Page 24 - Studio International - December 1970

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-