Page 24 - Studio International - December 1970
P. 24

indeed find that these concepts exhibit such a   being differently experienced, by using this   history: false for instance, to the way in which
      plurality of relations that we can think of   provocative phrase, I have in mind something   so often, quite unenviously but quite deci-
      them as forming a hierarchy. To take some   of the following kind: that a part of the con-  sively, artists have felt compelled to reject the
      examples at random, the concepts of art,   cept that had remained implicit becomes   art of the immediate past, even on its own
      painting, representation of light, spotting of   explicit, or a part of the concept that had   terms, as being a betrayal of art, or, again,
      the canvas, absence of drawing—concepts   seemed merely one part amongst others     false to the way in which, as often, artists
      which left their marks in late nineteenth-  becomes dominant. Consider, for instance,   have felt that they were working not just out
      century art—exhibit relations of entailment,   the vicissitudes of expressiveness as a con-  of their own nature but out of the nature of
      inclusion, compatibility. But these relations   stituent of the concept art. Now, the different   art itself.
      are grounded in our general conceptual    ways in which at different times a concept
      scheme : that is, in our language. Or again   may be experienced is of great significance   Much more remains to be said about the con-
      there are the contingent or casual relations   when we think of concepts in their regulative   nections between art, the concepts under
      that hold between the concepts. And these are   role, that is, in so far as they enter into acti-  which art is produced, and theories of art.
      grounded in nature. Either way round, then—  vity. Indeed, we might say that the force of   But not by me on this occasion : though I
      that is, if we take the necessary or if we take   the two objections I have been considering   should like to draw your attention to the
      the contingent relations— the relations them-  against the funding of a theory of art in the   subtle and penetrating treatment afforded
      selves are timeless. Accordingly, the objection   concepts under which art is produced derives   these issues by Professor Stanley Cavell in
      will run, there can be no way in which the   from thinking of concepts exclusively as they   some of his essays, collected under the title
      relations between the concepts under which   enter into our descriptions of art—more speci-  Must We Mean What We Say?
      certain works of art are produced can be   fically, what I have called descriptions 'after   Nor will I spend time in trying to justify the
      invoked to explain or account for these works   the event'. But once the prescriptive role of   more particular contention : that modern art,
      of art rather than others: there is no contri-  concepts is recognized, or it is appreciated   or the painting of our age, exhibits, across its
      bution that these relations can make to a   how 	                                   breadth, a common theory; where this means,
                                                     concepts regulate our behaviour —
      theory of that section of art. At most, a case   because, when we act, we act under con-  as I have said, a theory such that the majority
      might be made out for thinking that reference   cepts — then it is possible to give due recog-  of modern works of art can be seen either as an
      to the concepts themselves might have some   nition to the fact that concepts are thought of   expression of it or, over a sizeable range of
      explanatory value—for some of the concepts   differently at different times.        cases, as a reaction against it. I shall jump
      that figure in the art activity of one age have   The two objections can now be met. The first,   over this point. Instead I shall suggest what
      no relevance to the art activity of another—  by pointing out that, as the concepts under   seems to me most likely to be this theory. My
      but no explanatory value lies in a reference to   which art is produced are differently experi-  suggestion will have little novelty. And,
      the relations that hold between the concepts.   enced, so the relations between them will be   accordingly, for the rest of this lecture, I shall
      So much for the first objection. Since the   differently envisaged and the way in which   be concerned not to argue for the theory I
     second objection takes up where the first   they are envisaged will substantively enter   suggest but rather to argue against certain
     leaves off, it will be convenient to consider   into the production of art. The relations   misunderstandings of it, which have been
      them together. The second objection is this:   between the concepts may be timeless, but   prevalent both amongst critics and amongst
      If the concepts under which works of art are   the perception of them is not. And the   artists, and which have distorted not only our
      produced do indeed form a hierarchy, some   second objection, by pointing out that, as,   understanding of modern art but also,
     falling under others, then it is only the con-  more specifically, the relations between   interestingly, the progress of that art itself.
     cepts at the bottom of the hierarchy that are   higher and lower concepts are differently en-  How this very last point should be so raises,
     relevant to our understanding of the works   visaged, so situations will arise in which it will   of course, once again, most delicate and per-
     produced under them. Consequently, it is only   seem imperative or essential to work under   plexing issues about the relations between art
     they that deserve inclusion in a theory of art—  some particular lower concept if one is to   and theory, which, once again, I can only
     which, of course, is by now attenuated to a   work under a particular higher concept, and   draw your attention to and then put aside.
     point of vacuity. For a higher, or less specific,   in that case the higher concept will be opera-  My suggestion then is this : that for the main-
     concept, in relation to a lower, or more   tive as well as the lower concept. For instance,   stream of modern art, the appropriate theory
     specific, concept, merely opens up a range of   the element of figuration may become so   is one that emphasizes the material character
     possibilities within which the artist's activity   dominant within the concept of art that it   of art, a theory according to which a work is
     may fall, and in acting under the lower con-  will be necessary for artists to work under the   importantly or significantly, and not just
     cept what the artist does is to take up one of   concept of figuration if they are to work under   peripherally, a physical object. Such a theory,
     these possibilities to the exclusion of the   the concept of art, and in that case the con-  I am suggesting, underlies or regulates much
     others. For instance, if an artist makes a work   cept of art as well as that of figuration will be   of the art activity of our age, and it is it that
     of art under the higher concept of a painting   relevant to their work. Both concepts as well   accounts for many of the triumphs and per-
     and also under the lower concept of spotting   as the relations between them and the way in   haps not a few of the disasters of modern art.
     the canvas, it is only the lower concept that   which these relations are envisaged would   Within the concept of art under which most of
     substantively enters into his activity. Where   have to enter into any theory of mainstream   the finest, certainly most of the boldest, works
     an artist might be thought of as acting under   European painting up till say the beginning of   of our age have been made, the connotation
     two descriptions, one of which falls under the   this century.                       of physicality moves to the fore.
     other, there is nothing added by thinking of   It is a view beloved of connoisseurs of art—  The evidence for such a theory at work is
     him acting under the latter.              indeed nothing so effectively divides the ama-  manifold, and the inspiration of the theory can
     Now, what both these objections presuppose—  teurs from the practitioners of the arts as this   be seen in a wide variety of phenomena which it
     namely, that the relations that hold within a   comfortable belief—that at all periods the full   thereby unifies : the increasing emphasis upon
     given set of concepts are timeless—is true.   possibilities of art are admitted, even though   texture and surface qualities; the abandon-
     Nevertheless, these relations can at different   not all are employed : that, in my terminology,   ment of linear perspective, at any rate as
     periods or under different conditions be   the timeless relations that hold between the   providing an overall grid within which the
     thought or be felt to change, largely because   various concepts under which art is or may be   picture can be organized; the predilection for
     the concepts themselves can be differently   produced, are always timelessly apprehended.   large areas of undifferentiated or barely
     experienced. And by talking of a concept    The view, however, seems false to the facts of    fluctuating colour; the indifference to figura-
   19   20   21   22   23   24   25   26   27   28   29