Page 67 - Studio International - December 1973

ART THEORY& PRACTICE
relating to the 'content' of the art-work is taken `consistent revolution' or 'evolutionary
to the exclusion of all independent concepts of reductionism', etc. ART 11 LANGUAGE
the latter by the former. Moreover, because of It is self-evidently only upon a recognition of [The members of Art & Language have asked me
the deterministic subordination of the artist's the principality of deliberation in art, that to point out that in their view the other
deliberation in the 'process of art' (as it is art-activity (as a deliberate activity) can be contributors to this feature (with the exception of
usually designated), to that of the public systematically conducted. Also it is only art- David Wood) have based their criticisms of Art &
apprehension of art, the contextual issues, which activity anteceded by theory that accepts a Language on 'the avant-gardist exigencies of their
are supposed to be efficacious in determining contributory orientation which can be truly own art careers'. While this may or may not be
the content of the art-work are taken to be accessible to rational thought. Instituting a true, Art & Language don't at the moment talk
cognitive issues. (The recent wholly constructionism in art (an ultimately (or have any desire to talk) to these people: they do
epistemological slant of aesthetic theory has constructive realm) in preferment to the not feel that they have to explain themselves.
vastly contributed to this development). The nihilistic reductionism, which has characterized . To paraphrase a Chomsky footnote, our
absolute determination of art-activity is thus, in much of this century's art is based upon a interest in the convolutions of London Begriffkunst
the process of reductionism, successively recognition of the shortcomings of the has been a negatively accelerated function
embraced, the determining 'forms' presupposed alternative framework of belief, some of which approaching an asymptote of complete indifference.
differing at different (historical) times. have been outlined in the foregoing.11 This may involve profound relations, but they are
Consequently, the 'new academism' of JOHN STEZAKER our problem. AQUILA NON CAPIT MUSCAS.
evolutionary reductionism gratuitously And the avant garde have only their own
subordinates its own intentionality to that of suburban problems 11 11 c.s.]
criticism and theory, and depends for its 1 First published in Art News (May 1957) reprinted in I
formulation on stressing the separatism The New Art, ed. Gregory Battcock, New York, 1968. A list of possible atomic types of implication is
2 See, for example, Kosuth's assertion of the
conventionally upheld between these tautological character of 'art-propositions' in constructible. Intuitively, we think of
endeavours. In this way the critic's role is Art After Philosophy, Studio International (October, implication as obtaining in accord with logic,
maximized (as the only intelligent and November and December, 1969). independent of the mind as such. Now, we're
The 'commonsense' arguments in aesthetic theory
deliberately participating mind in the whole have become almost exclusively employed by talking about implication in some
process), conversely with the minimization of Wellek and Warren in Theory of Literature, New overstrained pragmatic context, i.e. it is related
the artist's. The degree to which this situation York, Harcourt, Brace, 1949, and since have gained to 'action' in some way. But this is strange. We
widespread currency in aesthetic writing, most
has developed recently is clear from the pertinently, here, in Wollheim's promulgation of the don't want it to simply devolve
`process' and 'conceptual' art-works and their `physical object hypothesis' in Art and its Objects, autobiographically do we ? What's the use of
attendent convictions, which seem to suggest London. sets of formulae/models ? We don't even have a
Elsewhere (Theory for Art) I have distinguished
that art deterministically reproduces itself, three historical category-types of aesthetic theory. grip on ourselves as targets. O.K. we're on about
quite apart from the presence of human The first is the ancient speculative theory of Plato implication and we must mean something odd.
deliberation at all. and Aristotle which prescribes to art-practice, the `Playing the game' 11 11 . anyone who thinks
second is the post-Renaissance to early twentieth-
Theoretical art, in propounding a century aesthetic theory which prescribes we're game-playing is going to have to go as far
functionalist framework of belief for art- apprehension, and finally the third category is as free logics and further. Strawson 11 11 . are all
activity, adopts a corresponding underlying present-day aesthetic theory, which is non- his suggestions atrocious ?
prescriptive and wholly descriptive.
logic, which is 'ends' orientated, in preference Art Theory: A Branch of Philosophy or an Integral How about the 'good will' function in
to the reductionistic mannerism of P-D art. A Aspect of Art-Activity ?, Lecture Transcripts, meaning ? There are approximations available.
full acknowledgement of the priority of Gallery House, London, 1972. When we are talking about implicature we want
6 Frameworks Journal, vol. 1, no. 2, London, 1973.
intelligent deliberation in art-activity, ultimately It is noticeable that recent aesthetic theory tends to preserve an indeterminancy to cover
involves such a functionalism. Moreover, towards a 'means' identification of art. Indeed there inscription and radical propositions. Forget
are a few theses in the history of aesthetics which
because of the arbitrariness of the distinctions about logic and history. It's a matter of blowing
explicitly propound a functional identification.
permissible in such a framework between the However, where such identifications are presupposed up, perhaps imploding, 'if a then b'. It won't
sorts of concepts articulated in theory and aesthetic theory, because of its lack of recognition of be quite as simple as that, we must be looking
practice, the conventional theory-practice frameworks of belief or operative concepts in art- for relations between statements. We do talk,
practice, tends to look for either a functional or
relation is replaced by a category distinction in ontological homogeneity corresponding and we seem to follow. We appear to understand
the items of the constructive programme of respectively to an 'ends' or 'means' identification of each other, and we appear to be able to
functionalism. A distinction between a art. The 'intentionality thesis' forwarded here, translate each other's metaphors, idiosyncratic
however, prescribes, if you like, an 'intentional'
constructive conjecture and a construct, which homogeneity (ontologically) whilst insisting upon a talk. The talk has various kinds of sense
establishes the 'theoretical conjecture', can be functionalist or 'ends' identification of art. Thus it assumption, etc., but more particularly
made within an attendant conceptual scheme radically differs from aesthetic theory in the manner significance. We do say something. We
in which it identifies art. Equating a function (of an
which affords a priority of the constructive art-work) with its intention, as one must within this ourselves don't have to know, we can be
conjecture over the construct proper. A framework, it is clear that acceptance of the relatively automatic, or, rather, `automatistic'.
discernible reductionism is consequently intentionality directive precludes a functional How important is the logic of the surreal ? Is
homogeneity, self-evidently, otherwise there simply
developed within an ultimately constructive would be only one art-work. However, functional that implication ? Now this is surely not an
programme, and is exercised within a `identification' is not established by functional assertion theory or a belief theory. A belief
homogeneity for art-works. Instead, a heterogeneity is
presupposed teleological process, such that an theory might be simple-mindedly acquiescent
presupposed and identification is established in their
analytical procedure of reduction can be interrelations in a framework of belief or system of art. with respect to standard (academic)
utilized to reconcile constructs of the realm with 8 This categorial framework has become consolidated, developments.
and is implicity forwarded, by the `mediational
the primary directives, characterizing a Consider the relational system (c r 1, r2, r3,
involvements' of artists within the respective 'arts',
particular functionalist or constructionistic and by the institutional separation of theoretical r 4, ...r n) where cc is a non-empty set of
programme. Finally, the singularity of the research in each of the 'arts'. individuals, and r 1, r2, 11 r,, are n-place
9 cf. Priorities — Frameworks Journal, vol. 1, no. 1,
ontological commitments, admissible within relations defined for the members of cc.
1972.
functionalism, avoids the necessity for 10° Reprinted in The New Art, ed. Gregory Battcock, Assume that some members of cc are
historicistic (`covering') identification of art and New York, 1968. `statements', and that for some n-place relations
11 The preceding article is a revision of
the consequent oddities of novelty art and the defined for those statements, the implicature
Presciptive Theory Prescribed, 1970, to include more
paradoxical vanguardist presupposition of recent extensions of P-D art. relations are sorted out. Can we call (a r1, r2,
261