Philosophy and the Arts: Lecture 13:

1. Philosophy and the Arts:Lecture 13: Can ‘Art’ Be Defined??

2. Logic and definitions… • The paper you are to have read for today is “The Role of Theory in Aesthetics,” by Morris Weitz. I sometimes say a student can attend meetings of the American Society for Aesthetics, and sound rather learned, if they have read 5 or 6 central essays—this is one of them. • The question is: can ‘art’ be defined? But Logic students know there are many kinds of definitions. Clearly, Weitz has in mind definition by genus and difference, and he says ‘art’ cannot be thus defined.

3. When we define something by genus and difference, we place the term to be defined in a larger class, and show how it differs from other members of that same class. The standard example is “A triangle is a 3-sided plane figure.” Limitations?…well, remember Clive Bell… Other limitations?? What’s that, and why not??

4. Wittgenstein (1889-1951) was one of the great minds of the 20th century. Most of what Weitz says is taken from his Philosophical Investigations. He was Austrian, and thus wrote in German. It may be a curious way to start, but I want to take note of a couple of odd mistranslations. Ludwig Wittgenstein…

5. This is a book I read as a child. I loved the pictures by Peter Hurd. Notice the sword at our hero’s side… Oh, did you know that President Johnson turned down a portrait by Peter Hurd?? Not all Texans have good taste.

6. A mistake…. • The truth is Excalibur was never broken. But Siegfried’s sword was. Interestingly, in the books I read as a child, Siegfried’s sword was named ‘Balmung.’ It is only in the operas that it is named ‘Nothung.’ Find this in my Metropolitan Opera Guide:

7. This is quoted (in Anscombe’s translation) in the Weitz article, and is central to his argument. Consider the things we call “games,”-board games, card games, ball games….then “Kampfspiele,” is translated as Olympic games---it should be war games. As an old soldier, I can tell you that Olympic games are kind of fun, most of the time, but war games are usually no fun at all! They are simply training for war.

8. What do these games have in common?? • Are they all amusing? No. But most are. • Do they all involve competition among players? No. But most do. • Do all involve winning and losing? No, again, but most do. • Are all games rule-governed? Maybe (not sure), but a lot of human activities are rule-governed.

9. William the Conqueror worshipped here. So?? Does that matter? This is, of course, St. John’s Chapel in the White Tower section of the Tower of London. It certainly awe-inspiring—relevant?? Is this art??

10. So….? • Wittgenstein concludes that there is no single feature, or characteristic, that all games have in common. Instead, he finds what he calls “family resemblances” among the things so called. Games form a family. • Weitz says the same is true of ‘art’ and its sub-concepts: painting, sculpture, novels, etc. None of these can be defined, because there is no single characteristic all have in common. • Further, Weitz stresses the notion that these are “open concepts.” What could that mean??

11. The Lindisfarne Gospels: art??

12. Suppose we are confronted with something new. It could be a hula-hoop, or an illuminated manuscript. Is that art?? The Kimbell Museum, Ft. Worth, once had an exhibit of prayer books, “Painted Prayers,” which were clearly meant, originally, as aids to worship, as were the Lindisfarne Gospels. • Weitz says that what we do, in such cases, is compare the new object with paradigm cases of art works, and then decide whether the new object should be considered art. • It is important to note that this is a decision, not a discovery. But Weitz would be quick to insist that not just anything, our hula-hoop, for example, will count as art.

13. Presumably, nobody would deny that the Mona Lisa, or Moby Dick, or Casablanca, are works of art. What we are saying is “this and such-like things are works of art”…and we will always have new cases to worry over. Now this is art!!

14. Philosophers always disagree… • As always, philosophers disagree, and not everyone will accept Weitz’ claim that ‘art’ cannot be defined. Some think he has misused Wittgenstein. • George Dickie wrote that ‘art’ can be defined, but not in the way people have thought—thus the Institutional Theory. • Jerrold Levinson has done a series of papers, arguing that we define ‘art’ historically, i. e., if something counts as art it somehow continues the history of art. Noel Carroll’s view seems a variation of this, except that he wants to identify (not define) art by “historical narratives”-complicated. • I am convinced (long story) that Berys Gaut’s “cluster concept” will not work; as Wittgenstein said, “Now you’re playing with words.” • And so it goes, world without end. • But, as Weitz insisted, each new theory is worthwhile, even if mistaken, because it calls attention to another of the many, many facets of what we call ‘art’.

15. It is typical of the sort of creatures we are that the line, “Had we but world enough and time…” seems to have been part of a seduction attempt.. But there are all sorts of things for which our time just runs out. Levinson’s work deserves more time than I give it. “Had we but world enough…”