Page 40 - Studio International - April 1972

subscription to the materialist character/ E/MC/POP to be autonomous. background of Judd's dictum and Morris'
physical object paradigm is an essentialist one, The whole domain of moral decision-making statement. It is the case that the view that
then this constitutes a naive conventionalism. pertains in the way outlined in the previous norms are conventional or artificial implies
That is to say, that both natural and normative paragraph to some fact or other, and all that there will be a certain element of
regularities are experiences as natural 'givens'. alterable facts of social life can provoke many arbitrariness involved, i.e. that between a given
Some of the post-war American work has acted decisions. The view that treats object-making as number of systems of norms there may not be
as a catalyst, or more accurately, as part of a autonomous does not acknowledge this point. much to choose. But artificiality does not imply
catalyst aiding the act of a conscious It is a truism that if our decisions are ever to be incongruousness (i.e. incongruous
differentiation to be made between man-enforced carried out then they must be compatible with arbitrariness). There is no suggestion in the
normative laws in art-making, based on natural laws. The point is this : to see art as emergence of a competing paradigm that the
decisions and conventions, and those natural capable of sustaining at least one more reasons for the present paradigm being
regularities beyond human intervention, which paradigm beside, and perhaps emerging out of established are incongruously arbitrary, but
stand outside art; the post-war American work the E/MC/POP, violates no natural laws, is no there may be a suggestion that to treat the
being held out here has contributed toward `crime against nature'. established paradigm in the same way it has
forming in its proponents and in some But maybe another view can be consulted always been treated in the face of an emerging
succeeding artists an awareness that art is to protect the sovereignty of the E/MC/POP. competing paradigm would be incongruously
conventional, i.e. a system of man-enforced It is another kind of autonomy thesis of arbitrary. Nor does it follow that subscription
laws, and that as such, in the light of the object-making. It is the view that holds that the to an emerging competing paradigm is
self-conscious 'trek through materials' etc. E/MC/POP is so well entrenched that it is incongruously arbitrary because subscription
characteristic of this direction in post-war art, simply too difficult to alter it. It grants to the entrenched paradigm has not been
questions of incongruous arbitrariness in these autonomy according to how well entrenched a incongruously arbitrary. The logic of the view
laws may arise, especially in regard of the paradigm is. A claim such as this amounts to that holds that it is, may be more formally set
tendency to recognize an inherent dynamic something like the following; the sovereignty of out as follows : if the reasons for adopting
character in 'art inquiry' such as it is. This, E/MC/POP is unimpeachable because a paradigm X are not incongruously arbitrary,
plainly, is not to underrate norms and normative decision has been taken (maybe far back) that then this is sufficient reason for rejecting
laws since they are conventional (i.e. man-made), art must be governed solely by the E/MC/POP, paradigm Y, regardless of whether or not the
and therefore to some extent arbitrary. The and this decision has been entrenched in reasons for adopting paradigm Y are also not
Juddean dictum, the Morris dictum, etc. are such a way that it is too difficult a task to alter incongruously arbitrary. This kind of defence
controversial insofar as they, apparently, the situation. But this view acknowledges the of an entrenched paradigm may be called the
acknowledge the conventional character of art impossibility of reducing norms to facts, and doctrine of ethical naturalism in art in context
and also accept it in the sense that they seem to therefore acknowledges the dualism of facts of the present remarks. As a matter of historical
imply that one set of norms is as good as and decisions. If this is a point of defence then fact ethical naturalism in the broader field has
another. This leaves the ideology of art, and the argument itself is incongruously arbitrary, usually been conservative and sometimes
the epistemology it rests upon, untouched, that in that it contravenes the whole concept of authoritarian; it has invoked the authority of
is, stable. Such dicta do not recognize that some inquiry. In this sense it is expressly at odds `divine right'. Its arguments, paradoxically,
norms of art, if 'anything goes', may be with and counter-intuitive to the whole rest upon the alleged arbitrariness of norms,
incongruously arbitrary. direction of modern art. and this factor itself is incongruously arbitrary.
But it is contended here that in order to We then have two forms of the autonomy thesis The argument asserts that we must believe in
understand the ramified character of the of object-making in art. One which commits a (subscribe to) existing norms because there
modern tradition, that decisions taken about category mistake, the other which violates and are no better norms which we may find
art cannot be derived from facts, although they wilfully attempts to limit the whole endeavour ourselves. A reply to this is what about the
may pertain to facts. It is a fact that art has of inquiry. The holders of either of these views norm 'We must subscribe to' or 'We must
always been made within the E/MC/POP, but have, in the final analysis, only one recourse in believe in' ? If this is only an existing norm,
it is not a fact that it has been carried out the face of rational inquiry, the arbitrary then it does not count as an argument in favour
within the E/MC/POP according to some exercising of power. To reiterate; the making of of these norms; but if it is an appeal to our
natural law, nor is it a fact that it will not a decision (the adoption of a norm) is a fact, insights, then it admits we can select norms
remain to be carried out within the E/MC/POP, but the norm which has been adopted is not a ourselves. And if we are told to accept norms
nor is it a fact that it will remain to be carried fact. That, for example, most people agree to on authority because we cannot judge them,
out within the E/MC/POP. More succinctly, subscribe to the norm 'Thou shalt subscribe then neither can we judge whether the claims
if we consider two notions of the term 'fact', to only the norm E/MC/POP' is a fact. But the of authority are justified, we can never know
namely alterable 'facts' and unalterable facts, norm 'Thou shalt subscribe only to the norm whether we are faced by a false prophet.
then in considering a fact as alterable, it is E/MC/POP' is not a fact, and can never be There is one more doctrine which is related
always possible to adopt a number of decisions inferred from sentences describing facts. to the ones already mentioned, and partly
about this fact; we may decide to attempt to One important point which has been instrumental in forming them, and in a more
alter it; or we may decide to attempt to resist mentioned previously, and which warrants specific context, partly instrumental in forming
any attempt to alter it; or we may decide to take some further remarks, is the notion of the autonomy thesis of object-making in art.
no action at all. The view that holds that art is a `incongruous arbitrariness'. When one states This is the doctrine of positivism. Positivism
natural law, that E/MC/POP is an unalterable that norms are man-made, one does not imply maintains that there are no other norms but the
fact, commits a category mistake. What has that they are necessarily consciously designed, norms which are already established (i.e.
to be faced is that the E/MC/POP is a but points to the fact that people can judge and `posited') and which therefore have positive
sociological fact, that is an alterable fact. The alter them. But there is a need to guard against existence. Other emerging standards are treated
question that has to be answered is, whether a fundamental misunderstanding of the as fictions. The entrenched laws are the only
someone wishing to alter the 'sociological statement that norms are man-made, namely possible standards of goodness; what is, is
situation' can show 'rational' grounds for such the belief that convention implies arbitrariness, good, the old cliché 'might is right'. Related to
an act; that is to say, a move to establish a that if we are free to choose any system of this is the view that finding out what your
competing paradigm on incongruously norms we like, than one system is just as good as obligations (i.e. deontic necessities) are is a
arbitrary grounds is no better than holding the any other. It is this point that moves in the matter of behaviouristic, element-collecting
166