Derek writes:
"that raises the very interesting question of how works that were not created
as 'art' have become 'art'. I refer you to Malraux for the answer. (No
other theorist, amazingly, has even discussed the problem!)"
I can name one other very minor theorist who's discussed it: Cheerskep. Many
times, in fact, all in my attempt to throw a ridiculous light on listers'
assumption of an absolute metaphysical status for "Art".
The current argument between many of the listers about whether or not XXX
"was/IS" "science", and YYY "was/IS" "art" reflects the delusion vividly.
Recall
Frances's robotic repetition that if her chimerical panel of experts "deem"
something art, that makes it "BE" art.
Though listers waver a great deal, I'm persuaded they think of their dispute
as not just about whether or not to CALL something "art" or "science". They
actually believe there is a metaphysical fact-of-the-matter concerning whether
xxx "IS" art or yyy "IS" science. It dizzies me to see smart people believing
that with an inaudible "pop!" a work that "was not" art now "becomes" art --
like, say, a new star being created in the heavens.
And notice, the form of their argument is to summon up what they think of as
"reasons" for believing that something IS art or science. This implies there
are somehow mind-independent metaphysical standards somewhere that a work must
satisfy to BE art or science. For example, some listers feel we have to know
what the creator thought he was doing when he created the work, what his
motivations were. Some might say that if he was just trying to placate the
gods, the
work could not BE art. Others, if told by a portrait painter that he was just
trying to make something that looked like the sitting subject so he could
turn a dollar, might say the painting could not then BE art.
Some listers talk about "bad art", but other listers will claim that a work
is either art or rubbish, so the notion of "bad art" is ridiculous.
Some listers would apparently claim that nothing could "be" art until "THE
concept" of artness, or "our current concept", was conceived by someone -- or
does it take a community of experts to conceive of it? Then, presumably, a
creator would have to have the aim of doing "that thing" to have his work BE
art.
The counter-assertion that there is no "THE" concept of art -- people's notions
of it vary wildly -- consistently falls on deaf ears. "Everyone knows what
art IS, they just have a tough time putting it into words. In any case, there
simply is no question that art IS."
Some years ago, Bruce Attah posted on our forum the nine characteristics
that, he said, when manifest in a work were what made it BE art (very like
Aristotle's muddled claim that a "thing's" "properties" are what "make it BE
what it
IS".) Attah would no doubt claim he was exposing the metaphysical truth --
he felt he was discerning factual stuff about the metaphysical category/quality
of artness. But Attah's "definition" was finally exposed as no more than his
own personal preference for certain characteristics he wanted in works he
would CALL art. But stipulative decisions have no ontic power. For example,
Attah
insisted that to BE art an object had to be a "thing" -- which he described as
"a hard object that can be looked at" -- that is "made". When it was pointed
out to him that Benedetto Croce held that an "act of art" can take place
solely in the mind -- as when an artist imagines a painting in detail, a
composer
imagines a musical work, a poet thinks up a poem without writing it down --
Attah was in a bind. Croce was asserting that a notional entity can be art --
even though there is no hard "thing" that is "made".
Attah could say, "I don't call that art!" But that didn't work for him
because he believed he was showing what art IS, not simply what people
variously
CALLED art. Or he could simply insist, "That's NOT art!" and maybe stamp his
foot
for emphasis. Asked "How do you know?" he would have to be circular and say
because a work has to be a thing made.
Confronted with someone who claimed the alleged mind-independent quality of
"artness" and the category of all artworks, and the quasi-Platonic "form" of
"art" were all chimeras, he would dismiss the adversary out of hand. He'd say,
"Of course art IS!" -- just like other listers claiming that sin IS, and
science IS. "You could look science up in the dictionary!" You could also
look up
'angel', 'hell', and 'unicorn'.
The most dizzying aspect of the current forum debate is seeing smart, grown
men asserting that art IS this, and science IS that, without ever describing
what they have in mind with either word.
Wiliam Conger does take a couple of stabs at describing his notion of
"science", but never his notion of "art". A long look at William's -- or
anyone's
-- notion of "science" might help listers wrap their minds around the idea that
maybe "art" is indeed solely a notion with no "corresponding" non-notional
entity.
William is not alone in feeling experimentation is a necessary element of
science: Dream up a hypothesis, then test it with an experiment satisfying cert
ain demands of "the scientific method". But this would push William into the
uncomfortable position of asserting that Einstein was not doing "science" when
he
came up with his special theory of relativity -- without ever testing it
himself. Indeed no one did, since the means weren't at hand at the time.
Consider
the wrangle: "Einstein wasn't doing science. That was cosmology." "That was
science." "Was not." "Was!" "Wasn't!" It's breath-taking to see people
believing
they are talking about an "is-ness" here, and not simply disagreeing about
how they want to use the word.
This is comparable to Attah's claim that what the painter, composer, poet
does in his mind is not "art" until they set it down in a publicly examinable
way. "Is!" says Croce. "Is not!" says Attah. "Is!" "Isn't! One wonders if
Attah
would claim a mathematician IS not "doing mathematics" if he doesn't write
down the formulas he devises.
To argue as they do, listers must feel they see art (and science) for what it
IS, otherwise how could they ever assert xxx IS or IS NOT art? But if they
have a notion of art that they in some way believe replicates what art IS, why
not describe that notion? Still, Derek, William et al will not do this. The
last time I asked Derek to describe the notion behind a word he was using he
said
that would require him to describe human consciousness, and he could not do
that.
The sight of educated adults arguing -- "That's art!" "No -- that's NOT art!"
and "That's science!" "No that's NOT science!" -- and thinking they are
talking about metaphysical facts-of-the-matter makes a fellow despair. It
betrays a
conviction they will deny: a belief in metaphysical "essences", not unlike
Plato's celestial "forms" and Aristotle's "properties". However no one who uses
the word 'art' this way will describe that "essence". Given I maintain such an
"essence" of anything, including art, does not exist, I'd settle for their
describing their notion -- but that won't happen either.
Maybe I can trick them into revealing some of their notion. Writers talk
about the art of politics, war, conversation, etc. I wonder what grounds
certain
listers would assert for either accepting or condemning those usages -- i.e.
what the writers' usage has in common with what the listers have in mind when
they use the word, or what "essential" element the writers leave out. But I
shouldn't ask that, because now someone will address only that question, ignore
everything else in this message, and feel he has "answered" my arguments.
**************
Need a new ride? Check out the largest site for U.S. used car
listings at AOL Autos.
(http://autos.aol.com/used?NCID=aolcmp00300000002851)
