Page 56 - Studio International - June 1971

dispositions. The mind, through its substrate second ? Indeed, if, despite the radical changes identifiable elements—and if this is so, then, in
the brain, brings to earliest experience a set of that art exhibits, we are still prepared to think what I have called the assumption of this part of
categories or a conceptual structure with which of the older art, of classical art or of gothic, as my lecture, something important follows about
it has been genetically endowed. The most continuous with, say, the art of to-day, if we are the nature of art.
general features of language—such as those prepared to accept the art of our culture in its The issue whether there are elements in art
which I have said are involved in our benefitting long evolution as self-identical, this by itself has, of course, been fiercely debated in the
from the language-lesson—are amongst the kinds provides some reason for thinking that there is studios, the art-schools, and the salons of this
of thing that would correspond to these innate such a phenomenon, continuous over historical century. But the argument on which those who
ideas. I cannot, of course, discuss here the time, as the art-lesson. For what more likely have rejected an elementalist account of art have
hypothesis of innate ideas in its revived form. I place to look for the links of continuity in our tended to rely is not that which seems most
shall just say this : that if this or some similar art that in the method by which it has been convincing to me. For the usual argument has
hypothesis about the natural resources of the transmitted from one generation to the next ? been to point to the fact that, if we take the most
mind were true, it would go some way towards obvious contenders for being the elements of
explaining how we are able, in such a 8. Let it then be supposed that my procedure is art—say, line, or dot, or the colours of the
comparatively short period of time and at such correct: suppose that it is legitimate to transpose spectrum—we cannot assign them a constant
a tender age too, to benefit from our original Wittgenstein's finding to the domain of art: meaning. Those who have tried to work out a
language-lessons. But, even without such a suppose that a proper understanding of the significance for them, like some of the
hypothesis, the process as I have described it is art-lesson will give us an insight into the nature Expressionist pedagogues, have failed: for such
quite plausible, even if it still lacks an of art—where does this lead us ? What in point significance as these putative elements have, they
explanation. of fact do we learn about the nature of art from acquire only in the context of a total composition,
the art-lesson ? What does go on in the art- or perhaps (if we are to accept Ernst Gombrich's
7. And now at last I feel free to turn to the lesson ? Or, to try and put this last question a argument on this point) only in the context of
subject of art: more specifically, to take up the little more searchingly: What continues to go on an artist's complete oeuvre. This may be so, but I
topic of this lecture—the art-lesson. In doing so, in the art-lesson when its content changes ? do not think that the argument is so conclusive
I shall assume that what Wittgenstein thought What is its perennial character ? in establishing the point for which it is invoked
true of the language-lesson also holds good for The question seems forbidding, and is. And as do apparently many of its advocates, largely
the art-lesson: that is, that an understanding of in many ways I would feel more pleased with because the sharpness of the contrast between
what really happens in the course of it allows us a myself if I could leave you simply with the language and art, on which the argument
special insight into the nature of that which it is question rather than with my fumblings depends, seems rather exaggerated. For in many
a lesson in. By 'assume' here, what I mean is towards an answer. However, I suspect that you cases the meaning of a word too will vary with
that I shall advance no further arguments in would not be pleased with me if I did, and for its context, and, to make the argument effective,
favour of the connection. Nevertheless, I hope that reason I shall go on—also in the hope that if it would have to be established that we have here
you will be generous enough to feel that, given I make some sort of start on answering the a real difference of order of magnitude between
what I have already found to say about question, here, publicly, in front of you, it may the way in which significance in language is
Wittgenstein's argument, and given the powerful encourage you to go on trying to answer it context-dependent and the way in which
analogy that exists between the two cases, I am yourselves, where it matters, privately, in your significance in art is context-dependent.
being rather hard on myself in calling the reflective consciousness. But there is, I think, a more powerful
transposition of Wittgenstein's finding from the To gain the courage necessary for facing the argument against an elementalist account of art :
domain of language to that of art an assumption. question, we may, virtually for the last time, or, more immediately, against the view that in
And now I can foresee an objection. For look backwards over our shoulder at the the art-lesson it is elements that are taught. And
someone might argue that it seems plausible to language-lesson and ask, in the light of what we that is that there does not exist a set of categories
transpose Wittgenstein's finding from the have found out, What really goes on in the or markers by reference to which the pupil
language-lesson to the art-lesson only if we language-lesson ? And I think that some very could be expected to classify the elements as he
remain on a quite objectionable level of general answer along the following lines would is introduced to them. There is nothing
abstractness. For what the transposition takes be in order: In the language-lesson, certain corresponding to such general distinctions as
for granted is that there is something that can be elements, which are parts of the language to be `noun-phrase' or 'verb-phrase'. I don't mean,
called 'the art-lesson', which stands on all-fours taught, are transmitted; and, if all goes well, of course, just that these words or analogous
with the language-lesson. But (the objection these elements are then acquired as parts of that words aren't used, but there is no corresponding
runs) there is no such thing. For whereas we may language, or in the awareness that they are parts procedure. In the absence of such a procedure,
plausibly think that language has been taught in of that language. And in talking of parts of a there are no general rules telling us how we
much the same way since the days of the Tower language being acquired as parts of a language, must or how we may put the elements together.
of Babel, we know that this is not the case with what I have in mind is that the pupil has an idea There is no general procedure for marking off
art. There has been demonstrable variety, and of where they fit in or how they work together. licit combinations of elements from illicit
a radical kind, in the teaching of art over the And so we might begin by asking of the art- combinations. And this is so because any such
centuries. Art pedagogy, we might say, has lesson whether it exhibits the same pattern, rules, or any such procedure, must be stated in
exhibited as much diversity as art itself. whether it is possessed of structure. terms of categories of element. Without
I accept the argument, but the last clause The first problem that requires consideration grammatical categories, grammar would be
betrays its irrelevance to the present issue. For is whether it is correct to think of the art-lesson impossible. Now, if the elements of art are not
the case for saying that there is nothing as involved with the teaching, and the learning, subject to rules of combination, if we cannot lay
identifiable as the art-lesson, on the grounds that of elements. Of course, I am not conceiving that down, as overall constraints, ways in which they
the content of such a supposed lesson would the art-lesson might be involved with the can and cannot put together, then, unless some
have changed out of recognition within the teaching and learning of elements in anything further considerations are advanced, it seems
history of our culture, lapses, if it can be shown except the qualified sense in which this is true of quite arbitrary what we pick out as the elements
that, in synchrony with this kind of change, the the language-lesson—but is it true of the art- of art. Where one element ends and another
content of art itself has changed out of lesson even in this sense ? The correct answer, I begins is a matter of mere whim or decision
recognition. For is not the first kind of change am sure, is no. The art-lesson does not consist in unless there is something that we intend to do
precisely what we would expect, given the a teacher teaching his pupil how to operate with with these elements, and our capacity to do
282