Page 47 - Studio International - May 1971

class whose members consist of those and only objects sui generis; but what such objects are as semantics available. If one was to say that the
those entities which have the property in contrasted with 'reistic' objects is not too clear. aim of interpretation is to 'interpret the moral
question—but the same class may be determined The other point is that it is not at all clear what theory that: ". . ." ', and seek to determine at a
by different properties. one's individual names and definite descriptions metatheoretical level what such interpretations
This is to show that one can perhaps avoid would stand for in the theory of art. are, then one is driven to admitting 'moral
reference to 'art works' at the very least (i.e. First-order systems perhaps with identity are theory' in some way as interpretanda. The
perhaps to show that they are eliminable from well suited to dealing with 'concrete' or physical `object' of interpretation is not then 'given' as an
the naturalistic standpoint in some way). The objects. object, and it is clear that it is not a 'thing' in any
point is here, that properties are abstract Art objects seem a bit harmless : the term is `realistic' sense. Following this way of looking at
entities in this system; abstract properties seem never subject to analysis except in philosophical it, it is not just not a spatio-temporal individual
also to be classes —but they have essentially an aesthetics and that invested with a reistic lump, but it is also not just a theory of ethics, or
intensional content. This Russellian model is tradition. There are supposed to be synthetic theories of ethics in any 'first-orderish' sense
not all that useful, but it serves to indicate one statements about 'objects' in this sense; people either. But at the same time it might be
way in which someone (in a non-hermeneutic are supposed to explain them—even interpret considered 'a fact' of sorts. It is a priori then
way) tried to avoid 'reference' to something that them. (It remains to be seen whether a notion of that there are as many theories of ethics as there
one may feel he naturally refers to ! hermeneutics as such makes any sense at all for are 'logically' and perhaps 'practically',
There are derivative ways of 'referring' (in a art objects.) The point is that a survey of independent 'moral descriptions' (and others) of
broadly positivist framework) and they are by `objects' and of like notions looked at `the object'. But they (or it) are not identified
description—but that presupposes that 'the ontologically may not reveal anything about art with the moral descriptions. They are logically
object' is nameable anyway. It is not at all clear, objects—and thus not anything about what the intensional, yet the abstraction is itself only a
therefore whether one can have a 'theory of art' theory of art might be. It is not just idle to go quasi-abstraction—but one cannot accept this;
in the sense that one can refer to the various back and consider the ontic status of the things one needs some way of avoiding the dubious
works of art in its compass (i.e. have a reference (if such there be) in question. ontology.
class for the theory of art), at least in terms of It is assumed that one can hold out a Two methods may be suggested : one requires
traditional theoretical notions. constructive ontology for consideration: one fundamental use of 'states the theory that' —the
This in some ways is an expression of the may contend that one `encounters' particulars' problem here being to assure appropriate
view that the thing/quality paradigm of ontology and 'relations' in various orders—'hierarchies of syntactic behaviour. Assuming that one has a
is by no means settled—the point is that one simples' etc. —and these he might argue, in a `statement' that 'it is immoral to discriminate
might well not be able to presuppose much in spirit of constructivism, have a sort of reality arbitrarily between "individuals"', and that
terms of an ontological paradigm and still save `which is not dependent on anything else'. The there is a suitable class (or, rather, virtual class)
the following theory. issue is to consider the adequacy of the notion of premiss statements, then the reason one
In accord with type theory the objects under of the art work (Theories of Ethics) as asserted or would talk of a virtual class or of a finitely long
the present purview may not be regarded denied (at least what the theory of art deals with conjunction is that this would keep
immediately as particulars—or as qualities or as or should deal with). This makes it perhaps (ontologically) up with the nominalistic cast of
relations of any order. Yet in some sense feasible to argue that the art work (Theories of the 'model'. The question then is raised, how the
someone might want to argue that 'art works' Ethics) is not (or can't be) an entity in the same semantic or metatheoretical string 'states a
(Theories of Ethics will do) are something sense in which its constituents may or may not theory that' ? One is now operating (in relation
encountered in the world. Yet, in accord with be. to one's `object'—naturalistic/intensional
'thing'-paradigm-ridden ontology, there would discourse) with a quite complex metalanguage.
appear to be no room for them in 'the admissable III One metalinguistic expression composed of
furniture of the world'. But this type of discourse The interest in Theories of Ethics and the these elements would presumably be that which
would not lead to a well developed conception. notions of a 'proposition' presumably go applied a non-relational predicate 'states the
It could be argued, at the very least that in the together with some 'analysis of belief'. theory that it is immoral to . . .' to the whole
purview of a theory of art, the objects are Propositions have to some extent been thought finite conjunction of premiss statements. And
objects of belief. One point which may emerge to be the 'objects of belief' (and hence form it does not relate the virtual class of 'premiss'
is that such objects are intimately connected `elements of praxis') and the Theory of Ethics is (moral and meaning) statements to anything
with propositions in this scheme. The point is what the propositions express. There is no else. A perspicuous notation is suggested by
that there is no need to accept the traditional analyticity as a matter of semantic necessity in giving the predicate first.
notion of a proposition—nor for that matter to this notion at all, but, one could say that the The point is that if one regards the 'premisses'
argue against it. (Cf. Kosuth.). a-priority of the proposition is up for as forming a finite conjunction, then one would
There is little doubt that at the very least there consideration. end up with an acceptable locution. But if one
are some types of objects, like propositions, It will not be all that relevant to argue against thinks about them as a class, then whatever
which are just as obscure—or apparently hard the traditional notion of the proposition—but it locution is based on the elements prescribed
to come to grips with—as the present one. This is would be inopportune to accept it as well. One above, it involves an abstract ontology, albeit a
not claimed to be an indispensable analysis of a way that one could begin to make out the status different one from the one one wanted initially to
notion of an art object, but it must in some way of Theories of Ethics is by confining attention to avoid. One cannot regard a locution thus based
be argued to be a help to the possibility of contexts of the form : 'explains', 'considers', as nominalistically acceptable. (The question,
proliferating domains prevailing in 'art'. The `states', etc. the Theories of Ethics. However one what the premisses might be, need not be
point is that propositions need not be is not saying that he must wed Theories of raised, though it is obvious that certain a-
presupposed in an analysis of the 'art objects Ethics to clauses which are analogous to 'that' priorities are assumed.) There are also some
which come up for the count'. And anyway, the ones at this stage; one does not just wed ethical questions concerning the status of notions like
notion of a proposition, as such, will turnout to `theories' (or, perhaps, the theoretical work) to a `states the moral theory that ". . ."'. There are
be made out at another `metalogical' level—i.e. simple statement which says, what the ethical a lot of these within the whole (metatheoretical)
not that which fundamentally sets up a 'theory theory says is that, this involves the admission of, i.e. art-theoretical context incorporating the
of art'. for example, a Theories of Ethics 'natural' required 'stating' (asserting) talk. One could ask
One might take the individuals (if there be ontology. Such an admission is objectionable if if one has to opt for atomism of a sort ? At this
any) of 'the theory of art' just as intensional there is to be anything more than a coarse level and in this context ? And regard every one

229