 (1 988 )  14056 Croll enton s us anne Langer and Ey Modern Dance but the  ajorty o hs exaples consst o ae phlosophers ad tsts 43 Jerrold Levnson Denng Art Hstocaly Brtsh ual  f Aesthets 1 9 ( 1979) 32 50 44 ca uelde Eaton Bas ssues n Aesthets (Belont Cal: Wads worth 1988) 94 45 Danto Aer the End f At 147 46 See er webste at .guerrllagrls.co. 47 One exaple o the new dversed aproach s Phoebe rsDurene, Ves f lr Art and Set n the Ameras (Atlantc Hgh lands NJ . Han tes Pess 1997) 48  an extenson o Dckes theors on evaluaton,  have gued or a ore workable raework or understandng e type o ctcal stateents tradtonaly used to evalue works by eale tsts. See "Evauatng Art A enst Case or Dckes atrx Syste n nsttutns fArt Resderatns f Gerge Dke's Phlsph ed Robert J. ana (Unversty Pak Pensyvana State Unversty Press, 4) 87107 49. 199 Dentns fArt 95 Daves 50 bd., 97 51 Eaton, Bas ssues n Aesthets 8788. 52 bd, 88 53 bd., 96 54 Gsela Ecker, Femnst Aesthets tras. Hret Anderson (Boston Beacon Press, 1985 ) 22. 55 Wol Sal Pdutn f Art 7 56 bd. 27.

1

B

D

57 l Aeth and the  fArt 79 58  Felsk Beynd Femnt Aethet Femnt Lterature and a

(abrdge arard Uners Press 989)58 59 es entn f Art 220    22  61 de en he ole of Fens Aeshecs n Fenst heor  Fem ns and ratn n Aethet 44

11 Non- Wesern A r and Ars enon S E PHEN DA VI ES he membes of all cultes always have engaged n stoytellng, dawng, cavng and whttlng, song, dce, and actng o mme Fequently these actvtes ae ted to socal nctons, such as the poducton of tools, the enactment of tual, the pesevaton of a hstocal ecod he peva sveness suggests that they ae ntegal, not ncdental, to the socal ends they seve Wheneve tems wt h hdles ae made, those hdles ae deco ated once pots ae thown, they ae maked wth depctons o pattes when a couple s maed, thee s sngng and dancng Moeove, the sklls dsplayed n the execse of these actvtes-fo nstance, n th caves teatment of hs chosen medumae wdely espected d valued It seems evdent that these pactces aose ndependently wthn geo gaphcally sepa ated soc etes, athe th ben g nveted once d subse que�tly tsmtted though culta l contact No do ubt thee has lon g been ntecose betw een socetes concenng su ch mattes, but ths must oe n have dealt wth nnovatons n tpes of at on that alea dy wee famla he pactces ust descbed c easonably be alled atst, I beleve, d the ubqut suggests that at s unvesal Atstc atvt may not be neessay fo hm an soal lfe, but, f not, t appeas to be an nevtable spno fom thngs that ae Its constan t pese nce ndcates that t answes and gves expesson to deeply nganed hm needs d pattens of e peene hs st  bsevaton should be ouple d wth anothe, the sgna ne of whch s easly ovelooked  We ae a tofsthe made by people n cultues othe than ocapable own doffecognzng dentfngthat many atwoks as suh I am mpessed by how acessble to Westenes s muh subSahaan musc, Chnese pantng, and woven capets fom the Mddle East If at eles on a omplex semotc system, o on  atmosphee of theoy, ths eognton would be spsng, fo suh thngs ae ultally 199

200

DAVIES

ri I a wee as ths vew supposes, e might lean o infe that t sit s have t, o somethn g ke t, trough ve y cose contact nd s, t as utsdes who e agely gnoant of the beliefs and vaue s ilin n tse societes, e oud have no medate access to the  a w  have ths access suggests that the popeies cucia n intg  r-regrd somtmes are ones that can be perceved wth very ll ltr-spcifc backgroud knowedge.1 s s n t t eny that thee s lkely to be muh mo e to the art of othe sis  is avaiabe to a outsde Ae consideng etogaphc as   in ten cutures, Richd L. Andeson concludes: rt is lall scant meaning, sklfully encoded n an aectng, sensuo us  2 I  not doubt that he s coet in ths obsevation. But eve n i  s encodes cuturay sgncant meanings" that the outsde is i  si to appecate, somethng moe univesa and basc must   i we re to explan the outsde's esponse In this ven, Dens  sss that Picasso was vadly eacting to vvd aesthet aspects nisit ican crvngs he vieed at th e Paa is du Tocado n 1907 , t  nw ittl o the context n hich they ee pod ued o o  sal ss they seved3 The outside might be incapable o uUy nsin th awoks o othe cultures hee these dea n cultur al sii ngs" but, anevetheless, canoecognze t least someoen and enjoy f this. the artaspets f such ices nss" I s at I dscuss nonWesten art and, n particular, hat ollows   aai f esterners to dent and respond to such pec es as r. Tis cntry has mpcatons for the phlo sophcal deton of I r,  I u in the last setion But beoe addessng these issues,   sy at chalenges oen aised to the dea that thee s non s t a sh I t might be thought that the noti on o at s a Westen  a t e appled, exept etoentcay ad nappopately,   uts and pactces o othe ulres I this wee so, the kind o rgin n rsp ons that I have describ ed above would reveal, not the rsn f  in ther scetes, but the tendeny of Westerners to impose  nual categs upon o ntexts to wh h they do not ap ply 

I I as  n hl by so antropoogsts that thee s no nonWesten at4   is a st one Othe cutes have deen, possby par al, nps the own The artacts o nonWesten cultres become r l  ng aprprated by Westerners to their own a instit utions.5 N, i  lai is that they have the concepts and e have ours, just as I a ls ad you have yours, t s nnouous enough To make

onesen A an As D enon

2

e Wittgenseinian oin, is eveals someing abou e g ma o oss essve on ouns. I does no sow a e nonWesen one mus be een om ous, o a we anno sae e same one But i te aim is ta teis s a dieent onet-not soey in bein g teis as oosed to ous, but aso in its ontent-that needs to be substanti ated (Otewise te aim ooks no ess etoenti tan the osition it sets out to debunk in tat it assumes tat ony te West as aieved at eation, wi is an atvity igy vaued as te mak of iviiation Sevea aguments that have been oeed fo this onusion ae eviewed and ejeted beow In te West, at often is distinguised fom af Tis diotomy is stessed in te witings of Pato, ege, Tostoy, and R G Coingwood, fo exame It is widey aimed tat at aks utiity, being made fo ontemation dstaned fom soia onens; tat atists soud be indif feent to wody mattes in usuing ei muse; a awoks ave an intinsi vaue and soud be eseved and eseted 1£ tese views a ateie te Westen one t of art, many nonWe sten soie ties must ak at one , fo tei a oa and at titude a e dieent  In tem, a  ati fats o efomanes ae eated to meet soiay usefu fntionsmasks ae won n eigiou s itua s, avi ngs oitia te the gods o deoate items fo domesti igten te buden of eetitive abo, oting is use, eatedsongs fo aesteti ontemation Eiteand mostso eoeon soey ae  atists o t e eevantsoia oe s ae ouied by eoe who ae e gaded neithe as e quing a seia  situa it no as meitng a eset beyond wat is due to te sks tey bing to tei wok In many ases, iees a e disaded one tey ave seved the ar tiua uose fo  whih tey wee eated6 I eviewing tis ostion we migt question wete te Westen ide oogy of at oesonds to its eait Is t te ase tat we think awoks ae useess? That atist names a siitua aing? Tat at making is naeted by te maket? Tat awoks ae aeiated ony wen ab stated fom te moa, oitia, and soia settings witin wi tey ae geneated If te answe to tese questions is no (as I beieve it to be, tis ideoogy woud be exosed as a tion, ieevant to te eat of ou onet of at Rate tan deveo ts ine, oweve, I take a dieent tak I aet tat te notions isted above aateie what has oe to be known as ne or ig at Te ne arts were desrbed and ted at te ose of te eigteent entuy, and the asso ated notion of te atist as a g enius nfet tered by te rues of a aft, as we as by so ia onve ntions, was resented at mu te same time Aong with this went te idea that the aestei attitude is a syoogiay distintive state of distaned ontematon

202

D V

e eon of a museus and an nees n he woks of as eas dae fomhe me eod  Po o ha me Wesen ass wee emoy ed as sens nd woked many o ode he a was execed o be fnc ona Is uoses wee o usae and nsuc o uf o degh o ofy o o as aons o move he so ca evonmen o a ea s o make  moe easan Now f  s sy (as I hnk  s o sugges ha hs musc o cheangeos saues o Shakeseaes ays became a eosecvey ony when hey wee ao aed by he a es abshmen  eeb wee absaced fom he ogna sengs and fncons  mus e accee ha hee s a boade noon of a han s coveed by e uc of ne a Fne o gh  s a    s a wh a caa A u  s oy oe kd wh n a wde genus  So we can ag ee wh he anho oos ho aues ha nonWesen cuues do o shae he Wesen noon of e  whou aso acceng ha hs shows hem o ack a o s conce he cuca queson s whehe nonWesen cuues sef conscousy ceae a wh a s ma  somehng ha s oey caed a fo h  shaes wh o basc conce hough he acce mgh no e nstuonazed and de oog cay feghed o he exe n ha os s  son agumen enng o  he concuson ha nonWesen soc ees ae hou  ees on a ngu sc cam  ha he anguages o f hese ctus ack a sg e em daa ha m ansaes ead y o o howeve a 7 hs eao of he n usc sses wha  s a ss ue he ne cux conces he concep ossessed whn nonWesen cues no he vo  cle of he anguages I may be ha a cue emoys a comex ase sea of a snge wod ha we use second co usn once em oved o a soy em does no mean ha we have no c once of ha fama  eaosh. O moe key  ma be ha he cue uses a wod h a efeece ha s aaey oo b oad one ha cove s a ua afacs o a cafs as we as atwoks u ag an hs does no show ha  d oes o mk he eevan conceua dsncons e acen Geek ecne efeed bh o as and o moe mnd ane cafs b u he Geeks acknow ede sca n eences beween he oducs of he acve s coveed by he enea e nd he Fench conscence coesonds o bo h concence and conscou sness bu hs do es no ena ha he Fench o no cm nae between moay and m enaon   h nd na agmen cas ha mebes of adona socees ae unconous of he cue Smy hey do wha hey do e gadng   naa whe emanng obvous of he hsoy of he acces of he nueces ha shaed hem and of he aen fncons 8 seved by he maneance of he adons I s ony n confonaon wh he ohe h an nusve aen esen ce ha he so cety s foced o dene

Nn Wesen  an 's  enn

203

tsef  o efect o its ow chaacte9 C ostucto of cutue cea ie sefdeio ough co tast s the esut he ew is exemped i this passage by da Vckes Toursm dees what Balese culte s  a cotet where suh detos have htherto o t bee eeded   Torsm ecoages Balese to reect o ther ow culte Members of a culte suall lear ad epress ther culte uco scousl t s somethg the have grow up wth a mater of habt Balese culture has log bee a obect of stud For over a cet aous Balese have had to make staemes o otsders, rs Duch scholas ad cvl servats he osts decrbg her cule ad the elemes of her relgo Ths process of artculato h as mea that the B alese h ave had o be cosc ous of ther ow cul e producg oh a sese of prde  her culral de  as Balese ad a abl o sum u wha ma e cosder ed as he esse al asp ecs of culure     a wa hat ca b e cove el dersood b oh ers Tosm s ol o e elemet  hs process of eteralsg clre ad owadas he doesa Goveret plas as bg a roe as osm  he pocess sce h goveret reques formal ratoalsatos ad crera  order hat culral ad atsc actves ca be bu reaucraca descrbed ad suppored

Now if the ceatio of at must be sefcoscous it w foow that membes of oWeste socetes,  bei g bd to the ow cutues coud hae o basctococept at as ad suchthe f they acquie t w beby though exposue Westeofiews, otio woe be aected ous Moeoe, thei atk cutua pactces  hae o defese agaist outsde ueces, hethe good o bad Accodg to aud Kapees, fok music deeops maiy ucosciousy, wth cutua sdes ack g awaeess of the hstoy ad aues of the taditio s a esut, u tutoed sges (i the Appaachas eay ths cetuy) adapt dscm aty fom tadtioa a d extea s ouces  the atua seec to by whch the fok tadito eoes the caot opeate feey, because the odiay pocess of musica chage is cotuousy subet d  egad ths thd agum et to be  suppotabe  he eactmet of cu tue might be agey u coscious  that a socet membes do o t hae to descbe to themsees, o to those who shae the cuua habts, what they ae dog, o why, as they act hey ca o behaoa epetoes ad aues that hae bee  thoough y assm ated ad whch, the efoe, d ot eed to be justed o oked out each tme they e pessed ito se ce Aso, the tasmsso of cutue ceay depeds moe o imtato ad ote eag tha o socia aaysis t does ot foow, howee, that a socet mmbes ae ucoscous of thei cutue i the futhe sese of beig capabe of atcu atg, f occaso  eques , the p actces ad moes Afte a, socoogy woud ot exst uess Westees coud do

0

V

tis! eie e it folo that they ae unab e to eect on the bases and ft f e d tha ake u thei s ocia  fabic  Soc ial pactice s  e iu i one ee that of being enacted unthnngly e nl iutnes but nt in anothe that of being beyond the ae e I  ey he evidene suggests not that societes ae n iee t tei  hioie nd vaues o that they ae insensitive to ie iee bu he evee e if  i epte ta ul al selfons ciou snes s ine vitably pesu p e ee f he he f the outsde i is ad to imagine the ie  i ihu hi e s  cosed goups ecogn ize distin ctions f e ie l an faily  mst ha e long nown of the wide l  e iess exape he Bainese have been explaining thei le  ie uh a the J avanese (with the i d ieent lang uages  elii , uic nce cavng and so on fo moe than ve etie e ill e houd halenge Kapeless assupton that a ile e f evolution explains the ainenace of ad change , f i e lne lie tha of the anthopologsts who con eie f ei uies a ealing ith latent functons not appecat  ei uje, euce he atifcts poduced wthn these cultues to e f eelly pesin objets theain foces of natue eieel  (i iussin nlyses of theshaped poteybyand dances of the eii i s tke his ppoch to ts fo ignoing evels of ie ifestn hat s ahiee  though at poduction does not  le he ept tulaton of goals ad ntentions, it does not fl  ee e abe  he pesevation ad evelopment of cultual it ie e ateio, comitment concentation and defe eef e eial nd the heiage of wos, genes, and sleson e  f e toes a he audienc es  Such tad itons su vive l  e eflly psse o (his s not o insist that iova tion  el  y be exclue fo living tadtons. Instead t is  i a hee hee e sntione , t s because they ae va lued ii e  f he aiio n hch they o ccu  j ie ee i a teneny fo  tos e who would deny that non e e e o onep of at to d esc be the po ducts of those l   f  inoes e atst goas intentons a nd acheve e   iee nife is n of edu ction ceate s the conc lu i   i et fo noneten cultues because t factos out the e of ei tok Bu his eveals mo e about the metho dolog es ele  e ulte suie  s  llustaton , conside  Alfed Gel s eee  e nopolost adopt methodologc al philistnism 

nWesen A nd As Denn

20

Methodologcl phlst ism cossts of tg  ttitude of reolut e  d erece towds te esthetc vlue of wors of tthe esthetc vlue tht they hve eithe dgeously or from the stdpot of universl estheticism Becuse to dmit ths d of vue is equvle t to dmittig so to spe, tht relio s true d ust s this dmissio mes th e sociology of religio mpossible the itro ductio  of esthetics ( the theology of rt  to the socology or ntrop ology of t imeditely tus th e eterp rise t o some thig ese    The tropology of t hs to begi wth  deil of the clims which obects of t me o the people who lve unde r their spel, d lso o ouselves

Now it may b e apopiate fo the ant opoogit to p t aide h i own pehap ethnocentic vae bt ce Ge it cannot be appopiate to the tdy of non Weten at s  that he ao pt aide a co ncen with the aethetic jdgment of the oca cte ince thei a t i c h ony bec ae it poee the eevant popetie ecae he take h methodoogica hi itinim o fa a to eject "the c ai which obje ct of at make on the peope who ive nde thei pe  G e cannot nayze nonW eten  on it own tem In tying to ave antopooy fom becoming "omething ee he tn a t into omething e than it i In hi view it i "a compo nent of the tecnoog y of ench antment y point i thi if it i eentia to omething that it i ceated to poe popetie of a kind that can be ecognized by thoe makeeqtheie eevant jdgment  en identi fing ony ptative intanpepaed ce of thetotype efeence to ch evaa tion even if that poce of identicati on do e not eqie the identie to hae the eeva nt vae . II f nnWeten ocietie wee withot cta efconcione nd if thei atike pactice wee contoed ony by nata evotion athe  than han eign then indeed thee wod be gond fo Whie non and hatthey_ nte  thei podct have n decibed in ch tem thee accont ae  that nonWeten convincng and inting c tead we o not Ihave havethe aged concept above of at againt and do thenot caim ceate at ma  within thei own atwod It emain now to oe a poitive chacteization of nonWeten t and to do o in a way that expain the abiity of cta otide to ecognize if not to thooghy unde tnd it a what i t i  I begin by conideing a poition ketched by Ath anto e i impeed by the fact that ome Weten atwok ae peceptay indi tingihabe fom nonatwok to thoe who ae awae of thei pove

20

DAVIES

n   i i i f th point is poi dd by uhamps , i      thing aains t status of at without ai i i i is his ads anto to onud that what dit  h hings is an atmosph of thoy th y n []5   h s to m  athistoia ontxt H pi i i  s a by ans o f a "phiosophs xamp oni    itd fi tibs, th ot op and th B  t  s nd bskts, d th pots and baskts of h   ny disimnab thos  whas of th Baskt Ftl,  f th ot op  afom awoks, thi b  ,  i  fo h Bskt Folk Whas th awoks in t lt   sii mpot fo th tib, symboizing h ti  t i d, to f d dath, and so on, th non a l il ii bing no mo than patia obts h l lt s hoy, s t s dsignd to do What maks sti t, t i f tib o n th Untd Stats, is an "t f n  is ppti b to somo n ignoant of h   t  ti   anos ta: If a tib maks pots tht h l   gios ito th most tasud at, thy il  til  h uio ad doation of ths Tey would presumably wok ccodg   evlve n f exellee .   [Pot ag od be a cenal eee in  wole  ul e, w uc tougt and worry gog no obtann te efe clay f   k ng te    n g te f eacly the gh d ofs y? Because ele j us eve in tose ways whe they ate thgs hat eansoen g o e

!f    t   s at,  hs a gat impoan to thm   l, if no fo y st-n th sous a  i i i t  pion his suts in pptibl pop t t iti  mps of thi at tp s fom th poduts of , ltl i, tiitis Cotay to atos hypothss, i i   i  h toks of a so it woud b ndstin i f  tl bts I  t  d  ig into qustion th pausibt of  i i a s tht atiss tak pains o pptb ft f t if t  of ta impotan to th ut d  t l  l ild o do th sam wth tiay uttin ob j  i , , hat suggsion woud a ppy as adiy to u tl ii at is s to woks How  w distinguish tlii i i whih a i s absnt fom thos n whih t i   , ih whih I ag, s dopd by uon 9

NonWesten At and At's Denton

20

and H ene Blocker 20 as a resul of her communcaons respecvey h carvers n Ne unea ad Afrca The crucl clm s ha, even f nonWesern arss carvngs are uaran ad no creaed for ds aned conemplaon, hose arss ( nd oher members of her ulure are vally concerned h he aeshec naue of a s produe d Ther ork nvolves achevemens ha are aeshe n characer I s appr ecaed hn he ulue n lgh of hese , and  s valued for ds payng hem s Duon pus , ar nvolves accompishmen i dsplays persisen nell gence nd drecedness  n re zng aeshec go als2 1 nd Blocker res, The prtve peoples who ake ad use such tfacts anfest eough of the atistc and aestetc atudes ad disposos o waran ad jusfy u  allig such artfacts "works of art a d treag the as such

From my poin of ve, hs accou displays n mporan vrue  sresses aeshec properes-quaes suh as beau, balane, enson, elegance, seren , energy, grace, vvc Tradonal y, phoso phcal aes hecs has conceived of aesheic properes no only as cenr o he hraer of ar, bu also as no requrng for her pprehenson a dealed knoledge of he socal conex of produon. If (some onWesern ems qua lfy as ar by vrue of disp aying humanly produ aese fe  ues, h is alos us oconex exp lan ho ousde despe heired, gnoranc of he der socohsorcal n hch such rs,ems are crea mgh erecog nze hem for he arorks  hey are  o pu he c am mor e bro dly: There  and appe n gra   s  hs cuua overlap ha lc enses he judgmen ha nonWesr res make r smal a) for, n valung he aainmen of aeshecaly pleasng eecs, heir members revea hem selve o be concerned h he arsc caraer of her producs  am nlned o supplemen he aco oered so far, because I do no hink ha i is suen o dsngush arorks from oher ems ha dsplay hmanly creaed aeshec properes I sugges ha, n he case of ar, he aeshe ees acheved mus be negral o he hole, raher han mnor or ncdenal sde feaues  ool hande does no become an aror merely by having a minusule, bu aeshecally pleasng, carvng added o  n addon, I hnk ha he aeshe characer of a arork mus be regarde d as es sena o s funon, so ha  canno be eval uaed propery hou akng no accoun he aeshec achevemen  nvolv es s fncon need no be soely ha of provdng pleasue hrough he con emplaon of s aeshec properes Much more ofen n nonWesern ulues, arorks serve soaly useful puposes n als and he lke hey are for use no conemplaon  They subsiue for gods , serve o ard o sprs, are oerngs nended o garanee he frfulness of he mar

28

D  V 



iage at wic te ae pesente, an so on n his way, at might always be utitaian But it emains istinguishable fom ere caft in tems of te totait an fnctional signi cance of the aesthetic popetes t is ce ate to possess Mee caf woks lack aesthetic popeties  o ae not mae to have them, o ae mae to have them in a manne that is inciental o tivial with esp ect to thei intene function Even with the amenments I ·have suggeste it might be thought that the position  have avocate is too libeal, fo it seems to amit to the ealm of at suchnettle thingsIfas(anne Italian casabout s a st I woul gasp the oee I a not se this esponse, thei aesthetic at tibutes ae essential to thei evaluation as cas, Maseats Laboghinis an Feais ae atwoks (small a). To accept this is not to encoage un ue expansion of the concept of at but, athe to stess that the notion ha a wie scope than tha t of ne at the inuence of Westen notion of at ha atophie e of these vehicles involves the eclaation of lost goun not tei toial expansion An a secon  esponse bui ls on this st Ove time at pactices can becoe egulaie an institution alie  If cas manuf acte by Maseati L aboghin, an Fea i o nt qualify as at this coul be because they ae not ceate withn the con text of the Westen a tg institutio n But now, if that at institution is best be seen as establishin a socal context fo the poucton of ne at, thisto concession is not hamful, fo I stesse eale that I was inteeste in a boae concepton o f at n summay  The cae evote to the pouct io of  tpically concens featues of the kin that s calle aesthetic That s the ceatos of at withn the cultue make some of thei choice s fo the sake of ceatng qua li tes that ae aesthetically pleasing24 Just which ae sthetic popeties count fo the at in queston, an how they wll be stucte an co nto ne by conventons epen on the meu an on taitions an pactces estab lshe fo the elev ant gene The local appecato n an eval uaton of such pieces wll take some account of the success o othewse w th whch they ae ceate to ealie the ese popetie s This s consi stent with the pos sibilit that all atwoks have a lace n socially impotant pactices such as elgous obsevances In scoveng whethe a people possess the con cept of at, what mat tes s not that they sepaate at fom ot he mpotant concens but that they make items pesenting huanly geneate aesthetc popeties whch ae essental to the man pposes seve by those items Moeove such awoks often wll be ecognable as such to cultal outsies who ae not pohbite by thei ignoance of lfe withn the cul te fom notng the aesthetc eects they manfest, peceng that these concen the whole seeng that th ey ae human ly ceate, an obseving (o

NonWesen A  and A's Denion



ifeig ha uch eec e deemed eeal o he aue ad pupoe of he iem i uei o. III I ema o iegae he impcaio of he pecedig fo he pho ophica eepie of de g  I co de wo ueio . 1 If he peece of huay ceaed aehec popeie i cuca l o ou ackowed gig ha ohe cu ue have a ad o ou abi o ide f a ea ome of hei aok, mu efeece o uch popeie feaue  a uccefu  deiio? ha , hod "ae heic  deiio be pef eed o ohe vaeie I awe o hogh I have eed he impoace of aeheic pop ee i add eig he e of how we kow ha ohe cuue have a, i i o my view ha he poeio of hee i essenial fo omehig beig a I accep ha  cocepua piec e ca  uai f a a ho gh ee do o po e pecepi be aehc aibe ad I ao accep ha o dia objec mgh be appopiaed o he wod, a Duchmp eadymade wee o ha hei beig a doe o deped o he aeheic popeie hey happe o dipay Ideed, i cod be ha, ove ime, a pacice chage ocodoed ha he emphai o heha ceao heoydepede, hi  ocay aiicfa po peie ha veofe o do wih aeheic popee a hee wee adiioay decibed  A ha foow fom my  ague i ha wok h a ae wiho aeh eic pope ie, o ha aai hei  au fo ome eao ohe ha hei poeg he aeheic popeie hey dipay wi  o be ideiabe a a by cuua ouide Moe eed o be ad, hou gh becaue I do o mea o eave he impeo ha hee cod be a makg adiio ha a o ime foced o he eaizaio of pecepibe aeheic eec I do o beieve ha a cue coud hav a adiio geeaig awok all of which ae oaehec  o e oy cdeay aehec,  c hace. I p ec ha a coce wih achievig aeheic eec i ioicay ecey i he deveopme of a p acice hough o logically eceay o ay paicu a iem beig a awok I i o moe eay o imagie a cuue ha begin wih oaehec  ha oe ha deveop mahemaca cacu  befoe i cuivae coig ad meaueme2 I commeed a he oue ha he uveai of a mak i ceaio a a epoe o deep eaed hua e ed ad expeiece . A ha eve- ha , a he eve of he owe deomiao commo o hma exiece- i moe key o be he iiic  euo appea of aeheic popee ha he cogiive iee of cuay abiay ymbo ha expai why a makig o he acvie h  peceded   occu ed 26



j

20

VS

2 Do cuent theoie mot of which ae pompted by eecton on eten at pactice a ccommodate non Weten at That  can the con tempoay cop of deniton be appied pepicuouly to the at of othe cultue In dicung thee quetion I eview the denition of at po poed by eoge Dckie and Jeod evinon  Dicke intitutional theoy hold that omethng i at if and only if it i enmehed wthin a complex et of ntitutionall tuctued ocial ela ton  At atu i acheved by a tem oy if t i  appopiately ituated within a ntutional matx involvng the oe of att ad publi c along with awold pactce What i dtinctive to the ntitution in tem of which at  dened  it tuctue not it hitoy o function2 8 Dcke i excluivey concened wth the inttutional apect of Weten  though he decibe thi n tem t hat ae athe geneal e doe not appy hi theoy to onWeten ultue but it i eay to ee what th would invove Fo thee culte to be atpoducng one they would have to contan at intitution of the kind Dickie outine n patcua thoe ntituton would have to manfet the tcte that he decbe a dintive to atwold  I eadily allow of the Weten at ntitution that it i a infomal a agement eaching beyond govenment counc ocal academe and

the ikeIndoneia And I acept thatIa in ome cultue-thoe of Japan China India and nonWeten Iaq fo intanceat ha long been fomazed ad pofe onalized   ome epect  In may othe  oiete  howeve I doubt that at i eved by a ditinctvely tuctued intitution athe it i an inepaable apect of wide ocial pactice concenng kin hp egion commece itua and govenment I conclude theefoe that the intutona l theoy i not adequate to expai the peene of at n thee cultue I do not deny the powe ad aaction of Dicke theoy a one that limn cental feate of Weten ne at but I do not thik that it lend itelf to the den ton of nonWeten at o of at  mal a) in geneal Jeold evinon oe a ecive acont of the extenion of  atwok accoding to whh omething  at if iti ntended fo egad in one of the way pio at wok have been coectly e gded29 e allow  that the att intenton can be efeentially opaque that i he accept that ome thing ntended fo a paticua egad would be at in the cae whee that egad wa invited by eaie awok although the intende wa not awae of thi fact On nonWeten at he ay thi e ca oy hoe o say ayhg abo u a  othe cultues o  hstocally emote umstaces by tyg to destad ou ow oet as suely as we ca ad he gaugg e eet to whch t ca be made o t wth o to lum

on Wesen A and A 's  enon

211

te wht we d i  those ult ures d irmstes  To put this more pithiy, if other ulture hs t, it ust he t i our sese, ore or less whteer the ieitble dierees betw ee ts t d ours  ters of ters, struture, ex pressieess, ritulebededess obetorietedess d so o

 agee, though fo the sake of oitica coectness and aoiate em hasis  efe the woding if anothe cut e has at, it must be that o two cutes shae the same concet ocation Levinsons Fo denition that eason, makes it aeas no exicit to be indieent aea to the to inte sociandes boundaies c uta and, theeby, to c laim a nivesait tha t woud have it alying t o a at woks, whateve thei ovenance But this imession is misleading Suose a Chine se e son i n the foute enth centuy intended a iece to be egaded as wee Eoean aintings in the thiteenth centuy, though she was entiey ignoant of the existence of Eoe and its atwoks, and fthe, no extant Chinese atwoks caed fo that kind of egad Levin sons deition woud aea to enta that the Chinese eson ceates an atwok via cosscutua fnc his sult stiks m as xty iausibe, and  doubt that Levinson woud embace it Quite ighty, he emhasizes tha t atists ategading intent ions u suay ae se fconscious in invokin g o efeing to ast at He aows fo the case in which the in  tenton efeentia y oaquto eacknowedge not in ode to cutthe a equied t makingconnection adi fom its cutua ishistoy but, athe, that might be made, if not by te atist hesef, then by othe membes of he cute. he ecsive chaacte of Levinsons deition aims to stess the extent to which at making i s ootd within a histoicized, cutuay uni ed actice, not to admit the  ossi biit of coss cu ta at ceation th at ide oughshod ove the atistic taditions of te esective cutes He means to indicate how at daws on (o sets out to eudiate its cuta foebeas, so that what is ossibe within the at of a cute deends on what has been eviousy accete d as at within that same cul te  n conse quence, Levin sons accont must be seen a s committed t o a kind of cultua eativism in at oduction, not as esousing ivesais m t suoses a histoicay tadition whichassume the atdeing intention ates the newycontinuous ceated iec His totheoy s the backg ound ofea his tocay and c utua y nied body of woks to whch the atsts intenti on eaes the candidate wok n othe wods, Levinson makes at eative to what anto may have had n mind when he coined the tem atwod   have aeady c laimed that atwods a themse ves the oducts of a ticula cutues with thei individual histoies hee may e as may inde endenty geneated atwolds as thee ae di stinct cultes he acknow edgment that dieent cutes oduce thei own atwoks comes e

22

 V   S

cs ely to ths  So, f dentons such a s Levn sons ae comted t o seeng at as e latve to an atw od, and f they foc us naow on te Westen o ne, tey eav nonWestn at and te noton of at n geneal udeanayzed In epy t mt be ponted out that te poposed denton s at a eve of geneat  tat aows t to explan f t s coect, ow sometng mg t bec om at wt hn any atwold What makes somethng at s te makes ntenton that t e egaded n a fashon appopat e to th e po atwoks of th ceato s cutue, whethe t  s te Westen atwod o te atwod of some Afcan t e wthn wc te atst ope ates, ad wet e te at egads appopate to po at n the one atwod esembe tose n the othe Accodng to ts suggeston, t s the stuctue of te ntentona e aton, not the content of the eevan t ntenton tat s c uca  Somethng s at wth n a gven cutu e f t s ntende d to b e egaded as ts pedec es sos wee egadess of te nd of ega d tat s nteded As t stands ts appoac s nadeqate  A deto tha t caactezes at makng as atwod eatve and that as o concedes te ex stence of au tonomos atwods mst expan how awods ae of a snge tpe An accont s eqed of what makes t e vaos awod s wods  Wth out ts the denton s ncompete at best  We t mgt dentf a fact necessay common to awods efeence soey to the stuctue of te ntentona eatonshp-that make pesent tobect to behow vewed as sm a pedecessoste ave been ntends - s notescent o expan awod s ae of a dstnctv e knd. Many pac tce s tat ae ot atmakng ones ae stoca y eexve n a sma way a d thee by exbt te same stcte of ntenton. Levnson do es not appy hs deton to the atonomo s at of ote cutues bt e does consde how hs ntentonahstoca concepton of at mght assmate Westen actvtes tat ae ke, bt maga to, Westen e at (As exampes, e mentons handmade funtue scpted masks commeca desgn tua musc and baton w ng . Fo tat case, e aows tat dent fng  smpy te same stuct ue of connectedne ss o f ntentona nvoca ton, whethe medate o medate, of pede cesso   b ects o the teat ment tey wee accoded s too weak to do te o b.32 A stonge sugeston, Levnson thnks  ods tat t e conen of te e evant ntentons s te same o sma beween say andmade cas and at scuptes33 at s, not ony ae both pojected fo egads apoate to edecessos of the same k but aso the egads nvted by andmade cas ncde ones paadgmatc fo at scptues ese emaks so w how Levnson wod atempt to extend s de  ton to te case of nonWesten at Pobaby he woud mantan that at east som of the egads ntended fo awoks ae comon to a the at wods tee ae and that t s ths feate that unes tese awods as

Non- Westen At and At's Dention

2 

of a single type n the case of actvities that ae magna to atmakng ones, the esemblanc e n ntended eads only ne es to be atia  When it comes to atwod s, howeve, the e sembance in i ntende egas must be substanta Ony then wi it be eveaed as a feate possesse nepen denty by each atwo d that i e ssentia to its b eing an atw o d Is thee a nd o f egad pojec ted fo atwoks that is common t o a at wods and that s such as to expan how atwods can be ecognzed fo what they ae  n ee ct, this is wh at  aimed to es tabish eai e in is chap te The dscussion wth which I began povides the key eement mssng fom denitions, such as Levnsons, that ae atwodeatve but whch do not expain what it s  !�Q� thee ae ntay if no t aways atwos in al  cutes ae pojected fo s fo consdeation of the asthetic  · he nd ae ae to day w -,     �- essentia te atce is designed to se ve Ths is to say thee s a histoicay pimay egad fo ch at east some atwoks n a   atodae i tee. Ad t i   such a stiking feate of at making   d aco ss the spead of han ctes that it epains how we can peceve a cut es as atmaking ones and hence  as havn atwods 

_�.: .

NOTES 1 eorge Dickie recenty has sggestedin Art Fnction or Procede Nate o Cte  Jr l f Atet  Art tm 55 ( 1997   -8that deitons o art mght  e categorized accordng to weth er they d enty the prac tice as at heat either o a natrakind or o a c traknd The ni ersaty o art making might e onsistent wth eithe iew t the apaty o ta otses to recognze the art o other ctres conts or the ormer approach to arts de niton or so  wod mantain  Rchard L Anderson llpe Ster A prte Sty f Phlpe f At (Engewood Cs N Prentce a 1990, 8    Denis D on Tia  Art and Atat Jl f Aethet  Art rt m 51 (1 99  121 4 Fo eampes see aqes aqet ttn t Aethet Athrplgy (Readng Mass Adson esey 1971, 1 Neson ran t  rt At ltl xpre f te Fth Wl ed Neson ran (Berkeey niesity o Caionia Pess 197, -4; and Sdey as A Art and Athentcity A Tet wthot a Shadow Af At 5 (1 992  4 15  In yhooges o Ta Art Af Art 28 (1995 4, 9091, Dens Dtton sees the dena that nonestern societies make at as part o a  ew y thoogy whch is a prodct o poststrctast dogma that ha een ncrticay aepted by many anth ropoogsts Don otines the onnetions as we a the

14



ieences, beeen the Ol  an New ythologies an aents the inieen ce of bot h to histoica fact, atists intentions, an the lie 5 Fo an inte esting  iscussion o f the citeia ha gui e he s eection of non  Westen pieces fo incusion in Wesen at useus, see Shelly Eington hat Becae Authentic Pimitive t  ulul Ahopoloy 9  1994   20 1- 6  6 Fo he sae of he agumen I wl accept hese obsevations abou non Wesen at bu i shou be noe ha in soe culues such as hose of he i e East, Inia C hina Inonesia an Jap an the vi ew labele h ee as West  en y moe eafo ily th hane he Againappl I alow the point saeaenav of the ageuent, though  at is ache 7 ih by an equ valen noun in the tansation i cionaes fo any nonuope an an guaes. 8  See Robet   eton, Socl Theoy  Socl Sucue enlage e. (New Yo ee Pess, 1968 105, 115-2  9  See Johann es Fa bian Tme d he he How Ahopoloy M I bec (New o Col ub ia nivesy ess, 198 10 Aian Vices Bal A e ed (Ringwoo, Vcoa Pengun 1989, 198 See aso che Pica   " ebalian Oan g Ba   Tous an the ses of B ainese Cu e in New Oe Inone sia Reew of Ioe   Maly A 24  1990  1 - 8 11 au apees,  Soe Reflections o n Authenticiy i n Fol usic, jou l ofhe Ineol Fol Muc oucl   195 1   1 0-1 4 account of 1 The sae appies to the Javanese theseves of couse o an he way in which Javanese gaean has boh aape an esise exenal cu tual inluence o ve six c enties see S uasa, Gmel  ulul Ico  Mucl Deelope  el j (Ch icago nivesity of Chic ao Pess, 1995 1 Denis Duton, A Behavo an he Anhogiss ue Aho poloy 18 1977 87-94 14 Alfe Gell "The Technolog of nchant ent an he nchanen t of Tech noogy in Ahopoloy A  Aehec e  Jeey Coote an Anh ony She ton ( Oxfo  Caenon Pe ss 199 , 42 15 hu C D ano The A o  joul of Phloophy 61 1 964 571-84 16 Athu C  D ano At an  Atifact in Afica n Beyo he Bllo Bo The ul A  oHol epece(New Yo Faa Saus Gio ux 1992, 89-11 17 Duon Tib al At an Atifact, 17 18 ay Shine in  Piitive Fae s, Touis A  an he Ieolog y of Au thentici, joul of Aehec  A c 5 2  1 94   5 4 notes that Dano  oes not eonst ate that hi s hypothetical ibes isci inae a fo ei  gion econoics o poiics ence, D antos esciptio n oes no show e he ibe o have at as against eigious o othe wos B ut I tae it tha D an to pesues ta they ha ve a, withou intening his accoun o pove ha his is so  19  Duon Tibal A an Aifact an Auheniciy in the A of Tai iona Societie s, cc A 9- 10 19 94  1- 9 20.  Gene Boc e Is Pi tve A A jl of Ahec duco 2 5

on etn At nd At' Denton

25

(   87-7  n The Aesthets f Pte At ( nh  nves Pess of Aec   A sposu on Boce s boo ppe s n Jr f Aesthet t 2 ( 2   D uon A Behvo n he An hopoogss  22  Boce Aesthets f Prmte At 2  Boces se of «pve s unf o une peh ps B he e he ens  vng n   ess eveope soc e Sues on o enonng he eshec jugens e whn nonesen cues bou he cvngs ncue hose b Dne J Cowe  Afcn Aeshec (66Aeshecs -24 Jes f Aesthets  Art Fennez Ju Pncpes of Oppo son ntsm V  24 n Fng JurWf Athets  Art rts 2 ( 6 6  - 64 W   H. D venpo Scup e of he Sooon Is ns pet   (  68  4- 2 n  wo ns of Vue n he Esen Sooon Isn s n The Sl fe f Thns tes  t Pespete e  Ajun Ap p  ( Cbge Cbge n ves Pess  8 6      n  Robe Fs hopson Eshe cs n  on Afc ARTnews 66 ( 68 44-4 63-67 23 In A Behvo n he Anhopoogs n Auhenc n he A of on S ocees Duon gues h  when  coes o he ecognon of eshec bues nh opo gss hve unee he goun h s coon o een cues Qune nscu su e s of  e no n eous howeve  One s Iv n  Ch n  eon S oo B wee n Aecn Eshe c Evu ons Co pe  thly 4 (6 34-6 he foun ssc sgncn geeen be ween New Hven ( Connec cu  expes n B wee ( nuspeng peope fo wesen eq uo Afc � cves conc eng he eshec ques of phoo gphs of Afc n  ss 24 Hee I spf fo hee s no eson o ssue h  goup ws w sve fo beu o  cveness  n s wo s  If he ebes of  soce wo shp  G o o f gnes s he gh o he  o su  s ses Bu he p eces hen wou be e o p ossess eshec  bue s; h s ones he oo o be ug 2 I o no en hs nog o p h nonWesen  s ess hgh evove hn s Wesen equvens o eee  pon e ee hee s no eson o beeve h he cu ouse s we se o nesn he sophsce sc popees of nonW esen  n hese usu e pesen n bunnce I hve c e on  h h peson s p ce we enough o ecognze fo s esh ec chce he  s s o f soe of he w os of nonWesen cues 2 I pove fhe gen o he concuson h he v s wos e pen fo he sus on he eshec ch ce n Fs A n As Den on Sthern J f Phsphy  ( 7  -4 27  Geoge D ce The A t rle A The fAr t New Yo Hven   84 28 hs pon hs been ee b  D ce n  ecen  ppe A F ncon o oceue Nue o C ue  I s so ppen  n h ppe n esewhe e h he oes no eg he  nsuon s sgob 2 Jeo evnson Denng A Hsoc  Brtsh J fAesthets 

216

DVIS

(7) 23 2-  , Reni ng t Hstoicay, Jural f Aethet ad Art rtm 47 ( 8 ) 2 -3 3, a xtening t Histo ica y, Jural f Aethet ad Art rtm  (3)  4-23  Some othe, ecenty popos e eiios tae a sim ia fom, though they en tify the cuca eation between new a past atwos ieenty See James D Caney, he Stye heoy o f t, Pa hlhal Quarterly 72 (    272 8, a Dening  t xtena y Brth Jural  fAethet 34 (4 4-23 an Rob et Stece, Histo ca Functiona sm a the Fo Facto heoy, Brth 34 ( vaa  4 State  2-ves 6, a tyArtwrk Jural f Aethet  nivesity Pa Pensy Pess,  Det 7 houghMeag he eesValue tha t he oes a etion, aso see No Cao, At, Pactic e, a Naati ve, M 7 (8 8   4 -6  Histoica Naatves a the Phio sophy of At, Jural f Aethe ad Art rtm  (3 33-26, an Ientifying At, in t tut f Art Rederat f Gerge Dke Phle Robet J Yaa nivesity Pak Pennsyvaia State vesty Pess, 4), 3-38 Many of the citi isms I ais to evinso s theoy ou  be a pp e aso to thes othe accou ns 3 eviso xtning t Histoicay, 43 3 e but oy one of evinsons exapes seems to be at os with ths cocuion He wites C osie a soitay Inia a og the azon who stea s o fom his ona tistc t ibe to aage co oe stones i a ceaing ot outwa  y  investing them with specia positon in th wo Mght not ths aso be at an noe befoe ay ftue cato ecies that it is) Denig At Histoicay 233 Fo my pat I thi he answe might be n o Ju st what ca this guy think hes o ing  Since th e tib is nona tistic, the Ini an  oes ot conec t his activity to atwo s n his own cuta taition so t ust be that vinson assumes the Ian to iten opae y that his pec be eae as some of ur atwos ones ma e po  to his own eots ae If that is the c a then I ca see why that might give us a eason fo consieig wheth the piece mits appopation to o atwo, but I seiousy oubt that the intnto, on its own estabishes the at ceentas of the stone aangem nt he pece may be an atwok but not fo the eason that evnsons eniton speces If t is on, a f we ca ecogze it as such ths is b cause i t i spays aesthetic ach ivemnts of the in that I have scsse peviosy n this chapte 32  evso xten ing At Hstoica y 423  33  bi 422

2 ��But hey D nt Have O ur Cept f Ar EIS UO I I he ce dscose o cossclal aeshecs, a ofeeaed fo mla has  ha desadg he a of aohe eole ma be dcl o mossble becase he hae a coce of a dee fom os o he do' hav a  o sese B wha does he coce of a deoe hee Oe wa o aoach hs qeso s o as wha coc of adds o he clam ha aohe cle ha a coce of a dee fom he clam ha he have a dee fom os,os hee Ifwold be owee ssemeel he added coce of a seems o wa o exed he c lam, as hogh o sa ha dese owad aeaaces o he coa he meag a has fo hese eole des adcall fom he meag a has fo s ha we m a be m sa eve o all  a  S m lal wh he lam ha he  sese  of a s dee fom os Sch clams eese a sle of hg ha has deel maed coss clal aeshecs fo he las geeao . Whehe he aea of vesga o s he asc lfe of smallscale, oleae socees (socalled bal o ehogahc as o he as of o Wese cvlzao s, sch as I da, he feqe coeo s ha he ashec foms of hese cles ae wholl ohe, ad cao be desood  ems famlal aled o he as of he WesI he shallleal  o bal cles The lae,Tac b I beg b co sdeg a essa colleco n Cutue eded b Geoge E Macs ad Fed R Mes L M a wes abo lage deoave ags o hologcal hemes made b d wome  Ua Padesh somemes dvdall somemes  gos ogehe, whch ae a of he a sodg maage celebaos She de 217

2



scibes he women aiss n hei woing envionmen hen he appea ance of one such paining in a oh Ameican dinng oom; hence o he exhibion of anohe o f hese ynth panings in he Magcien e la tee show in he Pompidou Cene n Pas in 99 Despe he fac-o pe haps because of -ha jynth panings ae saghfowad, colofull slzed depcons of ndu mhological hemes Ganesh, Lasmi and Vshnu sn and moon, lovebids, ec) a nsiss on sng podce nsead of ais and visal mage insead of a o efe  o his wo f  is wo) a s deemned, she explans o avod nappop ae Wesen eminology Ths is impoan, she hins because ohewise Wsnes mgh have oble appeciaing ha he mags and paens hemselves ae based on eligion al and mhc hemes and dee he meann gand hei powe fom he elgious conexs of he po ducion and use  The indgenous aesheic pnciples of his a o  vsal image podcon ae deen fom sandad Wesen aesheics The excellence of he wos fom an ndgenos pespecve she explans s seen o lie n he closeness of he cenal smbols appoxmaion o an ideal image, wih spec al aenon pad o he sle, echnqe , and maei als se d I is mpoan o epesen he smbols sed i n an adeqa e wa no o impove pon hem hogh a he same ime he mage on he wall shold be asWesen beaiflaesheic a nd pleasng inc fom canonsas possble (  3   - and so on al l qie ds In pon of fac hee s nohng n as descpions ha is dsnc fom Wesen c ons and concep s of a, whch vaous l inclu de n man Wesen genes and hsoc epochs he colofl appoximaion of images fom elgios mholo g, poduced wih aenon o sle, echnque and maeials The consevaism of ynth panng s pohibon on m poving on he adi ona l iconogaph , ma no chaace ize he Wesen avangade b  is a feaue fond hough much of he hso of Euo pean a in he Mddle Ages as well as adonal eligous fol as and womens as of Eope fo he hee cenes pio o he pesen one The heology migh be deen b hees no one hng a descbes ha can  be found n Wesen aesheic s Ths las pon s woh dwell ng on fo  seems o me ha ofen whn i s sad ha some ohe cle has a dieen concep of a fom os hee s mplci in he claim an exemel cicmscbed and hsocall specc deiion of he a denoed as os a has made no eo o pobe he hiso and a dions of o a o see if analoges o similaes mgh exis fo he Ua Padesh example as clam ha jynth panng canno be undesood b appling o  caegoies o conceps of Wesen a s n he end ehe vial o false If he clam means ha Wesen panng does no adiionall include

"But Thy D ont Ha OUf onct o Ar

219

elemens o ndu myholoy s no paned on whewashed mud walls by uen spaes o indi as pa o he elebaon o maage ies hen ndeed yonth panng is que beyond Wesen aegoes Bu a wans moe han ha she would have us beleve ha yonth paning is no a n ou se nse a la m whih s dmons ably alse A one despe  ae poin  she atemps o damaze he u lual dieene beween yonth image po dues and Euopean aiss : he esten pouce of a pantn estne he o she hopes fo the wa of  at aey an poss by fo th e wa of a geat at muse s conscous of h m o hese as  atst a ng  object that s contve, pose set apat fom evey ay fe,  ust as th shot stoes an noves of ontempoay cton ae co ntve po se , an sepaat e fom ev eyay fe hese poucts pocam, "Loo a t me , m at ! he po uce of he tua mages n a Hn u vage s not conscous of he se n ths patca way Sh e s po ucng  mage hat eves ts m eanng fom the pat t plays n e athe than as a contve, pose obect xx

Whle I would hallenge he adequay ndeed he ompeene o hs as a despon o Wesen a  s a leas lea ha a s ompang wo vey deen aegoes o aviy On he one had he ambious Wes en as opeang n a poessonal mae o agens deale gallees and museums; h s amila mage she ps Indan deoa he walls oa gans hei houses wih onvenonalzed elgouswomen designswho as pa o e maing a sp ea l oa son  a weddn g a says ha beyon d he aeul onsous use o aeshe udgmen n podung he panngs hee s a uhe human dmension absen om he Wesen poin o ompaison A woma a mohe lovngl y eaes beaul emoon lled auspou s mpoan maes o he own hlden o he pupose o helpng hem o sppong hem so hey an sueed and be happy n he nex sage o he lves a has hosen a alse ompason In a he hsoy o he Wes s eplee wih ounless mohes and pospeve mohesinlaw who have laboed a embodey nitng and sewng podung beauul a as o he h ldens w eddngs ehe  as pa o a ousseau o as deo  ave elemens (eg deoaed aes o he weddng day These beau ul-o beaued-obes an be as lovingly eaed by Euopea as by Indan wom en Muh o hs oupu s loh o be a bu  also would nlude deoaed e ams and ems o household uniu e Some o hese obes would embody elgous hemes Why has a aled o menion ompaable Wesen adions o dowy o ousseau as o plae in ea on to he yonth pangs o Uta Padesh I s beause she s guly o he vey eoen sm she auses ohes o She sud es a gene o ol a n one u ue and s eeing ha  s a ype o antng oos wih n Wesen

2 UTTN culture t discver  analg. Hr misak is  imagin ha h cm p ill be ntng in Wsrn cl B f y wa a cmparisn f  h ning,  s abs  l a, say, a Di brn h angng in a ete ley ynth panings blng wih msic an wrY'as f ultue li, frm baiflly wvn Mari feahr claks fr ift t ebder smplrs  kni blans an pain crals in Ee f raiin lswhr in hr ssay, Har cmplains f  et tedecy t pac a grar val n Hgh r rans han n a tdti I fac, a s xacly ha hrslf: sh is s imprss  tee di  fs as antng ha sh fails   acknwlg h wmn s ct dt scia wh mrag  c l brans a rssa s in h r Own lte y  c nvv h lving an v xrcis f skll ad aetet jdgn, an prc bjcs  hlp bra aspicis ci d  ib  h sccss f h nx gn ran  II     pl f a wispra nncy  ry  xaggr t utul dirc far byn raliy,  ry  mak a frgn ar fr  e  an  acally is In hr cas h sra  nals akng t uld ee  s a familiar ar frm an sraging i by ng an iie pacc in  n clt wih which  cmpa i Hr  t r fr chiving a smia n  scrib an ar frm rit  t f n f is aspcs, miing  mnin s which u ede i cprhnsibl  a Ws  ain �,  frm hs raw i lge nlins ab nn-Wsrn r riba ars In a ssay nil  e Tel f nchanmn an h nchanmn f chlg," Aed Ge defd a gnral hsis ab  graphic as in rms f h li f  ngle pl, rbran Islan can cran2 ll eg  nng aplgyS gnral lack f ga fr ar, b e a t shld  xpc scal anplgy gh by is vry te t  n-  ashic aw ar by bjcs in h s  d dnsras wha is an mably hcnric ai,  ludbl in r rspcs ll ags ha h anplgicl tudy   t hu ld  crr   nr h asspn f a  mhlgi  ii, analgs  h mhlgica ahism rqir f t td f lgin. I wl sggs ha h sy  ashics s  e di f  as  sy f hly is  h ain  rligin. Jut  plgis f rligin ms s asi hr rlgis prilc t,  arlss f a ms gnr h ashic aracnss f te t nd acics hy syh anhply f a rqirs a lete ea ih ashis 42) Wih his n min, ll invis s 

u  Ty Do n Hav Ou  Conct o At

21

consder he as as componens of a vas and ofen uecognze eh  nal ssem essenal o he reproduon of human socees    He proposes ha ar be hus undersood as a "eholog of enhanmen where enchamen s seen no as pecular onl o ar bu as a poenalt manen n all nds of echcal acvt hs poenalt s essenall magal and ell uses as hs enral ex ample he sunng prow onguraons of  robrand Island c anoes h a are used for Kula expedons Wh he brgh red and whe pan and nr ae arvng somemes resemblng a mushoom o reallng he srollle appendages of a Ion apal  he prows are desgned o dazzle a d ds oren he sp eaor gvng a pos sble radng advanage o h e part whh arrves n suh a decoraed canoe So much s unconroversal; one hns of no onl he pshologal warfare of ula ransaons bu omba equpmen suh as he ghng shelds of Sep and Hghlands warrors of ew unea whh ofen dspla horr faes desgned o frghen a enem I s no he bold ee of suh wor ha mpresses ell however Insead he emphaszes wha he calls "he hal eec of echncal d cult n robrand a. As a chld ell ells us he was deepl mpressed b a mahs model of Salsbur Cahedral "from a small bos pon of vew  wa s he u lmae wor of ar muh more e nranng n fa han he cahedral self  us o Hewors draws offrom large concluson abou  mpressed b wors of he reacon of all of ahs"Ia ver ar n he exen o whh 1 have d ult    n me nall en ompassng her omngnobeng as obe s n he worl aessble o me b a eh ncal process whch snce  rascends m undersandng I am forced o consrue as magcal (49) Wors of ar beome obes of mser and fasnaon b vrue of her nomprehensblt as ehnal feas ell aemps o renforce hs vew b referrng o  F. eos 894 rope oel panng populal nown as Od cas a hghl realsc sll lfe of letters  paper s raps drawng pns ad faded rbbo ns aed o old boar he f asnaon of h s wor he lam s s ha s audene a no omprehend how mere pan ould be used o creae such a realsc value represenaon ( a value nohs smlar echal pho ograph magcould gves he attan panng Moreover s presge he meanng and of Od cas n or aeshe lves has analoges n he ar of smallsale radonal socees In he case of a robrad canoe splashboad  s ver dul o aqu re he ar of ransformg he roobuttress of an on wood ree usng he raher lmed ools whh he robranders have a he dspos al o such a smooh an d nshed produc 4) Magc  s he dea l echolog of suh s oees as he robranders ;  e n ables one o aomplsh a as nsanl and erlesslraher han wh unerant ad eor Ar also exhbs echnologcal maser; hece ell



DUTTON

gs tat the is a coegece bewee the aims of odir tech l, agic, d artthe last two beig echated esios of the s t  cs, tist s wh de odia techca destadig a e ge  t gs sts of beig halftechcia ad halfmstagoge i ti  tsts at a dsadatage  mod market socetes, Gell c, t gs thm a specal stats  taditioal soceties sch as the as e l cocd wth a desc pt o of obad h oti cltl ac  obad gade s a sstem of techcal kowledge ad at t  t a wok of at, whch podces ams b magc he tech  f chtmet is mafest  gade laot ad poet st as , cftd with some masepiece, we re fasciated becase we  tally at a los s to expla how sch a o bec t comes to e xist i the , t litaes of th gade magcia expess the fascato of the as th the eca c of thei actal techolog wh ich, coe g g t t agical ideal, admbates th is i deal  the  ea wold     obt Gels agmet thows ght o how some foms of tgac t mght potabl be desto od Howee, the c oectg  t t agc s pas ible ol so log as he atteds to the geea awe lt y aece bt to appopiate i geeal the logc of artstc tech  t agcal techology s wo g Cos ide i g Wese at aloe, the c sas ttechcal stad pdspa hie thee ma woks of artexample, whic h fasciate acs Petosare patg s a pefect ad  tce s fo ma people ta the ol cteo fo artst c l c the famr abse of modesm:  kd cold do that!, tccal xcellece s ot the ma eao most ropea adeces are tst  at. t the pet tme the most popa at peod, dged  t a t book sales ad exhibto attedaces, s Fech Impes ss, hch s ot a hstocal school patc marked b techca sl  etos that embadt is admed fo techca skl, bt s  a th seetehce pates who ae ated mch lowe  tists at  el is comfotable wth ths posito s dicated b hs st ats to expad h cocepto o f techqe to cle Pica s ss  babo whos had s a to cr (9 ad ee D champs Fountain (7 s stateg o compods Gels eo Baboon and Yung s a oos bt techical teestg piece, while ounan is  t a iect atack o the e dea of techqe  art he pot of cs  admades s that the are od ar objects t o whch the at ist ds tg except to peset them i a galle If Gel ca clde this tcl c of plbg  the clas s of techcall accomp lshe d wok s, t  as xa ed the deto of tech iq e to ecompass wtty o gal gstes whch ole o makgskl o the pat of the atst.

Bu They on ' Hae O ur Conce of r

223

is is no a load e em c an inelligib ca Founan is a famous wo k bu no because i exibis exaodina ecnique Rae  i ppos o show a i is poss ible fo an objec o be a wok of a wile demonsang no ecniqu e wasoeve e incusio n of Picasso and Ducam p hee is no a mno confu sion on Ge s pa bu  n fac undeines s wole eo o sow ha admiaion fo ecnical mase-and wih  a sense of magic and encanen- is e cenal comp onen of e aese c esponse  ning specicall o enogapic as, we encoune fe nce ainies ecncal skill is pe aps moe obvousl ad mied in, sa, Oceani c a adions an n man Eopean moden is execises, bu no awa s Viuoso cavng, suc as s seen on obiand splasboads, s Gells case ve wel, as would muc Maoi and Pol nesian caving Bu  conside  Sepik in noen ew Guinea wild expessveness, ae an elab oae nis  vuoso facii, s fequenl e c eion of aese c exce lence and cual powe e same coud be said of ew Guinea Higlands shields, which ae poweful as woks of a ough bod visual impac ahe han noiceable echica l accomplishmen Moeove, whie some cules ea ass as a viual pies cass, as possessos of specia magica/aeshec knowledge, ohes do no his suggess anoe consideaion cona o Gell He sesses a we ae amazed, wondeing of  he awok, wasadiions i done  as ue indeed, espe wedeveloped Eopean" How ecical a someime ca l wi panis, I ave ouble coneivng wa i akes o pefom Liszs Tran scenenal Eues e wa Geogy Cza does, and ealisic pain ing in e se of  F Peo is impessive in a simila manne Bu man smalscae adiiona soci eies, la cking ei e e vas popuaion o e exeme spe ciaizaion of aecnial labo a makes pos sible e emegence of e like of Cza o Peo, ea e ais no as a mase of a knd of ecni ca magic, bu as a ained cafsman pefoming asks ano ne could ean In e end, despie is nivesalizing ambiions, Ge fails o esablis an accepable wa of ooking acss e woe ange of a in adiional soci eie s, fang ino a kind o f obiand oc alism III I n nex o Susan M  Vogel, wose wiing on ibal as displas a n elo quence and inelecual sopscaion consdeabl  exceeding a of e pevous auos Ye in he ondeful ook Baule African Ar ese Eyes se begins wi saemens eec ng a poin of view simila  o es  Ts  ook s nsped    enjoen t of cetan oects of Bae atea cte as wos of a n a We sen sense,    sees to expoe wa atwo s ean

224

UTTO

 Bae thg ad  dvda Bae ves Fo aost a cety Bae at has bee ecogzed  ope ad ate  Aeca as oe of Afcas ost sg cat scpte tadtos A thogh Bae at s potat  the Weste vew of Afca at the peope who ade ad sed these objects do ot coceve the as at ad ay eate eve the est scptes wth dae thgs devod of ay vsa teest hat have the s ae cto ad eag  At  o sese does ot e xs t  Bae vages o f t does vages  ght pot to ode hose decoatos athe tha fa os tadt oa sc ptes st  ade ad sed  v ages ad evoed by the e Afca at  

e suppo fo h s co eo cludes he followg obse vaos amog ohes Fs he Baule wll "mege nd equae a) sps and usee powes () oda phscal objecs  whch he dwell such as a lup of cla, ad c) supeb sculpes whch he ma also hab oweve, ol he las ae woks of a  he Wese sese Secod, he Baule "a bue gea powes o he a woks powes ha Wese  cule would mal elegae o he ealm of supeso    Eomous powes of lfe ad deah e egal s of he scules w adme  museus and Baule people do o cosde hem apa fom hose powes hd, ad espec all emphaszed b Vogel ma of he mos mpo a awoks o he Baule ae o mea o be see b lage audeces o b jus abod, bu aeha omall hdde fomo wapped vew "kep  shueed ooms few people ee  cloh a d akeoouwdowless ol fe uel hs shapl coass wh he Wese ehos of aeshec objec s whch ve ese, exaled lookg fom a lage audece (83) Look g self s fo he Baule a pvleged ad sk a, as he ve sgh of a sculpe ca be faal fo he wog peso hs   has o do wh he specal place held b sgh  Baule cule whee seeg somehg s poeall moe sgca moe dageous ad coaag han ouchg o gesg soehg (0) hus, Vogel sas a woma  adveel see g a saced me s mask mgh de fom he eve wheea s a bld woma who lad he had o  bu dd ealze wha she was ouchg would o ecessa be so heaeed me mgh d he sgh of a womas geals fa al Do such cosdeaos as hese suppo he vew ha he Baule have a dee cocepo of a fom he Wes ha "a  o sese cao be found  Baule vllages  o he do o, as Vge s subseque accoun makes abudal, epeaedl cea She begs he accoun b descbg masks ad ge scupes ha have pofoud spual ad ese pe soal sgcace o he Baule hese clude pesoal poa masks ad socalled sp spouses mog hose peces, spual, magcal, o pe soal aspecs ceal loom lage  he mds of he owe s ha he aeshec quales  a fac whch Wese obseves ms ake o accou

"Bu e on  Have Our Conce o Ar

225

Bu he elaionship of an a gene o a spiiual wold is a conside aion ha applies o he as of Wesen culue as well hus a majoi of believes whose eligous senimens wee inspied b Gioos fescos a adua migh have been us as moved b simla fescos which did no ap poach Gioo s ais in ohe wods, he oi ginal audience migh have possessed lile o no appeciaion of he compaaive arsc value, le alone hisoical impoance, of Goo's fescos  and would have been e sponding o hem as elig ious naaives a of undesandin g he culual impoance o f Gio o fo his oiginal audience and is local descendan s is gasping he place of his wok n a specc econom of relgous hough, and eligion, hough ofen inemingled wih a, need no be confused wih i ha acknowledged, i is pefecl valid fo an a hisoian o discuss he aspecs of Goo's wok which fom pa  of a hiso -ech nique, fomal excellence, modes of epesenaion-ahe han eligous o social hiso o ae he aeshec qualiies of Gioos painings and fescos accdenal b po ducs of eligion, howeve clos el ied o eligion ha a a be hei sas as woks of a s no heaened b hei having been eaed b mos of hei audence as mee biblica l llusaions, o as colofl backdops, bael o be noiced, fo eligous ceemonie s Bu even aking ino acoun he pivac and magical po peies of Baule spiiae cavings-o a leas man of he oneshemselves mos pized b Euopeans he neveheless sbjec b he Bale o he same kinds of aesheic chaaceizaions pplied o a cavngs elsewhee n fac, aes heic appeciaion of Baule caving is Vogel admis one of he poins of ageemen beween Bale people and Wesen connoisseus "Baule a iss, and he ndividual ownes of objecs, ceainl someimes eno he bea of hese objecs and he skll i ook o podce hem (29) Fol lowng ebe Cole, Vogel sas ha Bale langage poins awa fom he "hngne ss of a as noun , and emphasizes advebial foms applied o cavings eleganl made  enhance embellish o empowe n expeience. he non ish sen se of he English n oion of "a is no eniel appopi ae in he Baule conex, whee adecives and advebs elevan o aisc ex peience ae use d as modies aa ched o pesonal lif e, moal and phsi cal sggles and, V ogel sa s "he dabness of dail  exisence (29) eve heless, Bale will efe o osanding sclpes in Bale eivalens of swee pleasng beauul and good  comon phase is o paise some hing o someone as " beaiful as a sae -ecalling he English " pe as a picue. Convesel, English has no hesaion o appl aesheic modies o nomaeal objecs of appeciaon dances and musical pe fomances, fo example o can a vas culua l gap be made of he fac ha some of he spii cavings ae neihe wel no ofen seen. s Vogel acknowledges in a noe, "man woks of Euopean a (celing fescoes,

226

D U TT O 

s  s, ind aaeces ad numeous objecs fom ohe a dns (] aanese nesuke Egyian and ohe omb fnishings, Chinese scos Russian icons wee ceaed in he ful knowledge ha he would  sen n low lgh, aiall o a a dsance, o onl ael o vael b onl a few eole Moeove, beond he esonal and highl chaged awoks which domnae he s half of V ogels book Vogel ex ains n a seaae cha e ha he Baule have a voluminous e secula decoaive a This incudesweave's doo s, gold weighs, soos,decoaed fans, combs, gong malles, auifull caved ulles, and ohe uiliaian objecsbeBecause hese scued aifacs ae sold on hei vsua aeal ahe ha being ivae comissioned and ke ou of view he ae ve often of bee echnica uali han he moe dee imoa siua cavings Thei aeshec uai also seves o adveise he sk of hei makes, man of whom seciaie in secc kinds of domesic objec such as oinmen os lhough inceasingl eaced b machinemade objecs oda, he wee, Vogel exains, once ve common sasing he basic dese fo a leasing aesheicie d enionmen (27) Though much of he discussion Voge is aeming o defailiai Baue a in he mnds of he Wesen eades-euiing hem o so and wod hink a abouin he esuo ode ha siions he migh he ma see he binBaue g o obecs an aea as he ance magica of he and siit al obj ecs he ae in he minds of man Baue eole In iself his demad fo a cean knd of uneaning of culal habs is enie audable i vasl exends he Wesen eades u desanding and ae ciaion-ad by he wa, i is a saegy ha coud wih o be moe often alied o Goo as well Bu  s a saeg ha can encoage he false noion ha he B aule do no have wo ks of a and ha we ae ehno cenica misaken in caing hei woks "a In fac Vogel does no bei eve his hesef, which is wh havng ed o esabish he sangeness of he Baule aoach o a she ns aound nea he end of he book o asse eades of is famiiai ohing descibed in his book is com lee uiue o he Baue  In fac, he geaes inees of a igh focuse d a lace sud oflikeahs one ma e ecsel he in ohe disan cul esin how much ligh i can shed on IV ow much dieen fom a famiia acice in o cule mus an alien acice, x, be n ode o me he designaon, The have a dieen conce of x fom os ee is one exeme answe o his ueson, hed eanesl and ssemaical o m knowedge b no ehnogahes,

"Bu Te on' Hve O ur Conce o Ar

227

en hned a o s uggesed nom a ll  s a ve son o cul n (somem es called cone xualsm  whch clams ha nc e  an concep s consued b he conceps and cul l whch  s embedded conceps can neve be nellgbl  _ sculuall s eve culual sse/conex s deen om eve ohe  ollows heeoe ha an em whn a ssem s scl ncompaable o an em n anohe ssem lhough coune o odna cossculual expeence he knd o hnkng suggesed b hs ncommensu abl  hes s-a heoc o culu unqueness attacve o some enogaphes who have specalzed n al specic culues-s i aods hem a pvlege d sandpon as he alone posse ss supeo knowledge o he concepual wold o "he be he culual nepeaons o an enogaphe who knows he local language o a be and has a ga sp o he bes web o aed o esoec meanng cano easl be challenge d o cczed b ousdes nd snce no concep n an culue could em bod exacl he meanng o an concep n an ohe culue  ollows ha he anslaon o no onl poec language bu an language-along wh compason o polcal oms o socal sucues judcal sucues cookng and ean g pacce s waae and espec al woks o a -would heeoe be mpossbe

]

he acual ealm o daoda enogaph whee compason hencossculua applcaon o conceps ae consanl pacced and such ncommensuabil s nev acuall advocaed o vewed as gven ac eveheless enogaphe s wll occasonal clam ha a be "does no have ou concep o some pacce o ohe   s m conenon ha  he noon o "a deen concep s seched beond nelgbl n mos such conexs and  have  e o see i use d valdl n connec on wh a n e s place he cam ha a cuua om s unue o ha he con cep whch denoes  n ou culue s useess o inappcabe n anohe cuue eq ues ha he peson makng h e cla m have a m command o he poenall compaable pacces o meanngs n Wesen culue wh whch he alen meanng mgh be anaogzed hs s no a pue heo eca ssue o  suggess a pacca lne o neogaon whch ough o be appled o an enogaphe clamng culual unqueness o an alen meanng Are you conden you know enoug out your own cuture o mke n ncompry cm hs poblem s a he coe o he essa b Ha ough ehe gnoance o ovesg h she as o nd he pope compa son o jyon panng whch s no Euopean Hgh  gae panng bu adonal egous ok panng pacced n he conex o ousseau as Boadl speakng hs s a geneal decenc o he anopoogy o a oo oen  has anspe d ha oung an opologss poss essng lm ed ama wh he vas ange o as o Wesen hso pehaps on

228

DTT

O

he s oveseas le alone eogaphc expeence se ou o explan he suble and ncae as of emoe bal culues  ome anopologs s ma acheve descpve accuacy and aeshec nsgh n such an ehno gaphc execse man howeve ae smpl nadequae o he ob Wh he band an d Baule eamples pesened b  Ge ll an d Vogel on he ohe hd he ssue s deen he magcal powes assocaed wh hese as do no comonl d a leal analogue n conempoa Wes en a pacce (hough he emnd me n some especs of weepng o healng elgous saues ha pe odcall appea eve n oda n Euope an d he mecas o ouposs of C san su ch as he Phl ppnes  eve heless we have no o uble appecang he cav ng skll an d aeshec cha acesics of oband slashboads ad Baule sp spouse sculpues we c also undesand magcal echnologes (and e conomc obecv es  as descbed b Gell as well as compehen d has o Vogel he pscholog al ul of he noon of he sp spouse fo he Ba ule Combnng ou geneal deas of a-even ou nounsh concep of a wok of a o a sculpuewh hese ohe aspecs of a foegn asc/magcal/elgous pacce s hadl an nsumouna ble ask fo he Wesen ne llecual m ag naon Vogel n paula pans a lucdl coheen pue of he wold f Baule bel ef and a Undes andng wha she sas does no equ e even he slghes sechng o adjusmen concep of a howeve much she exends h e caego of obecsofwe"ou cal l a Consd e b way of compason anohe huan pace cookng up pose hee exsed a be whose onl wa of cookng foodan food eve-was o bol  n wae Evehng hs peole eve pepaed d ae was ehe aw unheaed n a manne o boled Would we sa he have a deen concep of ookng fom us o he cook food hough whn a moe lmed epeoe of ecques han ous Bu a geae ange of ecnque s o ca ou a pace does no n  self change he con  ep of ha pace he nvenon of h e mcowave oven d d no ch ge he concep of cookng  povded a new wa o do  Ou gandpaens had ou oncep of cookng even f he cooked deen food ad neve sed mcowave ovens uppose howeve ha we dscoveed a be ha neve heaed food had neve head of hea ng  bu alwas pas sed a sp wand ove  befoe eang  Would we sa he had a deen conep of cookng fom ous  gan no whaeve else he ae dong -blessng food sancfng  wadng o posons auhozng he occason of s beng eaen- he ae no cookng  wh a sp wan d (alhough he w ad ould ac o "cook smbolcall f he alead kne w }ha cookng was bu he be would have o have he concep of coo kng fo ha  In paallel fashon suppose some culues conep of a ncluded ob jecs whch alhoug sculped ou of wood wee never looked a wh

"But They Don  Hae Ou Concept of 

22

amazemen  lease o fasnaon of an knd  n bl o n vae (o wee exeed o be looke d a even b nonh  enes a s b gods ) wee he sbe of no  al voabla whasoeve d d no eesen an hng meall wee afed n no dsenbl egla stle and alhogh em loed as doosos wee neve aoded an aenon beond wha was eqed o lae hem befoe oen doos o o emove hem n ode o sh doos old we sa ha hs be "has a deen one of a fom os o on he evdene so fa sled whaeve else hese ob es ae (doosos evd en  he ae no "a n a sense een fom he Wesen sense  They ae no wos of a  a n ode o qalf as woks of a n whaeve aenaed san sange o obse sense we mgh wan o ae he obes wold have o shae n some of hose ases sensos lease n exeene eae n (o agans a ad onal stle nvolvng nense magnave aenon  skllll made o e fomed beng smbol o e esenave exessng emoon o feelng and so foh ha a shaes no onl n Wese n le b n he gea a adons of sa and he es of he wo ld nldng bal les of fa he meas and Oeaa f hee s no dsenble onneon wh hs esablshed omlex of deas  s no a new k nd of a fom;  s ahe a aego of ob e o  ae dsn fom a   s no (lke " endosng a hek  oned  ab o one le osa ehal and bone ehe aonz ng geneost o meals on exended  o ohe s om a osslal a shso al eseve a s a vas assemblage of elaed aes-mos obabl ehemeal some eslng n maea l obe s o eode as  exs whh an be on need n ems of analoges and homologes beween all known hm soee s The smlae s an analoges ae no dl o see n omang one le wh anohe d n fa he anhologal leae leaves no dob ha all les have some fom of a n a  efel nellgble Wesen sense of he em s ans Sasho sas he wod "a ges es vage "owad an mense ndeemnae and dsaae bod of ae an heo wh a dense and mhsded hso   

v  noe Sashos ema k fom s aeaane n a essa b avd  ovz n wh oz nees Sasho as wanng o emhase he exen o whh he one of a s ons e d deenl b deen les  O esons abo wha s and s no a ovz ages do no deve fom some "essenal nae of a b fom ean hsoal and soal onngenes Sh denaons on o a wold no be "sagh fowad o "demandng b wold eqe ha we ndesand "he

23

T TO 

hisoy  hy ha pevades a bal ulue (24) s woks of a  "la the th atua kds, the detato of somethg as a k o  pesupposes ultua kowedge, athe tha the otg of e slis ovitz emaks o what a mistake t would be to as sfy al sp spouses as "a beause they esemble Cubst suptue  sss ha thee i  eway hat an tifact st be in ode to be a wo of at thee e hes, eees, nances, nd sbtleties bed of social ife, all of which defy taihtf epiical investigation nd so cannot be capted in pecise fo \lti  ioos denitions still ess by appeal to ati stic law o aesthetic ies the, the decision to teat an atifact as a wo of t is ade in te f citei that have ch to do with the histoicalyshaped life of a soci ey itei t e f signicance only becase of thei socia locationthe beiefs, pefe ales and social aangeents that pe ail withi  a socety at a gien tie, n whihae theefeates athe than the a a of ath ood 6

 flls f vtz tha we o ud ot idetify a wok o f at as such wth u st g t as belogg to a ulte s fo suh objets as he tisate avgs of t he Youba, they a e "diult to  det  a ks f t  the peval g sese of the tem, whle " t would b e at best isa, ost des be aule sp tthey spoae useot cav"woks gs as ks o aa" ay accate fullbloodedtosese of the te m o a   ss of ths wod hat, he, s "o sese of the wod "at? ovtz does ot say pecsly, huh hs Weste examplesstadad patigs ad sulp s, V yck, Pcass, chlangelo-suggest that fo hm at least the s ss f "at, at least sofa as t petas to vsual atfats, fes ply t ovetoal museu woks . This feeg s efoed  hs pss eal that  ou cultue bak otes, vta ge cs, d po s a saps  ks of at t o pot he discus how we might kow "hh a bal atfat s ar in o sese of ths wod, ad the adds, "ha s,  h ly sens e of the wod w udestad This s tkes m e as a y  a k ve f we accep t that ou sese of the gl sh wod ar s he y sse we udestad, what does that come to y sese of ar h sse  iagie i s sha ed by most e ducated otempoa y speakes f  pe lauaes ad cetay ot oly opeas, does t efeusiely to uopa at, but to a thgs i hna hstoy  hch h m mht easoably efe, cludg at ojets ad ats  c as f Weste cutues ad dstat hstoa tmes-objects, pates, a pefomances ve not expeeced yet, but wl someday lly,  uld ted tha t ou oept of laguage does ot e fe to  ua ae-f ex mple, glsh but to a languages, ega d

"u  They Dn ' Hae Ou r ncep  A

231

less of wee we can speak m, know wa  a called, o evn e know e exs  (s s so even f e s ng we mg nk of as a example o a language s o own language asked o magne a bd, I mg well nk s of a spaow o a obn, bu sll ealze a pen guns, kws, dodos, condos, and uboaed  ungbds ae bd as well e "onl sense of a we undesan canno be a sense a efes onl o a we al ead know , n Eopea nkng n an eve n, s an open concep, and lke e conceps of elgn, govenmen, o spo, a sands ead o cove new nsances and ncanaons In a faous ema k n Ar Clve Bll sas a "e all woks of vsual a ave some common qual, o wen w spek of woks of a w gbbe 6 He mea, of cous e, a e ave n coon moe an beng efeed o b e same wod -ee mus be a some deep eason w a wod s appled o suc appaenl deen objecs s fudamen al u, as Bell ealzed, as a leas as muc penence n e dscose of cossculal aesecs as  as fo dspues abou vsal a wn Bells an o cule. I ave e mpesson ma of e eoss wo ave wen of "a n o sense suppose e meanng of e em s a funon of s class of efeens even f e mg dn  as a bald asse on, e we mplcl as oug "o sense of e em s govened b s, " e onlsense ones ofwe"a kn ow wo poblems ggesed b "o s ae,efeen s, a f o weee deemned b ssuefe ens, a sense would eefoe be consal cangng, as  s exended dal o efe o objecs and pefomances oeed bo fom wn o cule ad fom beond  Bu, second, ow would we even kown wen o exend e applcaon of "a, f we ddn ave some pncple of ap plcaon wc valdaes bngng new objec s nd pefom ances unde  ee mus be sable elemens n s meanng o den s enals a we go abou abal callng anng a loug e does no povde a fullblooded en on of a o accom pan s menon of e "fullblooded sense f e em, Davd Novz does n a e exsence of a leas one fundaenal ceon fo a, basng woks  of sa vew weon umanze a suggese veea emak as we bc Monoe in noBea oedsle wa, "n we ceang wam  fo oselves, m ake a pl ace wee we bel ong     s as a nce, almos Hedeggean  ng o , bu as Novz noes,  does no ell us ve muc, and n an even  nves e efuaon a some paadgmac a makes s audence feel ae moe alenaed n a ome on e ma zed ea I nepe Beadsle's saemen as ponng vaguel owad e ae uBeadsleean noon of a as e amaon of culal den s consual would be conssen w e epass Novz places on culall consuced was n wc a aecs us "If e capac of a

232

UTTO



afac o ec pacula les s o meel cdeal o  u deves fom s fom ad coe ad f he afac ca be see o saae e values a people lve b so a  someow legtmates ter exstence and enances ter sense  w and w at te are ad f fuemoe e a fac s valued fo s so of comple x easo we would ge e pese moal eos  wc we lve be cled o edose e clam (sould  be made a  s a wok of a  25, alcs ade  ovz s cle al g abou ma a obecs ad e acves assocaed w em vewed coss culuall  e ec ves ad apl f a sese of pesoa ad ul ual de  Bu ma obje cs a d aces wc  ae o a b ovzs ow descpo-collecg e samps of oes omelad peaps o oolg abou e cousde  oes vage ca-accomplsh e sae goal oas call ovz ds guses a ebul dg fom o a debuldg w s qualcao a e debuldg capac of a sould deve f om s fom ad coe ae a co e aloe ee e okes a fala ad que adoal Wese ceo fo a a as value deves fom e fuso of fom ad coe ae a fom coe (mee fomao o paccal comucao aloe Ye ove all  seems o me a despe e fac a e pese moa eos of coempoa mulculual soce ma sess e eaceme of a sese of wo ad wa as aad mpoa fuco fo  ee s vasl moe gog o we eae poduco ejome of a coss culuall a s e ve suggesed le aloe capu ed b s uc a fomulao ol Caoll has emaked o e wa a a eoes despe clams o uvesal  ae ofe ooed  aesec ss ues a d de baes of e  ow mes Tus Caoll sas e heoes of Cv e Bell ad R G Collg wood ae def es es of emegg a agade pac ces -eom pessosm  o o e oe had ad e modes poecs of Joce Se ad Elo e oe 7 Susae Lage ca be ead as povdg a uscao fo mode dace wle e al eso of Geoge Dckes suoal heo "eques someg lke e pesupposo a Dada s a ceal fom of asc pacce  ode o ga uve appea Au Daos Wao eaobsessoal ad supemae eozgBllo abouboxes dsceble deves fom aoa a specal objecs ad sucece as  eoeca pobem ad  would add a ozs mplc cocepo of a seems o gow decl o decl fom ue peoccupaos w pesoal ad culual de oe of ese k ds of eo e ca appoac emegg as e do fom e cces of e ogag cuues seem o me especall appopae o e as of smalscae oeae ba  socees o ug eac  as paal ee vace  woud o coed a a eo s explaed awa b beg s oczed ad elavzed o e soca codos o peoccupaos of e

"But They Don 't Hae Ou r Concep of r

233

eois Bu ee is no dening Caolls genle suggesion a e ais ic ineess and eoccuaions of a eois ave e oenial o aec inenionall o no e s coe ad sub sance of a eo and a much of e  eo of is cenu as been conneced o jusicaions of avan gade Euoean a and eefoe I would add mig be of onl maginal elevance o udesading e as of smallscale nonlieae cules o Moeove he insisence b ilosoes on ing o one deiions e geaes scoe combined wi e geaes simlici undesood a diionall as a esicuous and nie se of necessa and sucien condi ions ma  wok agains udesanding in a doma in in aicula a doma as agged and mulilaeed as a of iba l a Tis in an even is e conclusion o wc I ave been foced b m own acical eldwok and lieaue eseach no ibal as and in his esec a leas I nd mself in full age emen wih Nov izs emak ha "ecise fomulaions ad igoous deiions ae of lile hel in cauing he meaning of a cossculuall ill jus because as Noiz sas hee is "no one wa o be a wok of a in ibal socie  o an ohe i does no follow ha he convese "man was ae so hoelessl numeous as o be useci able In fac ha he ae seciable howeve disuaiousl is equied b he ve  exise nce of a liea ue on co ssc ulual aesheics agumen s which make i oss ble fo N oviz o me o ublish views on he subje c in aesheics jounals These consideaions esuade me o aoach ibal as as a subjec fo hilosohic inqui ough a indenie lis of feaues chaaceis ic of a in ibal  smallscale nonlieae culues While I do no claim ha a one feaue on his li s is indefeasibl cieial fo a n a ibal conex his lis o soehing close o i is wha makes ossible coss culual disouse abou a in geneal Gning ha hee ma be ma ginal cases b as I mea aifacs (sculues ainings and decoaed objecs such as ools o he human bod on he one hand ad efo mances (dances music and he comosiion ad eciaion of soies on he ohe hand Feaues on his ls can be fod in he wok of such L.

wies  GeneasBlocke Richad and ae ndeson9 even infomall and he ehnogahe discussed b he andhilosohe hilosohe Juius oav csik  lhough i is inended o al o eve known ibal socie i has lage elevance sce eve known socie ibal o lage scale akes ad aeciaes some fom of a objec o aisic efo mance N o eve elemen on he lis can be ass ciaed wih o inco oaed ino eve a of a smallscale nonlieae culue bu mos can be 1

The a obj ec eihe naaie so ca fed aifac o visual and aual efomance is a souce of leasue in ise lf ahe han a

234

D UTT O

aa   surce of informaion  s maeri a embo dime n ma

b a  (a sed a knife ) or a source of informaion ( a sac red poem )

 ss f e embodimen give p easure i n expe rien ce aside from  aia or informaon/comunica ion c ons iderai ons (This a i  ca ed ae shec peas ure;_ bu  avoi d he wor ese  iiiy cirua and in an eve n unn ece ssa in his con ex  ) 2.  ai of e obe c or he p erformace requ ires he ex ercise of a ia ski Tis ski is eaned in an apprenic e ra dio n in s ome ii  i oers ma be pi cke d up b ano ne who n ds ha she o r  " a ak for  Where he s ki  is acqu ire d b vruay yy i e uure su ch as wih comuna snging or dancin g   si  be individ uas who s and ou b vi rue of spec ia  ia a isic ski s ae noic ed in smas cae s ocie ies and  ay adire d 3  j a performances ( incud ing ora  naraives ) are made in a stes according o rue s of form ad composi io n e   iic deerminaion vaie s as mch in r iba  cu es as in    ierae ci iizaions wih some sacre d obje cs and aes being igy circu mscri be d by rad ii on wi  o hers �   re eaive ndividua variaion Te sy e may be e   a fay or beenaera e invenion aindiv syes i ing ands sudd ion asowe as soiua w evoing s 4  iss se kind of indig enou s cri ica anguage of u dgmen ad aiai spe r eabora   a is appi d o rib a ars  This ay ie e sp ak of a produc es or evauai ve dsco urse of as ik  ars e mseves, w ic can be mmense y ia i as oen been remarkd a is crica discourse is in a s sem es rudime nay compare d wi e a ds cou se ia pean isory  can owever, be e aborae  5  y yig degres of nauai sm, a obec s, inc udi ng s aiings, and ora nara ives represe n or imiae rea an d iaiy exience of he word e dierences bewee n naurais ic sain, i stize d represen aio n, and n onimiaive yi e ersood b ariss and he r adi ence s in ways y ieiibe  Wesern obs ervers ( us Dano s view h a here is  ii i frican a r is ce rainy ase from an indigenous i ricans under sand he disin con between  igh ai epeenaions and sti sic a dis ore d imae s or symb os;  in beeen nauraisic ea ism and s tized disorio n is  a ra cnsucon ) 6.  as aored b he as of sma sca e so cie ie s o eir

"u Tey Don ' Hae Ou r Concep o Ar

235

indigenous audienes ae on si ousl inended b e makes of su obes, even if e obe s indige nous meaning o impo ane is pimal uliaian o nonaisi esei o aisi please as an aidenal bpodu of nonaisi aiviies is as ommon o as ae in ibal so ieies as i is in ou soie T e suggesio n a ibal peoples migh geneall eae ings beauiful  o em o  o us  wiou ealizing i, o a e make ings wi ae beauiful o us bu o whih he ae wholl indieen is eainl false 7 Woks of a and aisi pefomanes ae fequenl baked o fom odina life made a speial and damai fous of expiene While he e ae plen of mundane aisi obes and pe fomanes suh a s deoaed pas of Baule looms o ommunal sngng done  pass he ime while mending shing nes eve knwn ule has speial awoks o pefomanes whi involve wha Ellen ssana ake alls "making speal  3 These oa sions ae ofen imbued wi inense emoion 8  Fiall, and among e moe impoa aaeisis e expeiene of a in ib al soieies is an imagna ve expe iene fo bo podues and audienes  Te aving ma ealisiall epesen an animal bu as a s ulpe i beomes an imagina ive obe  Te same an be sa id of an sodane well b oldelig, weewi  molog pe sonal so Te osumed s nenseoun of ppose among e pefomes pos sesses an i maginaive eleme n wih ansen ds mee goup exeise  In ibal ulu es as elsew ee in  e iso o f uman life, a appens in e eae of e imagnaion Tee ae oe poenial andidaes fo is lis iems wi , oug pe aps moe magnal o onov esal mi g waan nlusio n Bloke fo example inks ee is a nea univesali in ibal soieies o e idea a e ais is onsideed "eeni o a bi soiall awkwad 4 He also inks e neen enson beween as adiion and novel is a geneal aspe of bal as I d boh of hese feaes appealing as andidaes fo he lis, beause he aod sikingl wih m expeiene in he ew Guina village of Yenhenmangua David ovizs noion of a as aming he deni of a ule is also a elevan poenial gen eal haaeisi, and ould be applied espeiall o he moe heaial, agesale  eemoni a oasions of iba soi e, whih ofen seem ah e lke paio allies Bu I sha l fo now lmi he lis o he enal eigh haaeisis I have eouned In ei inoduion o Te Adaped Mnd Jeome H Bakow, Leda Cosmides and John Toob onend ha fo he las few geneaions an hopologss have been pone ssemaall o oveempasze he die

s  l cults at t xp ns f cg nizing sm ilaits an aul nisals T qut wit appval Mauic Blchs mak a nrlgiss a guit f a fm f pfssinal malpactc i n    ic t av tid t xaggat  xtic chaact f  cs  Tis ndnc as  hav ntd tughut has ctanl ic  arpgical app ach t a Suc mstica n in th apic asthics ftn cnsists in fcusig atntin n wha in an vnt is  i istc f t in anth cutu  phaps nt at at a  tti i s ug i w caacisic f sm xic asic  na  in  pilsp ad hf asau ld u as i c s Th sanad sag is nd a puaiv a bjc n a ial si abu wic al hg aphs w wng   n whic h fs ny smpl atmp a ndsandng ad uv dmnsa d  y  av a i u sns   b tins a min di is ad h is a gn f wd cas   casd tins whs sps in h ld lgin in a t scpts s usan Vg xpains hwv his adin s i l pailay ang Muslm and Cs fais Th ld s   t a any sunnng xmpls  a b ng p lad i s sas by splid  avngs f lw  lif and n s b cap ip, asspdud, plasi dlls (wi Eupan fau s nca ily  sulpt apas at all in t  win cult ut a t p tg ap   a  ai sing tnafn sandsbn h f alaci s dcasd siblngYub Bh a l iz impssd with whch l a bn wlling  supp wd sculps wih chap plasi c ls l ss ts pactics as " updatng f th tadtn wtht , s  aginaiv us f impd ims as plac mns f a al atks viz daws fm his phnmnn a m adical ls t ej sulpts snc th a s asl placd b mas  lls a "s assudl wuld n b cnsidd a in  lt a f "appcad n f h ginali n f hi  ,  yt f ti pptins th a apcatd pimail as sis afacs a allw h bnca nflnc f h dcas d in t sist n t pants lvs (27)  e cavings Ntz say sac ccy cci a scial by spac k sinfYba at in u sci sc that is t f th scial  cn s n agnt n ay f ths sh wng why  th th d   ct j cang is nt at Paticulaly th  d ej sculptus a (a) slly a bjcts, ) pducd in a cgnza bl cnvntina l sl (c) sjct  a ccal vcabulay ang cavs and wns, ) tatd s vy scial bjcts thug in a pivat sn s at h than f pu bic di ay, ) ic psntatins f th gu f a child w ith cnntnl vsiz a a f) anatv bjcts that s, thy stand f  th dad

"Bt They Dont Have Our Concept of Art

237

cild ad ae inhabited by its sprt, but do not literally relace it. Taken together, these feates ae ucient to call ibej cavngs works of at. In this respect I canot share Vogel's blad acceptace of these chae s as a imagnatve updatng of a tradton. Lke the repacee nt of Pueblo pottery by cheap (and more practical ) tin pots n the nnetee nth-c entuy South west, the nvason of the Yoruba ibej cult by Taiwanese plastc toys does not con stitute the fth er devel opment of a artistc tr adton, bt ts very death. In any event, none of this s rele ant to whether historc or contem-

oay secens of bej cavng ae at hee ay be any easons fo te eady accetance of lastc dolls as be Cetanly the Cstanzng of ouba lfe s a ao facto Pehas thee ae ouba othes who ae too oo to cosson cavngs o ae sly unnteested n be statues as dstnctly ouba at (thus, ncdentally castng doubt on whethe the enchent o en hancee nt of ouba  dentt wth at aes any de ence to the, at least n ths case) he bgtly coloed lastc dolls ay even have shee novelt aeal But n geneal tat thee ae eole n ay culte who do not cae fo an ndgenous at o who lose nteest n t long enough fo t to de out , so fa tells us nothng about wheth e t actu ally s a at fo o constue the o taton of lastc dolls nto ouba lfe as showng that they have a deent concet of at fo us o that the be and cavngs notdgesson at n onsense s yet aote confoundng ex otczng ystae yng ethnogahc aesthetcs he concentaton by thosts of ethogahc at on dubous cases dawn fo the abguous agns of the atstc lfe of tbal eoles (aeas whee at dsaeas, o s gadually elaced by tual elgon o actcal concens) on sleadngly descbe atstc actces o on needess attets to ae foegn ats exotc has nclned ay aesthet ca to gve u the seach fo atstc un vesals , o at best to ean slent on the subect But nethe the unvesalty of at no the unvesal t of ts cental featues s endangeed by the exstence of agnal o dsuted cases of at n tba (o Eoean culte he nvestgaton of etho gahc ats s only eded by the dogatc efusal to dscuss and debate eght geneal the cha actestcs feat eswhe ll belt esent I havenovded evey wo d osofnot atns I dost that claeach thatofay ts huan actce whch had none of the featues enueated ould not be at an that ay huan actce whch osessed ost of the would be at not  at n o sen se but at n the sense that chaact ezes t tough the whole of huan hstoy If ths sees an uaccetably vague conclu son that ay be because the evolve  unvesa l tendeny of huan bengs to have at of soe descton n the lves does not oduce a body of atce ad atfact that s aenable to deton n tes ecse enough to sasy soe the osts  But as ayoe who has atte ted ge dawg wll attest the hua body, avelos echas  hat t s dd ot evolve

23

D U O 

n e  be a asy s bject  atsts N, c he slng lses  they  e as evlve n  e  ake le eas y  hlshes . NO 1 Ly  t Tee Walls Reoal Aesthetcs ad the Iteatoal At

old  The Geoe n Culture Regurng Artofand Anthropolo cs ad , 127   edTrac R yes ( Beeley vesy Cafo a Pes sed1  2 fed Gel Th e Techoloy of c hatme t ad t he  chat met of Tech oloy  Anthro Art and Aesthetcsed Jeemy Coote ad Athoy Shel to (Oxfod Cledo Pess 12, 46  Ssa l  oel Baule Afrcan Art Western Eyes (New ave  Yale  vesty Pess 17 4 acs  Spsho At ad Aopoloy ournal o f Aesthetcs and A rt Crtcsm  ( 17: 2  Davd Novtz  At by Aothe Name Brtsh ournal of Aesthetcs 8 (1 8 12 6 Clve Bell Ar (11; New Yo Capco 18 17 7 No Coll Idetf At  Insttutons of Art: Reconsderatons of eorgeckes Phloshy ed Robet J  Yaa (vesy Pa Pe sylvaa State ves Pess 14 , 1 8 I have  ptc obected to th C Datos aalyss of tbal ts  tems of dsceble atfacts of the cotempoay Weste atwold s essay Atfact d t as st pbshed  Art/Artfac ed Ss a M Voel (New Yo Cete fo fca At 188 My espose s Tbal At ad Atfact oal ofAesthecs and Art Crtcsm 1 ( 1 1 2   Rchd L deso Callopes Ssters A Compaatve Study of Phlosophes of Art (lewood Cs NJ  Petce all 1 1  Gee Ble The Aesthetcsof Prmtve A rt (Laham Md nvesty Pess of Ameca 1 11 Js oavcs  hy Phosophy of At   a CossCltal Pespectve? oual ofAesth and Art Crcsm  ( 12 24 12 Davd oce told that  heeeal beevedhethat theeabot s  oAfca sch th adoey hle I th hm me wo s ht at as dstoto whee thee ae o dstotos  Dato t fact ad At  2 1 e Dssaayae Homo Aesthetcs (New Yo e e Pess 12, chap  14 Bloce Aesthetcs of Prmtve Art 148 1 Jeome   Bow Leda Cosmdes ad Jo Tooby The Adapted Mnd Evolutoy Pc and the eneraton of Cultue (New Yo Oxfod ve sy Pess 12,444 16 Ssa  ol a stc Cot m  Afrca Explores th Centu Afr can Art  Ss  oel (New Yo Cete fo Afca At 11, 2, 888

Bibliography Contributors Index

Bblography J HEE CHO

AgdMgese , Ls he Aleged Agt f  f t  Personalst 6 , 3 1  17 Agrd Mgesen, Ls, ed  Culture and Art Atntic ighlds, N] nites Pess 176 Ahleg Lslf Al tc Aesth etcs  d AnEssetism  A Repl t Rchrd 1 Shstem British ournal of Aesthetis 3 , 387 8  drc, Vrgl C  163 Philosohy of Art Engewd Cs N]  Pentce l 177 Mceg  Des nsttzed Aesetc ournal of Aesthetis and Art Citiism 36, 213-1 exnde, et   n Deng  Aes thecs  Ag rdMge se 176 , 1 1  - 1 8  176 Apes , Php 1 8 Msc s Phsph in Apesn, ed, 1 87, 1 3-2 1  Apers n, Php, ed 187 What Is Musi? An Introdution to the Philosohy of Musi. New Yr:  e  Andeeg,  ,  Nlst ,  d   Pessn, eds 188 Aestheti Distintion Essays Presented to oran ermeren on is  Fiieth BirthdayLd , Swede  Ld erst Press Ades, Jmes 182 182

Msc 28-2 l det ournal of Aesthetis and Art Critiism 41, Rethg Aesthetic Appecti ournal of Aestheti and At Critiism 41, 7 -8  Msc  Kds British ournal of Aesthetis 2, 43 -4

18 Bchc J Dces  stti he  f A ournal of Aesthetis 177 Eduation 11, 2-3 

241

242

CO

I

Bale, erge 18a aters Imtate, Prfessals Steal Jounal of Aesthetcs and Ar Crtcsm 47, 2 2 1-27 Frgg t Southern Journal of Phloophy 27, 3 1-2 18 Perre Meard Don Quxote. yyun: The Jeusalem Phlosophcal 1 Quarterly 3, 3 3-7 Pctr al tat  nternatonal Studes n Phlosophy 2, 1 -8 13 Barett, Crl 1 71/72 Are Bad rs  Art rs  Art ?  Royal nttute of Phlosophy Lectures 182-3 Batel, mth W 17 recat ad Dc es Det f rt Brtsh ournal of Aesthetcs 1, 44 2 Batters, Ch ste ender and enus Toward a Femnst AesthetcsBlgt 18 Idaa Uerst Press Batt , Magaet, P Lesss frm Ethcs CaseDre Aesthetcs ad Appraches t 188 her I Adererg, Nlst, a d Perss 1 88, 13 -24  Baxter, Bra Cets ad Art Brtsh Journal of Aesthetcs 23, 31 -32  183 Beadsle, Mre C  18 11 1 17 17 178 17 182a 182 182c 182 183

Aesthetcs Problems n the Phlosophy of CrtcsmNew Yr  crt, Brace  he Det   the Arts Journal of Aesthetcs and Art Crtcsm 2, 17 -87 Aesthetc Experece Regaed Journal of  Aesthetcs and Art Crtcsm 28 , 3-1 1 he Aesthetc P t  Vew I Perspectes n Educaton Relgon and the Art ed wd E Kefer ad Mlt K Mntz Vl 3 Ala State Uers t f New r Pre ss, 2 1 3 7 Is Ar t Esse tall Isttt a ?  I AagadMgese 1 7 , 14-2 he Rel eace f st r t  Art Crtc sm  to  a Tool n Crtcal nterpretaton ed hmas F Rgh ad Er R Sla Pr, Utah B rgha Yg Uerst Press, 1 - 1 8  I Defe ce  f Aesthetc Vale  Proceedng and Addree of the Amercan Phlosophcal Assocaton 2, 734 TheAesthetc Pont of Vew Selected EssaysEd  Mchael   ree ad Dald M Cale  Ithaca, NY Crel Ue rst Press Art ad Its Cltra  C text I ree ad Calle 1 82 , 32-7 Itets ad I terpretats: A Fallac Ree d I r ee a d Calle 182, 18 8-27 Reeg  I ree a Calle 1 8 2, 2 8- 3 1  Aeshetc De t f Ar I Crtle r 1 83, 1 -2 

Bboahy 3 Becer Col ed The Subversive Imagnaton: Artists, Socey and Social Responsility. 199 Ld  Rtledge  Bell, Cle Art Ld 191 Berleant Arld A Note  the Problem of De g Art  " Phlosophy and 196 Phenomenologcal Research 25 29- 1  Bi l e Tmth 19 76 Dec d g abt Art   AagaardMgese  19 76 , 90 1 09 Piece Ctra Aesthetics ournal of Aesthetcs and Art Crtcsm 1977 5, 65 -77  Blize, i liam L 197 A sttti oal Theor of Art Brtsh ournal of Aesthetcs 1 12-50 Blcer  Gee s Primite Art Art ournal of Aesthetc Educaton 25 8797  1991 Blom Pal 1996 tet str ad Artfa ct Ccets Cognton 60 1-29 Bod, . L The ssetia  Nat e  f Art Amercan Phlosophcal Q uarterly 12 1975 177-8 Bo1987 rdie Pier The re istor cal Geesis  f a Pe Ae sthetic oual of Aesthetcs and Art Crtcsm, 211 Bra d Pegg  Zegl 1982 Lord Lewis, and the stt tioal Theor of Art ournal of Aesthetcs and Ar t Ctcsm 0 ,  9-1  Brw Lee B 199 Detios ad Art Ther ournal of Aesthetcs and Art Crtcsm 27,  9-15. Tradtal Aesthetcs Reisited ourna l of Aesthetcs and Ar t 1971 Crtcsm 29  -5 1989 Resrectg egel t B Art Brtsh ournal of Aesthetcs 29, 015 Bllgh dwd 1912  Pschical Distanc e' as a act or  Art and a Aesthet ic Pricile Brtsh ournal of Psychology 5 87-98 Bwater, iliam G 1972 Wh' s  the ehse Now?  ournal of Aesthetc and Ar t Crtcsm  519-27 are, ames D. 1975 Deig Art Brtsh ournal ofAesthetcs 15, 1912 06 1982a A Kriean Aroach to Aesthetic Theori es Brtsh ournal of Aesthetcs 22 15-5 7

244

e  OI

hat Is a or of Art ? ura f Aeshec Educa 16, 85-9 Stle d Formal Featres Suhe ra f Phsphy 9, 41-44 11  e Ste eory of Art Pacc Phsphical Qurterly7, 789 Deg t xteraly Brsh ural f Aeshecs 4, 1 14-  1a A storcal he ory o f Art Crtci sm url f Aesthetc 1 Educa8, 1 9 Represetatio ad St le  Phlsphy ad Phemelgcal 1 Research5, 81 1 8 rier, avid 1  Art thot ts Oects ? Brtsh ural f Aesthecs 19 5-6 18 Art ithot ts Artsts  Brish ua f Aesheics , -44 8 Arwrtg Amherst Uiv ersit of ass achsetts Press 16 omrich ad Dat o o Deig t ural  fAeshecs ad Ar Crcsm 54, 7 9- 81  rol ol 1  Film istory ad Fl m heory  A Otli e for a Ist itt ioa l eory of Fim  Flm Reader o  4 8196 rt ad Ite racto  ural f Aesthetcs ad Art Crcsm 45 186 57-68 1 88 rt Practice ad arrative Mst 71  14 0-5 6 18 11a

Revie of Dato isr ad Thery4 11  4 B eat d the e eaoy of Art heor y Phlsphcal Frum  074 ssece xpessio  ad stoy Athr Datos Philosop hy of 1a Art I Ahur Dat ad is Crtics ed  Ro s Oxord B asil Blace 79- 106  1 stoical  atves a d the Pilosophy o f At ural f Aesthetics ad Art Crtcsm 51 1- 6  1 Idetfyg At I Yaa 1994 - 8 1  a Avatde Art ad the Proem of eory ral  fAesthetc Educa9 11 Dto Stle ad Itetio .  ural f Aeshetcs ad Art Crtcsm 1 55157 1  Dtos e Deitio of Ar t ad the Polem of Art h eoes ritsh ural f Aesthetcs 7  86-9  18 e d of Art sry ad Ther 7 1 7- 9 18 A Phlsphy f Ms ArtOxfod: Oxod Uivest Pess avl Saley e Yor  Scri er 1 us e ea Wha We Say? i L B 1 oedge or Co trol a s the  d of Art Brish ural f Aethecs0  44 -55 1 11

Bbograhy

25

Caers, Jo  Te Aest etcArtstc Doma , Crtcsm, ad Teacg Journl 1989 of Aesthetc Educton 23, 5-18 C to   1974 s Posopy a Form of L terat re  Brtsh Journl of Aesthetcs 14 , 3-16 Coe  ars a 1965 Aestetc ssence  Plosophy n Aerced ax Bac Ldo A en and U 11 5- 33  Te Po ssty o f Ar Remars o a Prps a y Dc e. Phlosophcl Revew 82, 69-82 1988 e Very dea f Ar Ntonl Councl on Educton for the Cerc A rts Journl 9 7-14 Ceman, e O  Saxea s Defese of  e Aesec A de Phlosophy Est 1979 nd West29, 95-9 7 Cormer, Raoa Ar as a Sca s o  Peronlt 58 , 161- 68 1977 Ct ey, A L 1990 The Nture of Art Lo d  Rote dge Cx Reee Co e, Ted 1973

A Defe ce of sca dea sm  Brtsh Journl of Aesthetcs 26, 133-42 Craford, Dad Nare and  S me Dae cca Reasps  Journl of 1983 Aesthetcs nd Art Crtcs 42, 49-58  Crer, Pa  a d Amy Brth Journl of Aethetc 21, 12- 2 1981 C rre, Gregory 1 99 3 Aes, To Anly 53,116-18 C rter g ed 1983 Wht s Art Ne Yor  ae  Dano,  r C 1964 Te Artord Journl of Phlosophy 61 , 57184 19 73 Arrs a d Rea Tgs  Theor 39, 1-17 1974 Te Transgratn f e Commop ace Journl of Aesthetcs nd Art rtcs 33, 139-48 976 A Aser or To for Sp asott  Journl of Aethetc nd At rtcs 35 80-82 1981 The Trnsguton of the oonplce Cardge: ard Uersty Press 1983 Te Apprecao ad nerpreao of rs  f t n Reltv n the Art ed Bey Jean Crage A es  U ersty o Gerga Press, 21 -44  1986

246

CH O 

1984a 1984 1986a 1986 198

Te d of Art I Lag 198 4, 5-3 5. Piosopy as/and/of Literatre roceedings and Addresses of the American hiosophica Association58, 5-20 Art voto and te osciosness o f History. ourna of Aesthetics and Art Criticism44  22 3-33 The hiosophica isenfranchisement of Art New Yor: omia versi ty Press The State of the Art New Yor PretceHa Press

At in adostHistorica Artifa ct i Africa I Beyond Yor the Brio Box The irox isa rar Stras Arts erspectiveNew 89-112 Te Artword Revis ted omedies of Si miity.  Beyond the 1992 Brio Box The isua Ars in ostHistoica erspectiveNew Yor arr Stras irox, 33-53 1993a A tre for Aestetics oa of Aesthetics and At Criticism 51 2- 1993 Resposes ad Re pies I Arhr Danto and His Critics ed M Rois Ox ford Basi  Bacw e 19 3 216  1996 Art, ssece, History ad Beaty A Repy to ri er, a Respose to Higgs  ourna of Aesthetics and Ar Criticism 54 2 84-8  Davies, S tepe Te Aest etic Reevance of Ators' and Pa iter s I tet os  1982 1992a

198a 198 198c 1988a 1988 1988c 1990 1991 1994 199 1998a 1998

orna of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 41, 656 Atetcity  Msca Performace British ourna of Aesthetics 27, 39 5 0. Te vaatio of Msic  I Aperso, ed, 19 8, 305- 25 A Note o eagi o I terpretg Art Ie tioa isticay British ourna of Aesthetics 2, 188 0 A D efece o f te Istittioa Deitio o f Art Sothern ourna of hiosophy26, 30 -24 Kripke, rsoe, an d Wiges tei  Austraasian ourna of hiosophy66, 52-66 Tre I terpretatos hiosophy and Literature 12, 290-9  ctio a and Procedra Deitos of Art ourna of Aesthetic Edcaton 24 99-106. Denitions of Art Itaca, NY ore ivers ty Press Is Arcte ctre At I  hiosophy and Architecture ed Mcae H Mtias. Amst erdam ad Atanta, a  Rodo pi, 3 1 4  rst Ar t and Arts Detio Sothen ourna of hiosophy 35, 19-34 Art, deitio of I Routede Encycopedia of hiosophysect edito r Macom Bdd, editoricef dwad rag L odo  Rotedge Teorie s of Art I Encycopedia of Aesthetics ed Mcae Key Oxford Oxford versity Press

Bbograhy

2 7

Deepwell ay e 99 ew Femnst rt Crtcsm Crtcal Strateges Macheste Macheste ivesity Pess Depste  Doulas  98 Aesthe tic Expeiece a Psycholoical Deitios of At ournal of esthetcs and  rt Crtcsm 44   6 Detels C aie 99 Histoy a the Philosophies o f the Ats ournal of esthetcs a Deutsch Eiot rt Crtcsm  6 7 Essays on the ature ofrt Alay SY Pess 996 Deveeux Daie 977 Atifacts Natual O ects a os of At nalyss 7 4 6 Dewey oh rt a s Eperence New Yo 94 Dici e Geo e 964a he Myth of the Aesthetic At itue. mercan Phlosophcal Quarterly  66  hat Is At   Istitu tioal Aaysis I eic ed 9 64  964 8294 Rpt i  Modern Book of Esthetcs e Melvi M Rade New Yo  Hot Rieha t a ist o  97  4972  The

96 966 968 969 97 97a 97 974 97a 97 976 977

Phlosophy of te Vsual rtse Philip Apeso New Yo Oxfo ivesiy Pess 9 92  44 44 Contempora Phlosophy of t e ohn  Bee a H Gee Blo ce Elewo o C is N. P etice Hal 99   207  8 Beaseys Phto Aesthetic Expeiece ournal of Phlosophy 62  29 6 Attitude a  O ect Aich o the Aesthet ic  ournal of esthetcs and rt Crtcsm 2  899 At Na owly a B oay S pea i mercan Phsophcal Quarterly  7  7 7 Dei  t . mercan Phlosophl Quarterly 6 2 6 esthetcs  n ntroducton Iiaap ois Peasus. Dei At II i i pa  97   8   he Istit tioa  Coceptio o f At I  lha  e   97  20 rt and the esthetc  n nsttutonal nalyss Ithaca NY   Coell ivesity Pess A Reply  Pofesso aois ournal of esthetcs and  rt Crtcsm 4 229  . What Is AtiAt ? ounal of esthetcs and rt Crtcs  492. What Is A t?  I Aa aaMoese  97 6 2   2. he Actu ality of At Reas o Citiciss y Cohe. Personalst 8 69 72

24

CHO

199 980 983 984 98 1988

I

A ar est Repy to Professor Staer Phlosoha 8, 13-18 Reew o f etz's The Oening Mind Journal of Phloohy , 4-6 he Ne w Istttoa heor of Art Proceeding of the Eghth nternational Wgenten Symoium 0,  64  The Art Crcle A Theory ofArt New York: aen hy Not Bot h   Journal of Aethetc and Art Crtcm 4 29 Ealuatng Ar t Phadepha empe nerst Press

Rep  to Rycma Journal of Aethetcs and Art Crtcsm 4, Repy to Ste cker I Dce Scaf an, and Rob 9 89  2 4 -  At as Artefact  A Comanon to Aethetced Dad Cooper Oxord Bacw e 1 -29  992b Deto of Art  I A Comanon to Aethetced Dad Cooper Oxford: Bacwe 09-13 9 93 a n rst c snderstandg  Journal of Aethetcs and Art Crticim , 69 -  9 93 b A ae of wo Arwords In Arthur Danto and  Critc ed  Ron s Oxf ord B as Bacw e 3 - 8 wo reds  Recet estern Aesthetcs At an d Its 994 xperence The Trends of Contemorary Eastern and Western Aethetic Ther ue and Solution'9 4 Iteatoa Sypos  of Aesthetcs ne 18 , se Adtor Seo Natona  erst -29  199a Art Fcto or ProcedreNatre or Ctre Journal of Aethetcs and Art Crtcsm  9-2 8 99b ntroduction to Aethetc An Analytc Aroach Oxford Oxford  ers t Press Dce, eorge Rchard Scaf an and Road Rob  eds  989 Aethetc: A Crtcal Antholo 2d ed New or  St at 's Press Dey,  J 1969 he Repbc of Art Brth Journal of Aethetic 9, 4 - 6  93 ssetasm ad the Deto of ' .  Brtih Journal of Aethetc 3 03 2 9 he Idea o f Art  Brtsh Joual of Aesthetcs , 22 -28 99 O Deg At  Brth Journal of Aethetc 9,  -23 1982 Aesthetc stretasm Brth Journal of Aethetc 2, 33-49 99a e stt o a heory of Art I The Reublc of Art and Other Eay New Yor  Peer ang 6 3- 0 99b The Reublc of Art and O ther Eay · Yor  Peter ang Dpert , Rada R Art, Artfacts, and Regaded Itetos Amercan Phlosohcal 986 Quarterly 23  40-8 989a 989b 992a

Bbograhy 24 Artfacts rt Work and Aencyhe Arts ad her Phsphers Phadepha empe verst Press Detrz, C 1982  Dee se   Ger ge Dce ournal of Aesthetc Educaton 16, 64 Dcasse, C t ] 1929 The Phlosophy ofArt New Yr  Da P ress Dnca, C 1993

1993 The Aesthetcs of Power Essays n Crtcal A rt story Camrdge Camrdge vers t Press Dt, Des 199 Arts c Crmes  he Pr em  Frger  the Arts Brtsh ournal of Aesthetcs 19, 32 -14 Dzemd  Bhda 198 nstt a Det   a r   Art Phlosophcal Inqury2, -64 1988 C trvers at the Aesthe tc Nate  Art Brtsh ournal of Aesthetcs 28 , 11 a  aca eder 1 96 9 Art Artacts, ad tes Amercan Phlosophcal Quarterly 6 16-69 1983 Art and Nonart Reectons on an O range Crate and a Moose Call Rher rd N]  Faregh Dcks  Uvers t Press drdge Rchard 198 Frm ad C et A Aesthe tc he r  Ar Brtsh ournal of Aesthetcs 2  33- 16 g  Cathere Z ad N es Gdma 198 C hagg t he Sect  ournal of Aesthetcs and Art Crtcsm 46 219-23 w R  1981 Cooperaton and uman Values Brgh aveser F arsDree Phee 199 Voces of Color A rt and Socety n the Aercas Aac ghads N]. mates Press. Feag  Ssa  L  1982 O Deg ad terpretg Ar netasca Brtsh ournal of Aesthetcs 22 6- 1994 Vag h e Arwrd  n Y aa 19 94 1 -6 9 Fes Rta 1989 Beyond emnst Aesthetcs emnst Lterature and Socal Change Cam rdge vad Uvers t Press Feer Davd   1994 h Dee Ar ornal of Aesthetc Educaton 28 16

20

C

H O

Fishe Joh Ade ad Jaso Potte 19 97 ecolo y Appeciatio  d the Histocal ie of At our al of Aesthetics ad Ar t Criticis , 1 698  Fletche  Jaes J 1982 Atifactuaity Boadly ad Naoly Spea ig Souther oual of Philoophy2, 4 12 Foge de 1971/72 Atatue Royal titute of Philosophy Lectures 6, 22841. allie 1948  B  he Fuctio of Philosophical Aesthetics Mid 7, 2 2  At as a ssetia lly o teste d ocept Philosophical Q aterly 196a 6, 97114. 196b Essetially otested ocepts Proceedigs of the Aristotelia Socie 6, 16798 aut Beys Itepe tig the Ats he Patch o heoy oural of 199 Aesthetics ad Art Critici 1, 9769  997 Metapho ad the Udestadig of At Proceedigs of the Aristotelia Society s  97, 22 4 1. 1998 he Ethical  iticis of At I Aesthetics ad Ethics Essays at the tersectio ed Jeold eviso abidge abidge Uvesiy Pess lic an Jac 1976 "ea tivity i the A ts I  Aag aadMogese 1 976 , 1 1 46 odlovitch Sta 1987 Aesth etic Juget and Hidsight. oural of Aethetic a d Art Criticis 46 78 oldma Al a H. Aesthetic Qualities and Aesthetc alues oural of Philoophy 87, 199 27 199 Aesthetic Vale Boulde o   estvie Pess oldsith Steve 198 he Readyades o f Macel Ducha p he Abi guties of an Aesthetic Revolutio oual of Aesthetics ad Art Criticis 42, 19728 ooda  Nelso 1968 Laguage of Art Ne Yo BobbsMell 1978 e Is At  Ways of orldakgIdiaapols : Hacet 77 1984 Of Mid ad Other Mater abdge Havad Uivesity Pes s ice H P. 197 Meaig Philosophil Reiew 66, 7788 1968  Uttees Meanig S etenceMeanig and odMeaig Fudaetals of Laguae 4, 22 42  ossman Mois 198 O Beads leys De itio I e 198, 4 7.

boghy   Grond an Art and Bn New Yor  St . artins ress 989 Haigh t  R 99 C onditona Ess ences Brth orna of Aethetc 3   48-57  Hanes ctor Yeerton . Reing Not Dening Art Historicaly orna of Aethetc and 990 Art Crtc 48 , 23 73 8  Hanng Oswad The roeed of Deni to   Phoophca 992 An Introdcton Haig Oxford Bacwe Aethetc -40 Art Artifact and Fcti o Phoophca Invetgaton 8, 38 995 Haris o Adrew ors o f Art ad Other Cutra Oe cts Proceedng of the 98 Artotean Socety s 8, 05 -2 8 Hei  Hilde ad Cao lyn Korsey er eds 993 Aethec n Fent Perectve Bloo ington ndia a Uniers ity ress Heprn R  9772 Nate in the ight of At Roya Inttte of Phoophy Lectre  2258 Theorie s o f Art In A Copanon to Aethetced Daid Cooper 992 Oford B acwe  42-29 Herere 988  Goran he Natre of Aethetc Q ate und Sweden und Uniersity ress  Hotza S H  d C  eich eds Wtgenten o Foow a Reondon Routle dge ad Kegan au l 98 Hospers John roes of A esthetics   he Encycopaeda ofPhoophyed 97 au Edwads o  Ne w Yor  acia  35-5 He  N Dch ps Readyades Art a d Ati t. Brth orn of 982 Aethetc 22 52-4 The hi losophcal Chalenge of Aantgde Art Brth ona 984 ofAethetc 24,  9 -28  995 The portance of a i g Art A Repy to the nstitutoaist orn of Coparatve Lteratre and Ae thetc  8, - 9 Isei ger Gy The or of Art a s Artifact  Brth oa of Aethetc  3 , 973 3- 97 Apprec iaton the Atword ad the Aesthetics n Aagaadogensen 9 7 , 8 30 Aesthet cis  and the Isttutio nal Tn orn of Aethetc 995 Edcaton 29 4   8 

252

C

H O

Jameson, Dae A Note on Orgnalty Southern Journal of Phlosophy 17, 221-2  1979 Kaber, c hd 199 A Modest Proposa for Deng a or o f Art Brtsh Journal o Aesthetcs , 1 20  et econsdered  A leer Vew of Why Theores o f At Fal 1998 Btsh Journal of Aesthetcs 8, - 46  Kle, Pete r H 1986 Wordmaand gArt  Propety g4hts  Aesthe Aesthetcs Crtcsm , 189 2 tc rea tos Journal of Ke c, Wa E Does Tradtoa Aes thetcs Rest o a Mstae  Mnd 67, 198 17-4 De to ad The ory  Aest hetcs I Kec, ed., 1 96 4, 1964a 86-9 Theores of A  a d he Aword Journal o Phlosophy 6 1 , 1964b 8-87 Kec, Wia m E  e d 1964 Art and PhlosophyNew Yor S M  s Press Khachadora, Haig oo Naes and Faly Re semblance s   Phlosophy and 198 Phenomenologcal Research18, 41 8  1961 ANaes ad Aeshetc Jdg me s Phlosophy 6, 0-48  1969 Faily Resemba ces ad  lasscao of ors of Ar Journal of Aesthetcs and Art Crtcsm 28, 79-90 The Concept of Art New Yor New Yor Uersty Press 1971 1974 Ar: New Mehods , New reria  Journal of Aesthetc ducaton 8, 69 -8 Kiy, Peer 1979 Aesheic ocep s Som e Fresh osidera tos Journal of Aesthetcs and A rt Crtcsm 7, 42- 1984 Sound and Semblance Reectons on Muscal Representaton Priceo  Prceo Uersity Press Dereces Journal of Aesthetcs and Art Crtcsm 1, 2 -2  199 Korp, Sore  ly and holy o ceied n Aagad ogese 1 97 6 1976 A Broa 4 Kola, Daie A ad neo aty Journal o fAeshetcs and Art Crtcsm 48 1990 18-62 Kosa, Daid The Obec of A i rler 19 8 ,  - 6 1  198 Korsmeyer, aroy O  Disg shg Aeshe c from Arsc  Joual ofAesthetc 1977 ducaton 11 , 47 

ography

253

Koes, J s 196 Moral Notons.  London Rotedge and Kegan Pa Krpe, Sa A Wgensten o n Rules and rvate Language Oxford  Bacw e 1982 ows Lcan 1980 "A Bass for At titons o f Art   Jounal of Aesthetics and A rt Criticsm 39 66 198 1 Arwors hat d ad Oe cts at  de Journal of 40 , 18-9 Aesthetics and ArtACrtcsm Art and Concept hilosophcal StudyCamrdge Uers ty of assachse tts Press  he modim et and Dato of Arwors Journal of Aesthetcs 1988 and Ar Crtcism 46, 3899 Khns, Rchd 1984 he d of Art   Lang 19 84 39-53  Kspt Doad 1 98 8 Reew of ow s s Art and Concept  Journal of Aesthetcs and Art Crtcism 46, 52 4-26 Lae, Bery  A Std y of the rretaiity of  wo Aesthetc h eores   1954 Aesthetcs and Languageed a to Oxford Bacw e 100-113 Lang Bere, ed 1984 The Death of At New Yo  Have Langer Ssae 1953 eelng and orm. Lo do  Roteg e a Ke ga Pa 195 hlosophyn a New ey 3d ed Lodo  Oxford Uversty Press 198 Rigd Desg ato   Deg Art  Joual of Aesthetcs and Ar Crtcsm 45 263- 2 heorz g aot Art  Journal of Aesthetc ducaton 26, 33 -46 92 Leddy, homas 1993 he Socratic Qest i Art ad Phosophy Journal of Aesthetcs and Art Crtcsm 51 399410 Lec h, C    ad S H Hotzma  1981 Coma Agreemet ad Oectivty  Hotzma ad Lech 1981, 1- 2  Leviso , Jerrod Deng Art Hstorcay Brtish Journal of Aesthetcs 19 232-50 199 198a Revew of Dcie' s The Art Crcle. hlosophcal Revew 96 , 141- 46 Zemach o Patgs Brtsh Journal of Aesthetcs 2, 28-83 198 1988 Arwors ad the t e  Aererg, Nis t ad Persso  1988, 56-8 4 1989 Reg Art Hstorcay Journal of Aesthetcs and Art Ctcsm 4, 21-33 1990 A Reer's re Repy to Swe a d Koa Journal o Aesthetcs and Ar Crtcsm 48, 23- 35 198

25  1991 1993

H O I

the e Repy to Hanes ourna of Aehet and A r Crtm 49 76 -77 t Hstocay Deed: Repy to Oppy Brth ournal of Aethe 33 380-85 Extendng A Hstoca y In Lenson 199 6b 15 0- 7 1 The Pleaure of Aethet Ithaca NY Coe Uesty Pess

1996a 1996b Ld Rchad "The Aesthetc Essece of At ournal o fAethet and Art 1992 Crtm 50 , 117- 29 Lpman Mahew 1975 "Deto and Stats  Aesth etcs Phloophal Forum 7, 90-02 Lpman, Mahew , ed  Contemporary Aethet Bosto Ay ad B aco  1973 Lod Cahee 1977 A pean Appoa ch to the Idett y of a o of t ournal of Aethet and Art Crtm 36, 14753 1980 C oeto and Dc es nstttoa Theoy of At Brth ournal of Aethet 20 22 2 8 A Grce an Approach to Aesthetc meta sm Brth ournalJ 1985 of Aethet 25  66-7 0 ndexcaty  Not C rcarty Dces New Deto of t 1987 Lyas, Co  ournal of Aethet and Ar t Crtm 45, 229-32 Reew of Dc es Aesthet An ntroduton. Brth ournal of 1973 Aethet 3, 8 1-83 Danto ad Dce o Art  n A agaardM ogese 1976 , 170 -9 3 1976 Mandeam  Mace 1965 ay Resembanc es ad Geeraza tos coce g the Art Amean Phlosophal Q uarterly 2, 219- 28 Manse, Athoy R  Gaes and ay Resembances Phloophy42, 210-25  1967 Mgos, oseph "O  D sptes abot the O toogca Stats of a  or o f t 1968 Brtsh ournal of Aesthets 8, 147-54 1974 "ors of At as Physcay Emboded and Ctay Emerget Ettes Brth ournal of Aethet 14, 187 -96  1975 Reew of Dc es Art and the Aethet ournal of Aethet and At Crtm 33 341-4 5 The Otoogca Peca ty of ors f Art oual o fAethet 1977 and Art Crtm 3 6 45-50 1979 A Strategy for a Posophy o f Art. ournal of Aethet and Ar t Crtsm 37, 445-54 At and Phloophy Atantc Hghands, N  Hmantes Pe ss 1980

bloahy  988

" Otology Dow and Out i Art and Sciece . I Anerberg, Nilst un, ad Persso 1 9 8 8  85-99. Also i Journ al of Aesthetics and

At Crtcsm 46  45 60. "xorcig te Drearie o  etetic  Joual o Aesthetcs and Art Crtcsm 5  -40 akowitz Say  Te Ditinction eween t a Ca t Journal o Aeshec 994 ducaon 28 55-70 atew Roet . 979 Taitiona etetic Deended Journal o Aeshecs and Ar Crcsm 8 9-50  cFee Gaa Te Hito cty o  t Joual o Aeshecs and A Crcsm 8 980 07-24.  98 5 Woem and te Intttona eo y o t  hlosophcal Quarerly 5 79-85 Reiew o Dci e The Ar Crcle Brsh Journal o Aeshecs 26 986 72-74 "Te L ogic o ppeciation wt n t Repc Brsh Journal o 989 Aeshecs 29 20- 8. Te Hitoca  Caracte o  t  Reappai a Brsh Journal o 992 Aeshecs 2 07-9 . 99

cGego Roet t and te etetic Journal o Aeshecs and Ar Crcsm 2 974 549-59 977 "Dcie ntittionaized etetc Brsh Journal oAeshecs 7   979 " tgai n Crcal Inqury 5 7 2. endena   Dicie ad Coen on Wat t I. Journal o Aeshec ducaon 82  6 4 54 itia  ica e H  975 t a a Soc a Intittion ersonals 56  0-5  977 Te Inttona Teoy o te etetc  ect ersonals 58 47-55. T e ntttona Teo y o ttic Ceat ity Brsh Joual o 978 Aeshecs 8 0-4 tia cae H  ed 986 ossbly o he Aeshec xperence Te Hage  atin No 988a Aeshec Q ualy and Aeshec xperence mteda Rodopi Wha Maes an xperence Aeshec?mteda Rodop 988 ot aon  Co mpeeniit T eoy o t Bsh Journal o Aeshecs 6 996 424-.

256

CH  I

Mooe Ron Reiew of Stepen Daie Dentons of Ar t Journa of Aesthetcs 992 and Ar Crtcsm50 5 5-5  Moack li  "t and t Daconc Dmenion Monst  5 -0 988 99 "t and t   Mdwest Studes n hosophy 6 302- 3 Moton Bce N. 93 Reew of Dcke Aesthetcs A n ntroducton Journa of Aeshetcs and Art Crtcsm 32 5 - 8. Moell My 96 "tca oment Journa of Aesthetcs and Ar Crtcsm 20 9598 984 Beauty Restored Oxfod  Oxfod Unei y Pe Motaf aki Ncola . O f aly Reemblanc e and et etc D coe hosophca 95 Forum  - 89 Na Roge "Dicke Denng t and al yng Dada  Journa of Aesthetc 98 ducaton 15 0-0 Naan Danel O 93 " ategoie and nt enton  Journa of Aesthetcs and Art Crtcsm 3 539 -4 Noitz D ad 1989a "t Natie and Hman Nate hosop and Lterature 3 5-4 989b "Way of tmakng Te g  and te Popla in " Brtsh Journa of Aesthetcs 29  23- 29. · 992a The Boundares ofArt Piladelp a Temple Uniey Pe 992b "ction of t n A Companon to Aesthetcs ed Dad oope Oxfod Blackwell  62- 6  996 Dip te abot t Journa of Aesthetcs and Ar Crtcsm 54 53-63 Oppy Gaa "On Dae' nttona Dent ion of t  Southe Joua of 99 hosop 29  3- 82 Brtsh Jorna of Aesthetcs 992 "On Dening  Hoicall y 32 536 "O n ncona Denton of     Repone o Rowe  Brtsh 993 Journa of Aesthetcs33 6-  Oekoc eo 995 Te Rainbow Teoy of  Brtsh Journa of Aesthetcs 35 15459 Obone Hol "Denion and alaion in ee ic.  hsophca Quarery 93 23 5- 2

Blograph

257

"ht Is  W f At?  Brsh Journal of Aeshecs 2  3- 98 Pssme Jhn 95 he Deiness f Aesthetics Mnd 60  3835  Peppe Sephen C. 962 lie Denins in At nd hei Snctins Journal of Aeshecs and Ar Crcsm2 20 -8. Rde Melin "Dicie nd Sctes n Deitins Journal o fAeshecs and Ar 974 Crcsm Rich dsn Did B 32 423-24.  97 6 "NteAppeciin Cnenins n d the Atwld. Brish Joual of Aeshecs 6 86 9 Richmnd S "ee Asspi ns h In ence A dcin A Desci pn 99 nd  Ciie Joual o f Aeshec ducaion 25 - 5  Rss Stephnie 989 "Phils ph Liee nd he De h f A hilosophical apers 8 95- 5 Rwe M W "he Deni in f  A  hilosophcal Quarerly4 27 -86 99a "Wh  At  D esn t e w Senses Briish Joual of Aeshecs 99 3 24 2 Rcm n hms C  9 89 "Dici e n Journa l of Aheics and Ar Cricsm 47 75-77  Sg M 976 "he Aesthei c S s  f Fgees Journal of Aesheics and Ar Cricsm 35 69 -8 Snwsi dwd Fee Aci n S cl Insins nd te Den n f A' ' 98 hlosophcal Sudes3 7 67-79  Swel Cispin 988a "Aeshetic Dl ism nd he nsgi n f the Cmnpce Joual o f Aesheics and Ar Crcsm 46 46-67 988 "Aesh eics  f he Spis  Brish Journal of Aeshecs 28 36-67 "A Cexmple  Lensns is icl he  f A 99 Journal of Aesheics and Ar  Crcsm 48 57 -58. "Pcess nd Pdct A he f At Joual of Speculave 992 hlosophY ns  6 4 52 Sed B   98 9 he A ec  Brsh Journal of Aesheics 29  60-67 Sxen Sshl  978 "he Aestheic Atde. hlosophyas and Wes28  8-9   979 Repl  M Cics hlosophy as and Wes 29 25- 

258

C  I

Slsng Gog 979 stt Epn and t Dton o f t Briih ol of Aheic 9 67- 76  Solz Ba aa C Rsung t nstu onal o  of  t Iplt Dtons a d 994 Fol sts orl of Aeheic d Ar Criicm 52 09 25 Sultz Rot  Dos stts a  ntng to Do wt t  orl of 978 Aheic d Ar Cricim 6 429 -40 Slafan Rd J 970  t and t fatualt Sohweer orl of hiloophy   0-0  t W gns tn an p ntd Conpts orl of 97 Aeheic d Ar Criicim29   -4. 97 t as a Soal nsttuton Ds Nw Dnon orl of Aeheic d Ar Cricim 2  4  og al P tnss of t Conpt of a W o of t  975a Biih ol of Aheic 5 428  975 Wat nd of Non sns s s  orl of Aeheic  d Ar Ciicim   455-5 8 976  o of t   aga adognsn 9 76  4 6-70 Sustan Ra d 987 992 994

nalt stts Rtospt and Pospt ol of Aeheic d Ar Criicim 46 52 4 ric eheic Livg Be Rehiig Afod Blawll  n nalsn g nalt st ts. Briih orl of Aeheic 4  8994

Sl Fa 959 st t Conpts hiloophicl Review 68 42 -50 960 s t an n Con pt n nsttl d Quston roceedig of he Forh eriol Cogre of Aeheicts  960  In pan 97 4- 7 Sls nta  96  twold Dsadd orl of Aeheic d Ar Cricim 4 445 4 984  Rh of t.  n ang 98 4 20- 6 989 n upon a   n t twold n D S lafan ad Roln 98 9  8 95 990 Polt s and t Poduto n of Naat Idntts hiloophy d Lierre 4  99- 07 99  Sto of t I s  st o f  orl of Aeheic  d Ar Criicim 49 2-24  992 wold In A Compio o Aeheicd Da d Co op fod Blawll 9-2

ibiography 99

259

esthecs o s Sake No o Posopy 's Journal of Aeshes and A Crsm 40

Smpson an t and Games  Brsh Journal of Aeshes 2  270 7 . 9 S ceo Gy gng ab ot t   n Tghan ed   97    97 Snoeyenb os to n H  97a O n te Possbty o  Teoeca esetcs eaphlosoph9 02. 97b Vageness and t ' Bsh Journal o fAeshes 2  979 S axena o n te estet c tttde hlosoph Eas and Wes29 990 Snyman   990 Te vant Gade nstt tona and Ctca  Teoes o t  Souh Afran Journal of hlosoph 9   90. Spasott ancs Som e estons o Danto Journal of Aeshes and A Crsm 97   790 90 Wat Wok s o  t e Note toad a Homesp Ontoogy a hlosophal Q uarerl  4 7 92 The Theor of he Ars Pnceton Pnceton Unves y Pess Ho to Dene a Wok o t Unpbsed pa pe. 97  Stake e m potanc e o B eng an tact hlosopha  702  979 Dogas Stecke obet  94 estetc nstentasm and esthetc tono my Brsh Journal of Aeshes 24 0 . 9 Te nd o a n nsttt ona Denton o t Brsh Journal of Aeshes 2 242 Te Bondaes o t. Bsh Jounal of Aeshes 0 27 2 90 Denng t  Te ctonasm /Pocedasm Co ntovesy 992 Souhen Journal of hlosoph 0 42 994 Hsto ca ctonasm o te o acto Teoy Brsh Journal of Aeshes 4 2   99 en O becons to Hstoca Denton s o t Brsh Jounal of Aeshes  0 997 Awoks Denon eanng Value Unvesy Pa k Pennyvana State Unve sy Pess  Stokstad ay n 99 A Hso Ne Yok Hay N  ba Ston tz e ome 90 Aeshes and he hlosoph of Crsm Ne Yok Hogton n Tatakecz W adys a at  t  Te Pobem o Denon Today Bsh ounal of 97 Aeshes   4

26

C 

I

Tlgan Benamn R Wttgens ten, Games d t oual of Aesthetis and Art 197 Crtism  1 517  1989 Reflectns n Aesthetc The  In Dce Sclafa d Rln 198916070 Tlgman Benjamn R   ed 197 anguage and Aesthetis Laence Unest Pess f s as Bu t Is I t At fd Bacwel 198 F and the Cncept  f At ilosophy and henomenologial Tdd 198, Gege At esrh  5570 Tlhst Wla m E n a t a Text Is an d w It Mean s British oual of 1979 Aesthetis 19  1  Twrd  Aesthetc Accn t f the Natre  f At ournal of 198 Aesthets and Art Critiism  6 1 6 9 Tlst Le What Is Art Tans Alme  Made New Y Macmllan 1 96 0 1896 Tme Alan Tansgung t he Cmnpac e ournal of Aesthetis and Art 197 Critism  115 V de Ptte M M

Dsc plne Based At Ed catn and the Ne w Aethetcs ournal of Aesthet E duaton 811 Vn Pee ll Det ns f At a tpca dscssn ccasned  eadng 199 Stephen D aes Denitions of Art Spiel Siegener eriodium zu r Internationalen Empirishen teraturwissenha 11  6 9 77  Vn Msten Pet a On ndersnding Wor of Art A n Essay in hilosophial Aesthetis 1986 Lewstn NY  Edwn Mellen Walht Dnald 1986 The Nate nd Fctn  f At Brishournal of Aesthetis 6 165 Waltn endal L Categes f t hilosophal evew 79   67 1970 Categes nd Inten tns A Rep ournal o f Aesthetis and A rt 197 Crtiism   67 68 Wetz Ms 1 956 Te Re f he n Aesthet cs ournal of esthetis and  rt Critiism 15 7 5  1970 roblems in Aesthets New Y  Wttgenstens Aesthet cs In Tgman ed 1 97  71 9 197 1977 The Opening Mind Chcag Unest f Chcag Pess 199

Biogrphy

261

Wes Pa Gege Dickie ad te Deiti  f a Wk f t Aca 98 hilsphica Fennica2 2 48 62 Weae Ptca H alatg ad te Classcat Pcess Jurnal f Aesheics 979 and A Criicism 7 52-54 Wead Jee  980 Deig t a d tifacts hilsphical Sudies8 85 -89  C a Tee Be a Istit ta  Te f t  Jurnal f Aeshecs 98 a and Ar Criicism 9 409- 7 98 al i t riish Jurnal f Aesheics2 0 -5 . 98 Ptg wad a Wk f t Jurnal f Aesheics and Ar Criicism 4 4- 20  Wms at Wiia   J a d Me C Beadse 946 Te Itetial aac  Sewanee Rev iew 54 468 -88 Wtgeste  dwig 95 hilsphical InvesigainsTans G  M  scme. Oxf d Blackwell Wfe Tm 976 The ained WrdNew Yk Bat a Wl Jaet 99a Aeheics and he Scil f A 2d ed      Uiest f Mcga Pess The Scial rducin f Ar 2d ed. New Yk New Yk Uesit Pess Wem  cad 97 Mimal  t I On Ar an d he ind d e ae 0- 980 Ar and Is Obecs 2d ed Camid ge Cai dge Uest Pess 98 "O te esi   Paitig Is a t   rceedings f he ighh Ineainal Wigensein Sympsium 00-6 987 aining as an Ar d Tames ad H ds Wtest Ncas 987 Te Wk f Makig a W k  f Msi I  pes  e d  98 7 0-29. Wee Mc ae .  ad Dald M Cale eds 982 The Aesheic in f View Seleced ssays Itaca NY Cel Uesi Pess. Wig t Cisp  98 "lefllwig Oecit ad te Te f Meaig I Hltma ad e c 9 8  99-  7 Yaa et  ed 994 Insiuins f Ar Recnsiderains f erge Dice's hilsphy Uesi Pak Peslania S tate Uesi Pe ss 99

262

CH  I

Yog aes O "Atwoks an d Atwold s. Brsh rnal  Aeshes 5 995 7 "Dening At Responsily. Brsh rnal  Aeshes 7  57 65 997 angwll Nck "Aestetics and At Brsh rnal  eshes26 257 6 9 986 "D ognts and D icke  Ra ns 7 679 994 " Gond Re s in t e ios opy of At hlsphy 54 4 995 eac  Identicaton witot alation rnal  Aeshes 26 986 d dy"No 295 997 Real Bea niesit y ak ennsylana Sta te niesi y ess ey ews  A Reconsideation of t e Roe of Aest etics  a Reply to ois 957 Wet rnal  Aeshes and Ar Crsm 6 25  55  a "t and t e O ect of A t  Mnd 6  4668  95 "Te Task of D ening a Wok of At  hsphal Revew 62 95 5878

onruors

J C A s a facul assocate and fello of the each ng Academ at the Unves of Wsconsnadson hee he teaches coses n the phlosph of at He has pulshed atcles on the otolog of muscal oks on the nate of aesthetc appecaton and on the ela tonsh p eeen moal and aesthetc c tcsm of oks of a t G  W  B  s assoca te pofesso and cha o f the Depatment of Phlosoph Eastphlsoph Caolna Unves Hsphlosoph pulcatonsof and eseach have focused onat the of at on the language and on metaphscs P Z B s an atst and assstant pofesso of gende stdes ad phlosoph at Indana Unves at Bloomngton he s the edto of eauy Maers ndana Unves Pess 2000) and codto th Caol Kosmee of Femnsm and Tradton  n A thetcs Pennslvaa tae Uves Pess 99) he s centl tng a ook tentatvel enttled Parodes and Potcs N C s the ooe C Beadsle P ofesso of the Phlosop h of At at the Unves of Wsconsnadson Hs most ecent ooks nclude A Phosophy of Mass Ar Oxfod Unvest Pess 998) and Ph Routledge osophy ofAr  Contemporry Introduon

1999)

J C has ecentl completed a doctoal dssetaton enttled Emoton Fcton ad Ratonal  the Depatment of Phlosoph t the Unvest of Wsconsnadson he specalzes n aesthetcs and phlosoph of lm and s centl studng lm at the Unves of Wsconnadson 263

64

Contrbutor

C.  O s Johnsoa Pofsso of Phlosophy ms a Colba Unvsty and s h at  o h ation H s h aho of Piloopiing Ar: Slctd Eay Unvsty o Calo a P ss 1999) ad T Madonna of t Futur Critical Eay in a Pluralitc Art orl Faa as  ox fo homg .

 THU

s asso a pofsso  h  pamn of Phlosophy  a h Uvsty of Akland w Z aland ad p blshs w dly on h phlosophy of a H s h atho o Dnton of Art Conll Unv sty Pss 1991) ad Mucal Maning an Expron C oll Unv sty Pss 1994) ad s h do of Art an t Mag Manng Moralit and Socy P nnsylvana a  Unvsty Pss 199).  TPH  V

s posso ms at th Unvsty of llosCh ago Hs  pblaons ld T Cntury of Tat: T Ploop cal Odyy of Tat n t Egtnt Cntu Oxfod Uvsty Pss 1996) ad ntroduction to Attic An Analytc Approac Oxfod U vsty Pss 1997)  OG  II

tahs th phlosophy of at at th Unvsty of Ca Ltratur by w Daly Zaland s do of Ploopy adamong of Art & Lr a H  pblaon. H hasanddo ldwok avs of h pk v n Papa w na

 I  UO

s pofsso of phlos oy a h Unvsty of Msoa h s h aho of Ar t and onart R cton on an Orang Crat an a Moo Call Falgh kson Unvsy Pss 1983) and Attc and t Good Lf Fa lgh  knson Unv sty Pss 1989) as wll as many als n ashs and h pho sophy of a.  I  UD  TO

ahs  th p amt of Moa Phlos ophy Unsty of  Ad ws olad  H has pblshd als on ashs lm hoy

   U

Routldg hs fohomng ad Kas moal Copanon hoy H  tos Attc odo wh adom s ly  Lopswokng of h o a book abot th laon of at o ths  GO s Laa H Canll Pofsso of Phlo sophy at mpl Unvsty H s h aho of nos books n h phlosophy of a h las of whh s at Ar All  a ork of Art Pnsylvaa a Uvsty Pss 1999)

 OPH

Contriutors

265

BERT STEKER s  ofesso of hlosoh a enal Mic hgan n ve

si He s he auho of Artworks enton Meanng Vaue (Pennslva Sae nve s Pess , 1997 and coe do of he foh coming John Locke 's Essay Conceng Human Unerstanng n Focus (Rouledge)  He has ub  lshed wdel n aeshecs, n hlosoh of md, and n he hso of moden hlosoh

ndx

AagaardMogensen, Lrs, 4 23 esthet c theory of art, 6592 Albers Jose f 32 Anderson J ames c., 1 7 6592 Anderson Rchard 200  213, Anguisso  Sofonisba 179 Arbus, Dne, 180  circe, 3  13

238

Be y George, Brtes Roand20, 1192 1, 160 74 Bate Chres 34 Beardsey, Monroe c. 3 4, 23 42 43, 62, 65 71 73 79 82 90, 95, 1 08 11 7 11 8 12 2, 12 4128 12 9, 172 , 173  17 4 185 231 Be  Cive, 3 5 1 7 73 90 10 1 231  232

172 17 3 174 18 5 188 19 7 21 5, 23 2, 233, 238 Cassa t Mary 18 0 Czanne, Paul, 12 6 Chcag o Judy 18 0 18 2 Chen Andalou. Un 32 Cho J nhe e 91  2 41 62 Crc, 1 79 custer concept 15, 16 23 2544 , 46, 48

Black Square on a White Ground, 32

52, 54 55146  147, 148 149, 150 152 , Coen Ted 154, 157 158 Colngw ood, R. G   3 6769, 87 20 1 23 2 concept o the aesthet c, 6 977 78 Connor Ru ssel1 8 7 Constructvsm 109-28 Cubs m 126 130 cuuaknd actvtes, 107 Cunnngam, Merce, 32 Currie Gregory, 44

Bocker H. Gene 207 2 14 1 5 233 23 8 Boom Hrod 1 1 9 Bonhe ur Rosa 1 8 0 Brand, Peg Zegin 2 1  1 75 98

Dal Savador, 32 anto Arthu r c , 4, 9,10  11 , 13  14 15 18  19  23 24 64, 75, 77, 94, 95, 96

233

Bdo Mke 136 13 8

Braque, Buuel, Geo Lusrges, 32 12 6 Burgn, Vctor, 1 75 19 5 Cage, Jo 148 Cameron Ju a Margar et 18 0 Carney, James 4 42, 62 21 6 Crrol No 325 42 43 62 66 67, 68 69, 70, 73 74 87  88 89  90 10 2 4 107  13 3 13 5 140 160, 16 1 16 9 171

266

10 3 107 14 116  118 2  124 125 , 10 1289 129  130 40119 14612147 15 8, 161 164 17 0 171 17 3 174 17 5 1 76 17 7 1 82 185 186 18 7, 18 8 1 89 190  19 2 19 5 19 6 197  205 211 21 4 234, 238 Dvd J acque sLou s, 1 31 D avdson Donad 123 Daves Stephen, 4 21 22 23 42 50 51 63 , 70 7577, 88, 89, 10 4 6 128  129 

Index 174 17 6 177  18 5 186  188 19 0 19 2 193 194 97  199 -216 Demselles d'Avgnn Les3 187 Dcke  George 3 4 9 0   3 4 5 89 23  24 42 47 49 50 52 53 62 93- 08 3 2-33  40 6 6 5 7 7 3 176 18 5 86  188 9 0 192 9 4 9 5 9 7 20  23  21 5 23 2 Dey erry 4 42

Greenba Sepen 19 Guerra Grs 18 9 9

Dper Randa Dssanayke Een90 5 6 5 9 235  238 Duc p Marce 28 32 35  7 7 95 96

erw Dane esse Eva 80  1 70 174 eusc u y 31  40-42 ckey Davd 157 159 degard o Bngen 79 rsc E D 22 29 c  anna  80 oer enny 50 5 157 80 ue Davd 4 uceson Frncs 73 74 89

98  10 3 10 6 2 3 31 13 9 148  16 1  85  86  90  206 209 22 2 23 2 Duton Dns 2  22 23 200 204 206  207 23  214  2 5 27- 38

Eaon Ma rc a Mued er 4 8 19  20  4 4 - 59 85  88  9 0 19  97

Edrdge Rcd 4 eboden  9 09 28  32 33 35

267

aon Ann 182 ar ynn  2 1 720 227  238 avey Seve 136 137 138 ege Georg We Fred rc 33 8 3 86  87  20 

en de 95  98

Ende 179 Erns Max 123

bej cavngs 236 237 ndscernby 14 96-9 7 3 13 2 13 6 38  13 9 6 7 7 0 205 20 6 nsuona eoy o ar 3 8 9308

fay reseb ance  7 8 0    2 3 

1321881 properes 90 Inenona 11028 Isenger Gary 88-89 90

136  137

14 5  25-44 46

Feagn Susn 4 Feg erber 5 Fesk Ra 82929698 Fens 75-98 Fs aney 9 Fodor er 70 Fonana avna 179 Foucau  Mce  119 Funain 77 95 96 98 1 03 106 123  138  3 9 185  186  90  23

jynh pann g 2 8-20  227

Kao  Frda 180 Kandnsk Va s  13 Kan Ianue 73 6 22 Karpees Maud 203  204 2 14 Kaun Angeca 79 Key May 182 Kennc Wa 3 57  111314  18  23 66 67 87  88 110

Krasner ee 80 Gae fBerys Hell 5  6 1 7 23 25-44  47 48 Gau 54 62

Ge Ared 204-5 214 220-23 227 238 Gene sc  Aresa 79 Gbuas Marja 78 95 Goe yda 42 Godan  Aan 55 63 64 Goodan Neson 8 34 Gray Spadng 7 Greenberg een 35

 44 2 Krpke Sau Krseer Pau38Oskar 33 43 Kruger Barba 180 Krukowsk ucen  4 185 18 8 197 Kun oas 26  29

anger Susanne K. 5 96 97 ebn G. W. von 12 29 evnson errod 4 424 7 50 52 62 6 3 88 89  107  185  188197  210- 14 215 LHOOQ 190

268

ndex

d Rchrd 4 62 7 9 0 4  9  90 pprd ucy 12 13 ou Morr 135 Mvch Kmr 32 132 Mdbum Muc 12 13 14 24 103 110

Mrcu Gorg 217 Mrol Joph 3 15 1 19 109-29 M Gorg 33 39 Ml Ruh 16 1 165 166 16 7 1 73 Morvc Juu 233 23 Mor M ry 179 Mozr  Wogg Amdu 71 1 24 M yr Frd 217 urd cv 107 NoWgm 3-15  16 1  Nwm r 106 10  Noch d 1 1 1 2 16 196 Novz Dvd 17 56 57 5 63 64 229 23 0 231 232 23 3 23 5 23 6 23

Schr F 162 1 63 164  1 73 Schm ro 10 Schophur Aru 132 Shrm dy 177 10 190 Shurm  Rcd 9 1 Smh K 177 10 Spho Frc 29 23 Scr Robr 4 16 1 7 39-40 42 45 -64 12 2 9 173

ScArd Edwrd130131 Sz 31 Swng t boda 7  Syphdes es 7 

bo Fox 130 Tepest The 7 

o hu W m 4 Tro A 7  Trsta Shandy 11

Vcr Adr 203 20 4 21 4 Vgbru Mroulzb 10 Vog Su 22 3-26 227  236  23

Oedpus Rex 11

O'K Gorg 177  10 op cocp rgum 56   9  10 15 Obor Hrod 4 6  69 7 Prr Roz 11 16  19 6 Prro J 177 195 Pco Pbo 31 13  200  222  22 3 230 Pgrs Progress A 32

Ppr Adr 10 Pooc Grd 11 16  19 6 Qu W V 121 123 124 129 Rr Yvo 7 10 Ruchbrg Robr 132 133 134 rdmd 2 32 35 206 209 rlcv qu brum 31 60 Reque 71

Rod Augu 1 1

Wao Kda 70 71   9 Who Ady 14 131 -32 133 134-3 9 16

Wd Jry 4 Wz Mori 3 5 6 7  9 10 11  12 14 15 16  1 23 2 40 42 43 10 3 110  175  177  195 Wl Su 177 10 Wg udwg 3 7 15 25 26 37 3  42 43 46 53 117 1  12 1  17 5 17 7 15 Wo J 176 192 195 Wom Rcd 3 15  44 94 95 96 107  10 122  129 Woror Ncho 43 44  12 9

Zgwl Nc 1 72 1 74 Zmch Edd 10914 116 11  11 9 122  125 12 129

Z Pu 5 23  110