Page 56 - Studio International - October 1969

Cezanne's and Van Gogh's palettes as proudly mean the framing of new propositions: e.g. characterizing that to which it was supposed
as they do their paintings?) Actual works of most kinetic and electronic art. to refer.' Expressionist works are usually such
art are little more than historical curiosities. Another way of stating in relation to art what `ejaculations' presented in the morphological
As far as art is concerned Van Gogh's paint- Ayer asserted about the analytic method in the language of traditional art. If Pollock is
ings aren't worth any more than his pallette context of language would be the following: important it is because he painted on loose
is. They are both 'collector's items'.17 The validity of artistic propositions is not de- canvas horizontally to the floor. What isn't
Art 'lives' through influencing other art, not pendent on any empirical, much less any important is that he later put those drippings
by existing as the physical residue of an artist's aesthetic, presupposition about the nature of over stretchers and hung them parallel to the
ideas. The reason why different artists from things. For the artist, as an analyst, is not wall. (In other words what is important in art
the past are 'brought alive' again is because directly concerned with the physical proper- is what one brings to it, not one's adoption of
some aspect of their work becomes 'useable' by ties of things. He is concerned only with the what was previously existing.) What is even
living artists. That there is no 'truth' as to way (1.) in which art is capable of conceptual less important to art is Pollock's notions of
what art is seems quite unrealized. growth and (2.) how his propositions are `self-expression' because those kinds of subjec-
What is the function of art, or the nature of capable of logically following that growth.19 tive meanings are useless to anyone other than
art? If we continue our analogy of the forms In other words, the propositions of art are not those involved with him personally. And their
art takes as being art's language one can realize factual, but linguistic in character—that is, they `specific' quality puts them outside of art's
then that a work of art is a kind of proposition do not describe the behaviour of physical, or context.
presented within the context of art as a com- even mental objects; they express definitions `I do not make art,' Richard Serra says, 'I am
ment on art. We can then go further and of art, or the formal consequences of defini- engaged in an activity; if someone wants to
analyse the types of 'propositions'. tions of art. Accordingly, we can say that art call it art, that's his business, but it's not up to
A. J. Ayer's evaluation of Kant's distinction operates on a logic. For we shall see that the me to decide that. That's all figured out later.'
between analytic and synthetic is useful to us characteristic mark of a purely logical enquiry Serra, then, is very much aware of the implica-
here : 'A proposition is analytic when its valid- is that it is concerned with the formal conse- tions of his work. If Serra is indeed just 'figur-
ity depends solely on the definitions of the quences of our definitions (of art) and not with ing out what lead does' (gravitationally,
symbols it contains, and synthetic when its questions of empirical fact. 2 ° molecularly, etc.) why should anyone think of
validity is determined by the facts of experi- To repeat, what art has in common with logic it as art? If he doesn't take the responsibility
ence:18 The analogy I will attempt to make and mathematics is that it is a tautology; i.e., of it being art, who can, or should ? His work
is one between the art condition and the con- the 'art idea' (or 'work') and art are the same certainly appears to be empirically verifiable :
dition of the analtyic proposition. In that they and can be appreciated as art without going lead can do and be used for many physical
don't appear to be believable as anything else, outside the context of art for varifition. activities. In itself this does anything but lead
or be about anything (other than art) the On the other hand, let us consider why art us into a dialogue about the nature of art.
forms of art most clearly finally referable only cannot be (or has difficulty when it attempts In a sense then he is a primitive. He has no
to art have been forms closest to analytical to be) a synthetic proposition. Or, that is to idea about art. How is it then that we know
propositions. say, when the truth or falsity of its assertion is about 'his activity'? Because he has told us it
Works of art are analytic propositions. That verifiable on empirical grounds. Ayer states: is art by his actions after 'his activity' has taken
is, if viewed within their context—as art—they ... The criterion by which we determine the place. That is, by the fact he is with several
provide no information what-so-ever about validity of an a priori or analytical proposition galleries, puts the physical residue of his
any matter of fact. A work of art is a tautology is not sufficient to determine the validity of an activity in museums (and sells them to art
in that it is a presentation of the artist's inten- empirical or synthetic proposition. For it is collectors—but as we have pointed out, col-
tion, that is, he is saying that that particular characteristic of empirical propositions that lectors are irrelevant to the 'condition of art'
work of art is art, which means, is a definition their validity is not purely formal. To say that of a work). That he denies his work is art but
of art. Thus, that it is art is true a priori (which a geometrical proposition, or a system of geo- plays the artist is more than just a paradox.
is what Judd means when he states that `if metrical propositions, is false, is to say that it Serra secretly feels that 'arthood' is arrived at
someone calls it art, it's art'). is self-contradictory. But an empirical proposi- empirically. Thus, as Ayer has stated: 'There
Indeed, it is nearly impossible to discuss art tion, or a system of empirical propositions, are no absolutely certain empirical proposi-
in general terms without talking in tautologies may be free from contradiction, and still be tions. It is only tautologies that are certain.
—for to attempt to 'grasp' art by any other false. It is said to be false, not because it is Empirical questions are one and all hypo-
`handle' is to merely focus on another aspect formally defective, but because it fails to theses, which may be confirmed or discredited
or quality of the proposition which is usually satisfy some material criterion.' 21 in actual sense-experience. And the proposi-
irrelevant to the art work's 'art condition'. The unreality of 'realistic' art is due to its tions in which we record the observations that
One begins to realize that art's 'art condition' framing as an art proposition in synthetic verify these hypotheses are themselves hypo-
is a conceptual state. That the language forms terms: one is always tempted to 'verify' the theses which are subject to the test of further
which the artist frames his propositions in are proposition empirically. Realism's synthetic sense-experience. Thus there is no final pro-
often 'private' codes or languages is an inevit- state does not bring one to a circular swing position.' 22
able outcome of art's freedom from morpho- back into a dialogue with the larger frame- What one finds all throughout the writings of
logical constrictions; and it follows from this work of questions about the nature of art (as Ad Reinhardt is this very similar thesis of
that one has to be familiar with contemporary does the work of Malevich, Mondrian, Pol- 'art-as-art', and that 'art is always dead, and
art to appreciate it and understand it. Like- lock, Reinhardt, early Rauschenberg, Johns, a "living" art is a deception'.23 Reinhardt had
wise one understands why the 'man on the Lichtenstein, Warhol, Andre, Judd, Flavin, a very clear idea about the nature of art, and
street' is intolerant to artistic art and always LeWitt, Morris, and others), but rather, one his importance is far from recognized.
demands art in a traditional 'language'. (And is flung out of art's 'orbit' into the 'infinite Because forms of art that can be considered
one understands why formalist art sells 'like space' of the human condition. synthetic propositions are verifiable by the
hot cakes'.) Only in painting and sculpture Pure Expressionism, continuing with Ayer's world, that is to say, to understand these
did the artists all speak the same language. terms, could be considered as such: 'A sen- propositions one, must leave the tautological-
What is called 'Novelty Art' by the Formalists tence which consisted of demonstrative sym- like framework of art and consider 'outside'
is often the attempt to find new languages, bols would not express a genuine proposition. information. But to consider it as art it is
although a new language doesn't necessarily It would be a mere ejaculation, in no way necessary to ignore this same outside informa-