Page 79 - Studio International - December 1973

ART THEORY& PRACTICE
form this might take. Such considerations must phenomenon is to make for an elitist art. To not a god) tells us that rules constitutive of a
affect the question of the identity of art and import criteria of identity or at least to swamp system cannot be included as part of the object-
therefore the type of legislation possible or one field with the concerns of a type of language, but only as part of the meta-language.
necessary for art. The search for a criterion of philosophy that is well known for its Since there are a possible infinity of meta-
identity underlies the work of Atkinson and dehumanized ideology firstly is to invite grave languages selection can only be arbitrary. Only if
Baldwin.12 Historically one can see a line of problems of understandability and secondly within art there is self-referential consistency
development in 'Post-Duchampian' art that has indicates a loss of purpose in one area — which (`The Verticality of Art-Activity')'5 will this
led to their work. Readymades themselves correlates with an over-anxious adulation of kind of arbitrariness be avoided. But tight
questioned the nature of art. With the erosion of another. It is an irony and grave fault of the referential consistency is not the factor which
the art-object, 'art-ness' was sought not as a conceptual artists that although they appear to be will guarantee this : the formulator of the
quality of the object but alternatively of the concerned with the logical problems of identity constitutive rules is in the position of legislator.
doing, of the intention, of the declaration, of the they do not make clear any grounds on which The problem of arbitrariness then becomes 'who
context. Any of these came to be a sufficient their work can be assessed nor what responses it educates the educator ?' If every artist provided
condition of art. The search for a criterion of is supposed to evoke. As a result it is not clear on his own constitutive rules the position would
identity culminated in an anxious and what grounds it can continue. Marcuse13 again become one of complete relativism of the
directionless rummaging in the lumber room of claims that the crisis in art today is paralleled by notion of art. If it is up to a theoretical art to
contemporary philosophy. The search for a a moral and political crisis, which can be provide constitutive rules for art, then the rule
criterion of identity became logically involuted generally described as an inability to name and of rational determinism follows. It seems to be
and found the answer in the logic of the concept define goals. Lucien Goldmann, in his 'The the case that all art-activity is characterized by a
of identity. A minimal truth had been gleaned Human Sciences and Philosophy', claims that fundamental indexicality which makes the
from the work of Russell, Whitehead, Frege, contemporary theory in both its methods (e.g. formulation of definitional criteria difficult. The
Quine, Leibniz et al and made into a reductive analysis/systems theory) and subject problem seems to be how to formulate a
defunctional and substantial form and matter presents an ahistorical, dehumanized shareable criteria that is common to the
restatement of art. But to go from minimal to perspective of man and society. The result is not community of art-makers — though a less
maximal in this area is to misplace the use or just inadequate and distorted theory but more homogeneous community is hard to find. One of
function of the rock-hard but 'small' truths of seriously, this type of theorizing results not in an the problems a theoretical art must face is how
logic; any theory or talk about the world of men explanation, but in the legitimation of the to avoid the twin perils of relativism and
and things necessarily invokes or relies on status quo. determinism in its formulation of constitutive
logical/metaphysical notions of substance, rules.
quality, identity, class, relation etc. Doing or II What is a legitimate norm of action within
saying anything rather than nothing will always The question of the constitutive rules of art- art ? The message of `Trimodality' is that there
invoke these notions (it is the irony of the activity underlies the work of Stezaker. The are three modes, which, only by functioning
constructed common-sense world that it relies discovery (or the construction) of these rules together, will 'worthwhile' art result.
for its sense and identity on such abstract will establish the priority ordering for the Constructionism, tempered by both
concepts). If art is to make new ways of looking continuing of a well-founded art-practice. That reductionism and criticism constitute a norm of
at things in the world it therefore must go this construction of art-priorities must come action. Are these modes regulative/heuristic
beyond what is already obvious to common- from within art-practice, that it must be based principles which will function like an intellectual
sense. However it is true that questions of on the nature of art, rather than any extrinsic sheep-dip for all future art work, or are they
identity, existence and so on are more crucially considerations, is fundamental to his critique of supposed to be the ideational/intentional bases
involved here than possibly anywhere else. descriptive and conceptual art theory. What art for art-activity ? I think there is an ambiguity
But the woeful effect of conceptual art is is should be established a priori within an art- between the critic and the artist here that is hard
therefore to make the content/meaning of art activity that is constituted by the modes of to overcome. All art-statements make ontological
what is minimally involved in doing/saying reductionism, constructivism and criticism commitments; all art-objects are fundamentally
anything at all — which is to cut it back to conjointly. Much of Post-Duchampian' intentional. Stezaker's logic may not be enough
a stark and unexciting level. minimalism and conceptualism — and to provide a basis of intentionality or ontological
Who is to decide on the identity of art ? Who descriptive art-theory — constitutes a wrong commitment. If the modalities remain
is to legislate for art ? It must obviously be the direction in the sense that its 'priority ordering' fundamentally critical tools can they be the
artist himself. But his existence is not random has gone astray. 'Inverted intentionality'14 and basis of positive action ? The problem is more
and disconnected; the criterion of art, its rule by extra-art meta-systems is the result of an dangerous, since if Stezaker's aim to eradicate
epistemological/logical presuppositions and the undirected response to the search for an identity scepticism, then criticism as such must take a
social existence of both art and artists are all and a sure foundation for art. For John Stezaker, secondary role, for if art is to be dominated by
inter-connected. Standards of intelligibility are the entailment of an appropriate priority the critical, then scepticism will again result.
the connecting link between art and society: ordering is that 'art' is predictable non- The belief in a categorial framework for
even extremes of 'art for art's sake' or 'anything efficaciously. Art is not a random process of legitimate art-activity seems to provide Stezaker
I call art, is art' are linked to wider social groups naming, or the linguistic functioning of the with a sure location for theoretical endeavours
by understandability — whether sooner or later. concept of art; rather the function of the and an objective ambience of his 'beings of
The artist, like his art, is part of a socio- concept of art is determined by what art is. reason'; but the problem of choice still exists
historical continuity. His work exists in a In his `Trimodality', Stezaker, as legislator, lays within art since one can choose to accept
dialectical relation to culture in the sense that it out, in his terms, the basis of a well-founded, rational frameworks. The basis of choice,
springs from and reacts back on it. To legislate intelligible art-activity. however, is not to be included in the framework.
for art without specifying on what grounds art Certain questions arise over key ideas in Paradoxically the result could be that the basis
should be understood is therefore to cut oneself Stezaker's work. Stezaker's aim is to exclude for this most rational of art is an irrational leap
off from the possibility of being understood, to arbitrariness from the constitutive principles of of faith for criterion by which frameworks are
legislate for art in an ahistorical, dehumanized art. The question is : 'Can arbitrariness ever be chosen is not clear. Neither wholly clear is what
way is to make a kind of art that is out of gear ruled out completely ?' Acts of declaration, the status these have for art-activity. Are they an
with both society and history. Not to accept that invoking of extra-art frameworks, are not a ex-post-facto summation of what went wrong
standards of intelligibility are a socio-historical legitimate basis for art-activity. Logic (and it is after Duchamp and how art can now go on the
273