1
00:00:01,890 --> 00:00:08,100
So today, we're going to discuss the topic of definitions of art or theories of art,

2
00:00:08,100 --> 00:00:15,760
as it's sometimes called, and this sort of brings to the fore our question of the third kind.

3
00:00:15,760 --> 00:00:20,410
That I distinguished at the beginning of the course that I dealt with in aesthetics,

4
00:00:20,410 --> 00:00:28,470
namely questions about the nature of art, metaphysical or ontological questions in the philosophy of art.

5
00:00:28,470 --> 00:00:36,390
And this question arises in a particularly pointed way and interests a lot of people,

6
00:00:36,390 --> 00:00:45,000
primarily because of the dramatic developments in art during the 20th century.

7
00:00:45,000 --> 00:00:55,950
One example that's often talked about in the literature on this is a famous piece by Marcel Duchamp, French artist,

8
00:00:55,950 --> 00:01:09,830
who in 1917 was on the board of a group called the American Society of Independent Artists, which had a very sort of democratic agenda.

9
00:01:09,830 --> 00:01:16,810
And at their founding, they released a statement talking about the need for, as they put it,

10
00:01:16,810 --> 00:01:25,890
an exhibition where artists of all schools can exhibit together certain that whatever they send in will be displayed.

11
00:01:25,890 --> 00:01:29,350
So Duchamp, who, as I said, was part of the board,

12
00:01:29,350 --> 00:01:40,590
or at least one of the leaders of this movement decided to test this commitment to democratic values in art.

13
00:01:40,590 --> 00:01:51,540
And so he anonymously submitted a urinal for display and he paid the submission fee,

14
00:01:51,540 --> 00:02:00,780
which they had said would guarantee anybody to have their work displayed, whatever they sent in.

15
00:02:00,780 --> 00:02:12,570
He didn't tell anybody, of course, that he was the one who sent this in and he didn't alter the urinal except to sign it with the name are MUT,

16
00:02:12,570 --> 00:02:17,220
which I think a number of people have pondered the significance of.

17
00:02:17,220 --> 00:02:24,450
But I don't think anybody's ever come to any conclusions as to why he chose that particular pseudonym.

18
00:02:24,450 --> 00:02:30,990
And so this pose a great difficulty to the American Society of Independent Artists.

19
00:02:30,990 --> 00:02:42,750
And they debated about whether this work, which Duchamp called Fountain, was actually a work of art and whether they should accept it or not.

20
00:02:42,750 --> 00:02:51,600
And in the end, they decided that it was not a work of art. And I believe it was the only submission that they rejected out of hundreds.

21
00:02:51,600 --> 00:02:57,330
I think possibly the thousands of submissions that they received.

22
00:02:57,330 --> 00:03:05,640
Duchamp resigned in protest at this and found him.

23
00:03:05,640 --> 00:03:10,620
The original was lost. People don't really know what happened to it.

24
00:03:10,620 --> 00:03:16,680
I think some people suspect that it was thrown out by the cleaning staff at the gallery.

25
00:03:16,680 --> 00:03:22,230
There's all kinds of theories about where it ended up.

26
00:03:22,230 --> 00:03:39,990
In 2004, a group of British art critics, I think 500 of them voted Fountain, the most influential artwork of the 20th century.

27
00:03:39,990 --> 00:03:44,130
And it was the only artwork that was rejected by the American Society of

28
00:03:44,130 --> 00:03:51,090
Independent Artists exhibition on the grounds that it wasn't an artwork at all.

29
00:03:51,090 --> 00:04:03,450
So it's examples like that. And that particular example that poses this question about the nature of works of art.

30
00:04:03,450 --> 00:04:07,440
And it's interesting that this is one of the few questions that we'll have discussed in

31
00:04:07,440 --> 00:04:16,140
this course that you are not unlikely to read about in the newspapers from time to time,

32
00:04:16,140 --> 00:04:21,750
what people want to know is some way of deciding whether these particularly unusual or

33
00:04:21,750 --> 00:04:30,540
outlandish artwork's pieces of performance art and so forth actually qualify as works of art.

34
00:04:30,540 --> 00:04:36,810
People get angry, for example, about government funding going to these kinds of projects.

35
00:04:36,810 --> 00:04:50,040
That's maybe not so much a worry nowadays, but there is a natural curiosity about what we're supposed to make of these things that have been produced,

36
00:04:50,040 --> 00:05:02,640
particularly, as I say, in the 20th century. And philosophers have quite dusa tactically embraced this project of attempting to define art.

37
00:05:02,640 --> 00:05:08,010
Definition plays a very important role in the history of philosophy.

38
00:05:08,010 --> 00:05:19,860
So in many Plato's dialogues, the goal is essentially to define justice, for example, or piety, friendship, things like this.

39
00:05:19,860 --> 00:05:24,660
And as many of you will be very familiar with,

40
00:05:24,660 --> 00:05:30,630
one of the largest research programmes epistemology in the 20th century has been the attempts

41
00:05:30,630 --> 00:05:38,760
to analyse knowledge to provide necessary and sufficient conditions for knowing something.

42
00:05:38,760 --> 00:05:45,360
And equally, there is a great deal of scepticism about the viability of projects like this.

43
00:05:45,360 --> 00:05:52,110
And it's worth if you know a little bit about the literature on the attempt to analyse knowledge.

44
00:05:52,110 --> 00:05:58,140
It's worth thinking about some of the questions that that raises, because, as I say, a great deal of work has been done on that,

45
00:05:58,140 --> 00:06:07,470
and a great deal of scepticism, particularly in recent years, has been engendered about the prospects for success at that.

46
00:06:07,470 --> 00:06:17,040
And you may want to look at on the sceptical side of things in that area, Chapter one, Section three of Timothy Williamson's book,

47
00:06:17,040 --> 00:06:26,160
Knowledge and Its Limits, and consider whether some of the considerations he raises there might apply to other areas,

48
00:06:26,160 --> 00:06:40,860
such as the attempts to define art. I think it's important at the outset to say a little bit about definitions in general,

49
00:06:40,860 --> 00:06:51,570
partly because it's important to get clear in your mind what would count as success in a definition of art,

50
00:06:51,570 --> 00:07:00,930
or indeed, what are we interested in when we express a desire for a definition of art?

51
00:07:00,930 --> 00:07:02,340
And I say this for a number of reasons.

52
00:07:02,340 --> 00:07:14,970
So you might think what we're interested in is a way of accepting or ruling out avant garde works like Fountain as being works of art.

53
00:07:14,970 --> 00:07:21,450
However, if that's what we're interested in, then it's not clear that we're necessarily going to need a definition.

54
00:07:21,450 --> 00:07:26,130
We may only need a test for whether something is a work of art.

55
00:07:26,130 --> 00:07:32,040
So you remember when we discussed Hume, I said that Hume,

56
00:07:32,040 --> 00:07:39,510
at the very least in providing standard of taste, is providing a test for whether something is beautiful.

57
00:07:39,510 --> 00:07:47,600
It's not clear that he's attempting to define beauty, but he's presenting a way of determining whether something is beautiful.

58
00:07:47,600 --> 00:07:55,860
And you might think what we want is a test for whether something is a work of art.

59
00:07:55,860 --> 00:08:05,460
And for that, it would be enough to show that something like Fountain fails to meet some necessary condition of being an artwork.

60
00:08:05,460 --> 00:08:11,640
You would need a full-blown definition of what an artwork is in order to rule it out.

61
00:08:11,640 --> 00:08:17,460
If he could show that Fountain fails to meet a necessary condition of being a work of art, or on the other hand,

62
00:08:17,460 --> 00:08:24,060
you could include it by showing that it meets a sufficient condition of being a work of art,

63
00:08:24,060 --> 00:08:35,910
but merely having a necessary condition of of being art or a sufficient condition of being art would not of itself necessarily be a definition of art.

64
00:08:35,910 --> 00:08:45,000
So that's one point whether what we're interested in is a test of art hould or a definition of art.

65
00:08:45,000 --> 00:08:50,970
Another distinction that I think is worth making here is the distinction between defining

66
00:08:50,970 --> 00:09:00,800
something and providing necessary and sufficient conditions of being that thing.

67
00:09:00,800 --> 00:09:09,530
It's possible to provide necessary and sufficient conditions of being a thing without defining the word for that thing,

68
00:09:09,530 --> 00:09:18,560
that kind of thing, or defining what that thing is, very trivial example.

69
00:09:18,560 --> 00:09:23,870
You could say a bachelor is what is not not a bachelor. Very easy.

70
00:09:23,870 --> 00:09:30,890
That is a necessary and sufficient condition of being a bachelor, not not being a bachelor.

71
00:09:30,890 --> 00:09:40,850
Somewhat less trivial example, confined to mathematics. And this is on your handouts being triangular, closed,

72
00:09:40,850 --> 00:09:51,170
plain rectilinear figure is a necessary and sufficient condition of being a trilateral closed plane rectilinear figure.

73
00:09:51,170 --> 00:09:57,890
So being basically three sided figure provided it's close Blaine and rectilinear is

74
00:09:57,890 --> 00:10:05,240
necessary and sufficient for getting a three angled closed plane rectilinear figure.

75
00:10:05,240 --> 00:10:11,990
But that's not a definition of being triangular because being trilateral is about having three sides,

76
00:10:11,990 --> 00:10:18,170
has to do with three sidedness and being triangular has to do with having three angles.

77
00:10:18,170 --> 00:10:24,830
Nevertheless, if one if the one condition obtains, then the other condition obtains.

78
00:10:24,830 --> 00:10:34,670
So that's another sort of standard case in which you can have necessary and sufficient conditions without a definition.

79
00:10:34,670 --> 00:10:44,420
This then raises the question, well, what do you need to add to necessary and sufficient conditions in order to have a definition?

80
00:10:44,420 --> 00:10:48,560
And I think there's at least two things you might say about this.

81
00:10:48,560 --> 00:10:56,210
And which of these you go with will depend on what you consider to be the object of the definition.

82
00:10:56,210 --> 00:11:08,930
That is what you think you are defining. You might think that you are defining words or sometimes said defining concepts

83
00:11:08,930 --> 00:11:15,500
bit more useful to talk about analysing concepts than defining concepts. But you get that as well.

84
00:11:15,500 --> 00:11:16,790
If that's what you're doing,

85
00:11:16,790 --> 00:11:29,000
then presumably you want your definition or phrase in the defining clause of the definition to have the same sense or meaning

86
00:11:29,000 --> 00:11:41,840
as the word being defined or to express the same concept as the concept expressed by the first part of the definition.

87
00:11:41,840 --> 00:11:48,950
And you might think this is why the definition of this would fail as a definition of parity.

88
00:11:48,950 --> 00:11:55,910
The words triangular parity doesn't have the same meaning as the word. Try laterality.

89
00:11:55,910 --> 00:12:05,930
Nor does it express the very same concept. That's one reason that would fail is the definition of that word or that concept.

90
00:12:05,930 --> 00:12:18,410
But philosophers also distinguish defining words and concepts from stating the essence of a thing, or as it's sometimes put, defining objects,

91
00:12:18,410 --> 00:12:27,770
defining things as a variable distinction between what's called real definition and nominal definition,

92
00:12:27,770 --> 00:12:36,290
where a real definition states the essence of a thing, what it is to be a thing of that kind.

93
00:12:36,290 --> 00:12:44,030
Nominal definition gives the meaning of a word real here doesn't mean real as opposed to fake, I should say.

94
00:12:44,030 --> 00:12:55,270
It just means pertaining to things or objects. So how might a real and a nominal definition come apart?

95
00:12:55,270 --> 00:13:02,980
Well, some people are very inclined to say that the claim that water is what has the chemical structure.

96
00:13:02,980 --> 00:13:13,690
H2O is a case of stating the essence of water, saying what it is for something to be water.

97
00:13:13,690 --> 00:13:24,250
But it's not a definition of the word water. So the word water on this line of thinking doesn't mean the same as has the chemical structure,

98
00:13:24,250 --> 00:13:33,220
a H2O or thing that has the chemical structure, H2O stuff that has it, that structure.

99
00:13:33,220 --> 00:13:43,220
And one reason you might think this is that people understood the word water and can understand the word water with no concept of hydrogen or oxygen,

100
00:13:43,220 --> 00:13:58,150
anything like that. That's part of the motivation for wanting to distinguish between stating essences of things and defining words for those things.

101
00:13:58,150 --> 00:14:06,790
So all of this, I think, is important to keep in mind, as you're considering assessing definitions of art.

102
00:14:06,790 --> 00:14:13,300
Is the aim to provide a definition of the word? Is the aim deprived state the essence of the thing?

103
00:14:13,300 --> 00:14:18,280
Is it just to provide necessary and sufficient conditions of being art or intern?

104
00:14:18,280 --> 00:14:29,460
Do we want simply a test to help us deal with quirky works like Fountain?

105
00:14:29,460 --> 00:14:36,750
I should also say one reason why a lot of people describe their views as theories of art is because they're

106
00:14:36,750 --> 00:14:43,390
reluctant to say what they're doing is providing a definition of art or some of the reasons that I've mentioned.

107
00:14:43,390 --> 00:14:51,640
Most people would talk. We'll be talking about. However, I actually do present their claims as definitions.

108
00:14:51,640 --> 00:15:00,180
OK, so those are some considerations about definition and related matters. It's also worth saying a little bit about what sense of the word art.

109
00:15:00,180 --> 00:15:05,310
We want to use whether we want to state the essence of it or to define the word.

110
00:15:05,310 --> 00:15:12,360
We're still going to have to use the words to state the problem. So it's worth considering what sense or use of that word.

111
00:15:12,360 --> 00:15:22,230
We're talking about now the word art or the arts actually has a quite a variety of senses, particularly historically.

112
00:15:22,230 --> 00:15:31,020
We talk about the art of angling. We use the word art to refer to a skill or a practical application of some knowledge.

113
00:15:31,020 --> 00:15:35,970
Talk about the liberal arts. Describe something as more an art than a science.

114
00:15:35,970 --> 00:15:43,140
Those sorts of uses are historically important, but are not are clearly not quite.

115
00:15:43,140 --> 00:15:55,590
Our focus here, too, uses or senses of the word art that we're interested in I think are also worth distinguishing.

116
00:15:55,590 --> 00:16:03,570
So one is the use of art in an evaluative sense to provide a positive evaluation of something.

117
00:16:03,570 --> 00:16:11,200
You may describe it as a work of art. And you get this with other words as well.

118
00:16:11,200 --> 00:16:19,450
So he's a man would be an example where you're not just classifying somebody as human and male,

119
00:16:19,450 --> 00:16:27,410
but you're saying he displays the attributes of manliness, strength and so forth.

120
00:16:27,410 --> 00:16:39,130
A lot of people. Well, I think pretty much everybody writing in this area says we're not interested in explaining that use of the word evaluative,

121
00:16:39,130 --> 00:16:49,720
but rather we are interested in the classification classify Katri use of the word art.

122
00:16:49,720 --> 00:16:52,750
So that can be bad art. That can be good art.

123
00:16:52,750 --> 00:17:03,910
And it's that sense of the word which is compatible with something failing as art that we're interested in using.

124
00:17:03,910 --> 00:17:16,350
And in particular, it's that class of the Katri sense of the word whose central examples are what have become known as the fine arts.

125
00:17:16,350 --> 00:17:25,020
There's a very important paper by Paul Oscar Chris Steller called The Modern System of the Arts,

126
00:17:25,020 --> 00:17:36,090
in which he traces the development of this concept of art and argues that our current notion of art,

127
00:17:36,090 --> 00:17:43,980
which has the fine arts as they're central cases, did not develop, are assumed definite form.

128
00:17:43,980 --> 00:17:57,630
I think he puts it before the 18th century. So the Greeks group certain arts together on the grounds of mimesis and you get precursors like that.

129
00:17:57,630 --> 00:17:58,860
But they didn't group together.

130
00:17:58,860 --> 00:18:08,720
According to Chris Steller, the ones that we grouped together as and particularly they didn't group together the fine arts.

131
00:18:08,720 --> 00:18:15,180
The fine arts, according to Chris, Stellar were codified in the mid 18th century.

132
00:18:15,180 --> 00:18:25,080
And the there were five distinguished back then painting, sculpture, architecture, poetry and music.

133
00:18:25,080 --> 00:18:35,220
And over the years, people considered whether to include other things like engravings, prose, literature, things like this as arts as well.

134
00:18:35,220 --> 00:18:40,290
But these formed the kind of core or nucleus. So that's we're thinking about.

135
00:18:40,290 --> 00:18:49,590
And it's kind of an interesting fact if it's true that earlier societies in the West did not

136
00:18:49,590 --> 00:19:00,450
group together the things that we group together as art under a single concept or a term.

137
00:19:00,450 --> 00:19:08,430
OK, so I mentioned last week in the discussion of expression that early in the 20th century,

138
00:19:08,430 --> 00:19:16,800
one theory of art was the so-called expression theory of art, according to which art is a kind of expression.

139
00:19:16,800 --> 00:19:21,900
Now, this for I think, rather obvious reasons, is no longer really in favour.

140
00:19:21,900 --> 00:19:25,770
It doesn't seem to do justice even to all musical works.

141
00:19:25,770 --> 00:19:32,730
Not all musical works are expressive or IC's are forms of expression.

142
00:19:32,730 --> 00:19:41,100
And you had other attempts like by Clive Bell, for example, to define art as what he called significant form.

143
00:19:41,100 --> 00:19:50,160
That's not really in favour anymore, partly because of the obscurity of the notion of significant form in Bell's writings on it.

144
00:19:50,160 --> 00:20:01,380
And so for reasons I'll get to at the end of this lecture, there arose a great deal of scepticism about the prospects for defining art.

145
00:20:01,380 --> 00:20:10,750
But this changed in the late 60s with the work of George Dickie.

146
00:20:10,750 --> 00:20:17,140
So the move that Dickie made was to say you shouldn't think of defining art in terms

147
00:20:17,140 --> 00:20:27,040
of perceptible features of it or intrinsic features of things that are artworks.

148
00:20:27,040 --> 00:20:35,710
That's not going to work. That's not going to cover the full range of prose, literature, music, painting, sculpture, cetera.

149
00:20:35,710 --> 00:20:40,060
There's no perceptible feature to Dickie. That all of those things have.

150
00:20:40,060 --> 00:20:48,850
And certainly it won't accommodate Marcel Duchamp's works. Rather, what you've got to consider arts relations to other things.

151
00:20:48,850 --> 00:21:00,910
And particularly its place within an institutional framework. It's those relations that make a thing on artwork.

152
00:21:00,910 --> 00:21:06,160
And Dickey's theory is accordingly called the institutional theory of art.

153
00:21:06,160 --> 00:21:15,220
And his arguments for it derive from some considerations originally advanced by Arthur Danto.

154
00:21:15,220 --> 00:21:21,130
Although Danto, it should be said, disagrees with Dickeys institutional theory of art.

155
00:21:21,130 --> 00:21:29,830
But Danto observed that you could have two perceptibly indistinguishable objects, one of which is an artwork.

156
00:21:29,830 --> 00:21:38,950
And the other is not. So again. Fountain would be a perfectly good example of this.

157
00:21:38,950 --> 00:21:48,970
You could have a urinal and fountain looking exactly the same, but one be an artwork and the other not.

158
00:21:48,970 --> 00:21:55,540
Or again, in Dante's example, Andy Warhol is Brillo boxes.

159
00:21:55,540 --> 00:22:02,710
You could have actual Brillo boxes that were indistinguishable from an artist's Brillo box.

160
00:22:02,710 --> 00:22:09,040
And yet one of them is a work of art and the other is not.

161
00:22:09,040 --> 00:22:21,070
What accounts for this? Asks Danto. Well, he thinks this shows that what makes the thing a work of art can't be something visible to the senses,

162
00:22:21,070 --> 00:22:30,350
but rather, as Danto put it on atmosphere, a theory that the eye cannot describe.

163
00:22:30,350 --> 00:22:43,330
In Dickey's work. The basic thought is that it's its place in an institutional framework.

164
00:22:43,330 --> 00:22:57,340
Fountain has a certain place in the institutions of the art world that a regular urinal does not.

165
00:22:57,340 --> 00:23:04,960
What is that framework then becomes the question. So that argument is supposed to show that it's got to be some framework or other

166
00:23:04,960 --> 00:23:14,050
rather than the exhibited or intrinsic properties of the work that makes it art.

167
00:23:14,050 --> 00:23:19,810
And to answer that question, Dickey, over the years has provided two different theories.

168
00:23:19,810 --> 00:23:28,320
The original institutional theory, and this is on the back of your hand out stated as follows,

169
00:23:28,320 --> 00:23:37,210
an artwork is an artefact with aspects that have had conferred upon them by some person or persons acting on behalf of the art world.

170
00:23:37,210 --> 00:23:43,840
The status of candidates for appreciation.

171
00:23:43,840 --> 00:23:55,240
So in Dickey's example, in his first statement of this theory, a chimpanzee might make a painting, as I think he was talking about.

172
00:23:55,240 --> 00:24:04,660
Particular case where it did and it might be displayed by the zoo, but it would not be a work of art, says Dickey.

173
00:24:04,660 --> 00:24:13,780
However, if he took it down the street to the art gallery and the curator displayed it and as a candidate for appreciation,

174
00:24:13,780 --> 00:24:24,100
it would become an artwork. So Dickey says, and this is supposed to illustrate that it's those aspects of the framework,

175
00:24:24,100 --> 00:24:36,820
namely it's being given or aspects of it being given the status of candidates for appreciation by someone acting on behalf of the art world.

176
00:24:36,820 --> 00:24:54,130
That makes it into a work of art. Now, the original institutional theory generated an enormous amount of attention.

177
00:24:54,130 --> 00:25:02,770
And I'm not going to go into the great debates about that one because I I'd rather focus on dickeys,

178
00:25:02,770 --> 00:25:12,370
update of this theory, the new institutional theory of art, which he offered in nineteen eighty four.

179
00:25:12,370 --> 00:25:19,850
So according to the new institutional theory and I'll explain why he's made these changes in a moment is a bit simpler.

180
00:25:19,850 --> 00:25:31,350
And this is also in the handout. According to it, an artwork is an artefact of a kind created to be presented to an art world public.

181
00:25:31,350 --> 00:25:37,330
And Dickey explains each component of this definition.

182
00:25:37,330 --> 00:25:49,600
So first of all, an artefact includes not only objects, but also events and also physical objects used in a new way.

183
00:25:49,600 --> 00:26:01,750
Without the material of which they're made being altered. This, of course, is to help accommodate cases like fountain or again,

184
00:26:01,750 --> 00:26:08,500
simpler example, a piece of driftwood might be taken from the beach, put on display.

185
00:26:08,500 --> 00:26:16,260
It's used in a new way, even if the material substance of it is not altered.

186
00:26:16,260 --> 00:26:25,140
An artist, Karen Dickey, is someone who participates with understanding in the making of a work of art.

187
00:26:25,140 --> 00:26:29,070
The key notion of an art world public, he explains.

188
00:26:29,070 --> 00:26:46,160
As a public who is aware that what is presented is art and has a minimal understanding of the media of a particular art form.

189
00:26:46,160 --> 00:26:49,700
Other important notions in his theory.

190
00:26:49,700 --> 00:27:00,510
One of which is an art world system, which is his term for the framework, for the presentation of a work of art by an artist to an art world public.

191
00:27:00,510 --> 00:27:10,790
So the system of institutional relations that makes this possible and the art world is the totality of these art world systems,

192
00:27:10,790 --> 00:27:24,630
these frameworks within which it is presented. Now, one thing that may strike you about this definition, once the terms of it are explained,

193
00:27:24,630 --> 00:27:34,230
is that it is circular and Dickey is perfectly aware of this and he says this is not a problem.

194
00:27:34,230 --> 00:27:43,260
And the reason it's not a problem is that circular definitions can still sometimes be informative.

195
00:27:43,260 --> 00:27:49,100
One purpose for which we use definitions is to explain the meaning of a term to someone else.

196
00:27:49,100 --> 00:27:55,410
And if we're doing that, then evidently it's not so good if it's circular.

197
00:27:55,410 --> 00:27:59,580
However, this is not the purpose of this definition.

198
00:27:59,580 --> 00:28:09,330
We all understand we have an implicit at least understanding of what art is, and it can be informative to learn of its relations to other things,

199
00:28:09,330 --> 00:28:17,380
even if those other things ultimately have to explain and b explain themselves in terms of their relation to artworks.

200
00:28:17,380 --> 00:28:30,690
Dickey says We acquire the concept of art along with all these other concepts, like the concept of an art world or of an artist.

201
00:28:30,690 --> 00:28:42,430
And so by definition, that displays the relations between these concepts can still be true and informative by making explicit what the relations are.

202
00:28:42,430 --> 00:28:49,080
And he thinks many concepts are like this. So he thinks the concept of law. You don't acquire the concept of law on its own.

203
00:28:49,080 --> 00:28:56,850
You also acquire the concept of a legislature, an executive and a judiciary.

204
00:28:56,850 --> 00:29:04,440
And these things are explained in terms of one another. And the concepts of these are grasped together.

205
00:29:04,440 --> 00:29:14,220
And so a good definition of them, will it be circular in the sense that you need to explain the concepts on the one side of the definition?

206
00:29:14,220 --> 00:29:33,610
Ultimately, in terms of the concept being defined. So why think that this definition is the right way to go for an institutional theory?

207
00:29:33,610 --> 00:29:40,960
Dickie thinks there are a few problems with the original theory that were raised to him by Monroe Beardsley.

208
00:29:40,960 --> 00:29:41,560
One thing,

209
00:29:41,560 --> 00:29:50,220
one problem he thinks there is with the old theory is that it's talked about people acting on behalf of the art world problem with this stick.

210
00:29:50,220 --> 00:30:00,290
He says, is that the art world is an informal institution. It's just a practise and you can't act on behalf on behalf of a practise.

211
00:30:00,290 --> 00:30:12,510
So to the original theory talks about conferring a status on an object, the status of a candidate for appreciation.

212
00:30:12,510 --> 00:30:20,180
And you think it's inappropriate to talk in such informal concept contexts of conferring status?

213
00:30:20,180 --> 00:30:28,490
It's formal concepts like contexts like degrees, ceremonies at universities in which a status is conferred.

214
00:30:28,490 --> 00:30:36,640
So he hopes to simplify it in this way.

215
00:30:36,640 --> 00:30:48,190
And further, the reason he's gone with this characterisation, namely that an artwork is an artefact of a kind created to be presented to an art world,

216
00:30:48,190 --> 00:30:55,600
public is, as he somewhat incautiously puts it at one point.

217
00:30:55,600 --> 00:31:08,630
An artist always creates for a public of some sort. And I say that was incautious of him because he then backtracks on it and says it is, of course,

218
00:31:08,630 --> 00:31:18,280
true that artists withhold their work from art world publics, for example, if they don't think it's good enough.

219
00:31:18,280 --> 00:31:19,150
But, says Dickey,

220
00:31:19,150 --> 00:31:30,280
the very fact that they have withheld their work indicates that what they've created is a thing of a kind that gets presented to an art world public.

221
00:31:30,280 --> 00:31:42,210
So, for example, they may have created a sculpture. Sculptures are a kind of thing that gets presented to an art world public.

222
00:31:42,210 --> 00:31:51,660
Now, that is meant to deal with one of the more common objections to the institutional theory, at least in its original form.

223
00:31:51,660 --> 00:31:53,010
So at least in its original form,

224
00:31:53,010 --> 00:32:05,280
the institutional theory seems to imply that someone with no contact with an art world outside of that institution could not create art.

225
00:32:05,280 --> 00:32:18,390
So perhaps a feral child raised in the woods seems not inconceivable any way that a feral child could create something that is an artwork.

226
00:32:18,390 --> 00:32:25,080
And Dickey's original theory seems not to allow that.

227
00:32:25,080 --> 00:32:31,440
This variation of the theory is supposed to accommodate that,

228
00:32:31,440 --> 00:32:38,640
because it could be that the feral child create something that is at least of a kind that gets presented to an art world public.

229
00:32:38,640 --> 00:32:55,940
Maybe he creates a sculpture, for example, even if he has no concept of an art world public or contact with it.

230
00:32:55,940 --> 00:33:06,110
OK, now I'm going to move on to the next theory, partly because we're a little pressed for time.

231
00:33:06,110 --> 00:33:14,240
If you want to read more about this, as you should, because this is probably the most important of the theories of art that have been presented.

232
00:33:14,240 --> 00:33:18,980
It's worth taking a look at Stephen Daviess book Definitions of Art,

233
00:33:18,980 --> 00:33:26,930
which is quite an exhaustive survey of the various definitions of art that have been presented.

234
00:33:26,930 --> 00:33:35,480
I should say a bit of a downside of that book is that it focuses primarily on the original institutional theory,

235
00:33:35,480 --> 00:33:41,370
but it's still worth taking a look at. OK.

236
00:33:41,370 --> 00:33:49,670
The next main class of theories of art are what have been called aesthetic theories of art

237
00:33:49,670 --> 00:33:56,990
and Munmorah Monroe Beardslee is probably the most best-known exponent of one of these.

238
00:33:56,990 --> 00:34:07,190
And these tried to explain the concept of art in terms of the concept of a set of the aesthetic and Beardsley's version, which is on your hand out.

239
00:34:07,190 --> 00:34:18,650
The claim is that an artwork is something produced with the intention of giving it the capacity to satisfy the aesthetic interest.

240
00:34:18,650 --> 00:34:29,780
Satisfying the aesthetic interests here just means providing an aesthetic experience, an aesthetic experience fiercely does not define.

241
00:34:29,780 --> 00:34:34,610
That's at least as tricky as defining art itself.

242
00:34:34,610 --> 00:34:41,570
He gives a partial characterisation of what aesthetic experience is, though he says that it's characterised,

243
00:34:41,570 --> 00:34:47,980
at least in part, by having some or all of the following characteristics.

244
00:34:47,980 --> 00:34:49,440
And you don't need to write this down.

245
00:34:49,440 --> 00:34:58,660
This will be on the detailed panned out says it's characterised by a certain sense of freedom from concern about matters outside the object,

246
00:34:58,660 --> 00:35:00,550
a certain intense affect,

247
00:35:00,550 --> 00:35:10,520
detached, detached from practical ends and an exhilarating sense of exercising powers of discovery and of integration of the self and its experiences.

248
00:35:10,520 --> 00:35:21,530
So a lot of this is quite clearly derived from Kant talking about the kind of disinterested pleasure involved in aesthetic experience.

249
00:35:21,530 --> 00:35:28,850
Two notable features of this way of defining art. First of all, the aesthetic intention,

250
00:35:28,850 --> 00:35:31,490
the intention to create something with the capacity to provide aesthetic

251
00:35:31,490 --> 00:35:39,230
experience need not be the only intention with which the artist creates a work.

252
00:35:39,230 --> 00:35:45,680
So they might have religious intentions. They might create the work in order to glorify God, for example,

253
00:35:45,680 --> 00:35:53,180
and those might even be more important to the artist or for understanding this artefact.

254
00:35:53,180 --> 00:36:01,400
Beardsley's point is only that aesthetic intention must also be there in order for it's to be a work of art.

255
00:36:01,400 --> 00:36:07,730
And likewise, since it's just the intention to give it the capacity to provide these experiences,

256
00:36:07,730 --> 00:36:12,860
the work need not actually provide aesthetic experience.

257
00:36:12,860 --> 00:36:21,570
It might be I think his example might get struck by lightning before anybody ever gets any aesthetic experience from it.

258
00:36:21,570 --> 00:36:28,950
But because that intention was present. It's an artwork. Now,

259
00:36:28,950 --> 00:36:43,770
one question that is really sort of glaring regarding these this aesthetic theory is that it seems not to

260
00:36:43,770 --> 00:36:50,220
apply to the problematic cases that raise this question about the definition of art in the first place.

261
00:36:50,220 --> 00:36:57,930
So one of the reasons that Duchamp's fountain is problematic, according to many at least,

262
00:36:57,930 --> 00:37:08,340
is that it appears not to have been created with the intention of providing an aesthetic experience.

263
00:37:08,340 --> 00:37:11,280
That's not to say it can't provide an aesthetic experience.

264
00:37:11,280 --> 00:37:16,730
A lot of people have talked about how nice the gleam of the porcelain looks when you look at the thing.

265
00:37:16,730 --> 00:37:25,560
But the point being that the intention with which it was created was not to provide that aesthetic experience.

266
00:37:25,560 --> 00:37:29,730
What does Beardslee say about that?

267
00:37:29,730 --> 00:37:40,770
He argues that his definition captures the point of a definition of art better than ones that attempts to accommodate cases like Fountain.

268
00:37:40,770 --> 00:37:51,690
So according to him, the point of having a definition of art is to say, what are the noteworthy features to which the word art draws our attention?

269
00:37:51,690 --> 00:38:08,880
And so to what are the theoretically important distinctions which the word art is most apt for making?

270
00:38:08,880 --> 00:38:23,010
And because of this purpose of providing such a definition, the definition we provide needs closely reflect ordinary usage of this word.

271
00:38:23,010 --> 00:38:34,020
And as it happens, he thinks that his definition meets this purpose because one of the distinctions that we want to make is

272
00:38:34,020 --> 00:38:41,580
that between objects that enter artistic activities because of their connexion to the aesthetic interest.

273
00:38:41,580 --> 00:38:50,760
So our interest in having aesthetic experiences and objects that enter artistic practises in other ways.

274
00:38:50,760 --> 00:38:58,500
And he says the word art is most appropriate for making this distinction.

275
00:38:58,500 --> 00:39:07,410
In particular, he says there is no advantage to using this word in order to classify as art whatever comments on art.

276
00:39:07,410 --> 00:39:17,520
He thinks this is what we should say about Fountain. That it's a witty comment on the art world, but it's not itself an artwork.

277
00:39:17,520 --> 00:39:25,560
He says if you classify everything, the comments on art as art then reviews in the newspaper of art exhibitions will have to count as art.

278
00:39:25,560 --> 00:39:36,330
Any comment made about art will count as art. So, too, we shouldn't count just anything that's exhibited as a work of art,

279
00:39:36,330 --> 00:39:43,280
because this would count exhibits at science museums, stamp clubs and world fairs as art.

280
00:39:43,280 --> 00:39:52,290
Quite a dated example. And likewise, we shouldn't call art whatever happens to be called art by artists.

281
00:39:52,290 --> 00:39:57,050
And he says this wouldn't classify it all, but would rather be circular.

282
00:39:57,050 --> 00:40:05,300
By which I assume he means we wouldn't be explaining what they mean when they call it art.

283
00:40:05,300 --> 00:40:16,850
OK. So that's his rationale for that. Now, I think there is a bit of a problem with this.

284
00:40:16,850 --> 00:40:30,170
So what, Dickie, is in effect, what. Beardslee is in effect providing is what the philosopher Rudolf Carnap described as an explicative definition.

285
00:40:30,170 --> 00:40:43,670
So an explicative definition tries to respect the central cases of the use of a word, but without worrying about the other cases.

286
00:40:43,670 --> 00:40:45,620
So it's it's.

287
00:40:45,620 --> 00:40:58,220
It's basically a way of coining a new word or assigning a new meaning to the word, but one which respects central cases of the old meaning.

288
00:40:58,220 --> 00:41:12,480
And you do this if the ordinary word is too vague, imprecise, fuzzy, and it can be useful for certain theoretical purposes.

289
00:41:12,480 --> 00:41:22,670
But it's worth stressing that it is to assign a new meaning to the word rather than to try and capture the meaning the word already has.

290
00:41:22,670 --> 00:41:32,190
It tries to respect it in part. So it's not a complete stipulation of how you're going to use the word.

291
00:41:32,190 --> 00:41:37,740
But it's at least in part, a stipulation of how you're going to use the word.

292
00:41:37,740 --> 00:41:44,190
So it's not like saying I'm going to use the word bank to mean cow. But it's partly like that.

293
00:41:44,190 --> 00:41:53,350
It's a decision to use a word in a certain way, not attempt to describe how the word is ordinarily used.

294
00:41:53,350 --> 00:41:59,970
What? So what Beardslee is in effect saying is we shouldn't try to provide descriptive definitions of art.

295
00:41:59,970 --> 00:42:07,520
Rather, we should be providing explicative definitions in current EPP's sense.

296
00:42:07,520 --> 00:42:11,850
And I don't see where he's justified this claim.

297
00:42:11,850 --> 00:42:14,640
I'm not saying it can't be justified.

298
00:42:14,640 --> 00:42:23,850
But part of the reason we were interested in this question, the first place was to understand art in the ordinary sense, to be told.

299
00:42:23,850 --> 00:42:32,820
We shouldn't be asking that question. And rather, we should be in part stipulating a new meaning for this word related to the old meaning.

300
00:42:32,820 --> 00:42:41,950
Whatever that was, I think required some justification that Beardslee does not provide.

301
00:42:41,950 --> 00:42:49,600
So that's that's one concern about the aesthetic theory in Beardsley's version of it.

302
00:42:49,600 --> 00:42:58,540
I'm just going to briefly discuss the third class of theories before moving on to scepticism about the project of defining art itself.

303
00:42:58,540 --> 00:43:08,440
So the third main class of theories of art around nowadays are what are known as historical theories of art.

304
00:43:08,440 --> 00:43:14,920
And the main proponent of this is Gerald Levinsohn.

305
00:43:14,920 --> 00:43:23,650
And this, too, is on your hand out. So in Levinson's view on artwork is an object that, as he puts it,

306
00:43:23,650 --> 00:43:31,180
is non passingly intended by a person or persons with a proprietary right over it to be regarded

307
00:43:31,180 --> 00:43:39,910
in any of the ways in which prior works of art have been correctly or standardly regarded.

308
00:43:39,910 --> 00:43:42,610
Point about the reference to non passing intentions.

309
00:43:42,610 --> 00:43:48,550
Is that it can't be just a whim that you have for a few moments to intended to be regarded in a certain way.

310
00:43:48,550 --> 00:43:56,140
That's not enough to turn it into a work of art. And the basic idea is that something becomes a work of art.

311
00:43:56,140 --> 00:44:00,370
On account of its relations to pass the works of art,

312
00:44:00,370 --> 00:44:06,400
i.e. in relations between the way in which the artist intends for it to be regarded

313
00:44:06,400 --> 00:44:15,270
and the way in which past works of art were standardly or correctly regarded.

314
00:44:15,270 --> 00:44:27,680
The claim is not, I should say, that the artist needs to have the concept of art or needs even to be aware of the history of art.

315
00:44:27,680 --> 00:44:34,760
All that matters is that the artist intend for the work to be regarded in a certain way and for it to be true

316
00:44:34,760 --> 00:44:44,900
that that way of regarding this work is a way in which past works were correctly regarded or standardly regarded.

317
00:44:44,900 --> 00:44:50,760
I think that that's worth stressing because there's two ways of reading this claim about intention.

318
00:44:50,760 --> 00:44:56,140
OK. So I've provided a lengthy discussion of Levinsohn on the detailed handout, which will be up on Web lern.

319
00:44:56,140 --> 00:45:00,500
But for the moment, that's what I'll say about that.

320
00:45:00,500 --> 00:45:11,570
Now, I mentioned that beginning in the particularly the 50s, a great deal of scepticism arose about the very possibility of defining art.

321
00:45:11,570 --> 00:45:17,930
And you often get this regarding the project of definition. So I mentioned attempts to analyse knowledge.

322
00:45:17,930 --> 00:45:23,600
A lot of scepticism about the prospects of that being successful.

323
00:45:23,600 --> 00:45:27,500
And this was motivated in the 50s by Vic and Shine's discussion in the

324
00:45:27,500 --> 00:45:35,000
philosophical investigations of what he described as family resemblance concepts.

325
00:45:35,000 --> 00:45:42,230
Now, I provided the quotation on the handout from the investigation's not going to read it out,

326
00:45:42,230 --> 00:45:48,770
actually, but I'm just going to highlight kind of the key claims of this.

327
00:45:48,770 --> 00:45:50,120
So it begins Stein's view.

328
00:45:50,120 --> 00:46:01,070
It's in the context in which he's discussing language and whether we can talk about whether we can give an essence to language.

329
00:46:01,070 --> 00:46:05,120
And Vic, insurance claim is that for some words,

330
00:46:05,120 --> 00:46:16,990
there's nothing that all the things that they apply to have in common and in virtue of which we apply the same words to all.

331
00:46:16,990 --> 00:46:27,280
For example, the word game, Sophus, in the case of a word like game.

332
00:46:27,280 --> 00:46:35,560
There are many different kinds of affinity between the things that we apply the words to,

333
00:46:35,560 --> 00:46:41,050
and we apply the same words to all of these things in virtue of these affinities.

334
00:46:41,050 --> 00:46:54,580
So a couple of things he mentions on in this quotation, board games, card games, ball games, athletic games and so on.

335
00:46:54,580 --> 00:47:02,260
If you talk about these games and trying to find a feature they all share and in virtue of which we call them all games,

336
00:47:02,260 --> 00:47:12,040
you might think, well, they're all entertaining. But that's less clear with a case like chess or knots and crosses versus noughts and crosses,

337
00:47:12,040 --> 00:47:16,270
which I assume is meant to be an example of an entertaining one.

338
00:47:16,270 --> 00:47:22,120
So, two, you might think there's always winning and losing or competition between players.

339
00:47:22,120 --> 00:47:25,870
But think of patients in ball games.

340
00:47:25,870 --> 00:47:30,580
There's winning and losing. But when a child throws his ball at the wall and catches it again.

341
00:47:30,580 --> 00:47:34,390
This feature has disappeared. And as he says, think now.

342
00:47:34,390 --> 00:47:41,980
Singing and dancing games. Here we have the element of entertainment. But how many other characteristic features have disappeared?

343
00:47:41,980 --> 00:47:49,680
And we can go through the many, many other groups of games in the same way. Can see how similarities crop up and disappear, disappear.

344
00:47:49,680 --> 00:47:53,770
And the upside of these considerations is that we see a network,

345
00:47:53,770 --> 00:48:02,410
complicated network of similarities overlapping and criss crossing similarities in the large and small famous passage.

346
00:48:02,410 --> 00:48:05,910
I can think of no better expression to characterise these similarities than family

347
00:48:05,910 --> 00:48:12,220
resemblances for the various resemblances between members of a family build features,

348
00:48:12,220 --> 00:48:20,230
colour of eyes, gait, temperament, so on and so forth, overlap and crisscross in the same way.

349
00:48:20,230 --> 00:48:24,340
So members of family can resemble each other in their physical appearance.

350
00:48:24,340 --> 00:48:28,460
But that's not because there's one feature of their appearance that they all share.

351
00:48:28,460 --> 00:48:37,060
They might share one thing with B and B might share something with C, but ANC don't share the same feature.

352
00:48:37,060 --> 00:48:47,230
That's the basic thought. And in a very influential article, philosopher by the name of Maurice White's applied this to Art.

353
00:48:47,230 --> 00:48:54,460
His claim was that no single condition is either necessary or sufficient for being a work of art.

354
00:48:54,460 --> 00:49:00,790
Indeed, invites his view. Even being an artefact is not a necessary condition of being a work of art.

355
00:49:00,790 --> 00:49:11,230
Because, he says, we can see this piece of driftwood. We can say this piece of driftwood, which we found on the beach, is a lovely piece of sculpture.

356
00:49:11,230 --> 00:49:15,730
Rather, it's more like the concept of a game as vacante, Stein describes it.

357
00:49:15,730 --> 00:49:22,570
So there are various conditions. This is vite stalking by which we recognise something as an artwork.

358
00:49:22,570 --> 00:49:28,600
And it's true that a thing must meet some of these conditions in order to be an artwork.

359
00:49:28,600 --> 00:49:37,630
However, there is no one condition such that a thing must meet it in order to be an artwork.

360
00:49:37,630 --> 00:49:41,620
This is a reiteration of that point that there is no single condition.

361
00:49:41,620 --> 00:49:45,730
That's a necessary condition of being an artwork.

362
00:49:45,730 --> 00:49:51,100
There's a variety of conditions in which we're in virtue of which things count as artworks.

363
00:49:51,100 --> 00:49:58,970
But no single one is one that every artwork has to meet. Now Veitch goes further.

364
00:49:58,970 --> 00:50:06,770
He says not only is this the case, but we cannot list what all of these conditions are.

365
00:50:06,770 --> 00:50:12,160
So you could have this claim and say there's a fixed number of conditions.

366
00:50:12,160 --> 00:50:18,230
You've got to meet either A, B, C or D. No individual one is necessary.

367
00:50:18,230 --> 00:50:24,440
But meeting one or the other of them is necessary. But that's not vises view.

368
00:50:24,440 --> 00:50:33,080
He thinks the list is not closed. The list of conditions is not closed.

369
00:50:33,080 --> 00:50:38,890
Our concept of art hasn't settled. What all of the conditions that a thing can meet.

370
00:50:38,890 --> 00:50:48,320
That can make a thing art. And he thinks this is on account of the role of adventure, creativity in art.

371
00:50:48,320 --> 00:50:55,970
So when when we get a new work of art like fountain because of this open character of the concept,

372
00:50:55,970 --> 00:50:59,840
we have to make a decision as to whether we're going to include it or not,

373
00:50:59,840 --> 00:51:04,010
whether we're going to add a condition to our concept of art that this thing

374
00:51:04,010 --> 00:51:11,570
meets and in virtue of which it counts as art or if we're going to exclude it.

375
00:51:11,570 --> 00:51:18,680
But the key point and the reason that the concept is open reason he describes it that way is that it's not

376
00:51:18,680 --> 00:51:26,120
we shouldn't think of this as something that the concept we have has already implicitly settled or decided.

377
00:51:26,120 --> 00:51:35,950
When new cases come up, we have to make a decision as to whether we're going to modify the conditions of applying the concept or not.

378
00:51:35,950 --> 00:51:40,520
He says we could, of course, close the concept. We could decide that's it.

379
00:51:40,520 --> 00:51:46,610
No more conditions. But Vite says we shouldn't make that decision.

380
00:51:46,610 --> 00:51:58,670
It is up to us. And he's recommending against it because he thinks this would foreclose on the conditions of creativity in the arts, as he puts it.

381
00:51:58,670 --> 00:52:06,920
And he thinks that past definitions of art, such as the expression theory, fail as definitions.

382
00:52:06,920 --> 00:52:11,900
But they do point to some of the conditions that are involved in our concept of art.

383
00:52:11,900 --> 00:52:17,960
They're not necessary conditions, but they point to some of these conditions and in particular,

384
00:52:17,960 --> 00:52:23,360
they point to some of the things that these theories have regarded as valuable things

385
00:52:23,360 --> 00:52:32,070
to pay attention to in artworks such as its form and such as its expressive character.

386
00:52:32,070 --> 00:52:42,570
OK. Now, I see we don't have any more time, but I've listed some of the considerations to think about with reference device on the handout.

387
00:52:42,570 --> 00:52:45,720
Some of the objections to it. And of course,

388
00:52:45,720 --> 00:52:56,310
the main objection would be if we can find an actual definition of art that would show that Bite's is mistaken about the character of art here.

389
00:52:56,310 --> 00:53:02,000
Thank you very much.