Page 22 - Studio International - November 1973

rootedin an underlying logic which is reserving any theory to critical scrutiny. It distinction which remains implicit in the mocha
attributable to a larger tendency towards would seem that the Kuhnian revisions of the operandi of aesthetics. Such theory maintains
positivism (in all intellectual endeavour in the concept of objectivity are not to be applied to that the range of subject-matter for its
course of this century). The stance adopted by art theory and criticism itself. If the framework- theoretical assertions is in some way given
the artist in his decision to foreclose the 'work' bound nature of art-theoretical judgements or objective, and that it is only the manner in
process is certainly that of Popperian were truely recognized, the manner of which the same entities or range of entities are
objectivity inasmuch as judgement is a posteriori conducting such research could not rely upon treated which is bound to different frameworks.
concerning pre-existent objectively real entities. the conventional theory-practice seperatism, Givenness is either assumed by virtue of some
Similarly art-theory during this century has but must assign a new relationship between conviction to natural law or else common-sense
been characterized by its descriptive the theoretical construct and the practical objectivity (as perhaps. might be associated with
non-speculative orientation and by a construct of art, Assuming (for the sake of Gombrich and Popper) or it is presupposed on
corresponding move towards the objectivity of argument, and as I have always argued) the the basis of consensus opinion Kuhn). Without
its aesthetic judgements. In both post- conceptual antecedence of theoretical constructs here attempting to argue against both on purely
Duchampian art-practice and art-theory over practical constructs in art-activity (within logical grounds, the consequences of each in
(especially after Wittgenstein) the extant a given framework for art activity), then the employment can be seen to be equally
aesthetic theses and modera operandi have been importance of (in this case) positivism must be disadvantageous.
successively contravened without their adjudged by consultation with the resultant The recognition of conceptual frameworks as
replacement by alternative evaluative practical constructs. However, the plea which operative in the practice of art is something
frameworks. Instead, the manners of Miss Gablik makes regarding Gombrich's which has been completely absent in aesthetic
conducting these respective endeavours have thesis is that it is only applicable to theory. Indeed such a recognition necessarily
changed in such a way as to exclude any notion epresentationalism and doesn't extend as far as contravenes the objective basis of aesthetic
of framework-bound judgement — positivism `abstract' paintings and 'post-object' art: If this theory. The priority-ordering of conventional
in short. This would certainly account for the is true (and it probably is as an explanatory theory is such that the realm of art is taken as a
way in which the concept of objectivity has thesis) and if Miss Gablik were to accept the priori and given, and theory is concerned with
been so much banded about in recent categorical system or framework-bound system generalization of conventionally elected
art-theory, criticism and, most importantly, of artistic theory and practice, then criticism entities. When conceptual thinking is afforded
practice itself. lodged against Gombrich's thesis made on the anything like a principality in art-practice, the
The a posteriori method, however, is grounds of its framework-bound nature organization of the conceptual framework
framework-bound. It belongs to the (representationaliSm) is downright (which I would call theory) then antecedes,
metaphysical realm of the objectively real and contradictdry. What then is the reason for the rather than follows, the practical constructs of
not surprisingly reductionism, exercised either fact that Miss Gablik does not confront this the realm. This is the nature of the theory-
theoretically or practically within this contradiction squarely ? Well, it seems to be a practice conjunction of 'theoretical art'. In this
framework forwards 'fundamentals' which residual commitment to objectivity or else to the context, to speak of the framework-bound
correspond to the metaphysical commitment of heirarchy of 'external' standpoints to which nature of art without a corresponding revision
the framework. Thus minimal art and Kuhn also subscribes. In short, what is tacitly of the theory-practice relation becomes a
Wollheim's physical object hypothesis by their upheld is the idea that, although all other contradiction inasmuch as the assumption of the
different manners of reduction end up with the aesthetic judgements are `framework-bound' givenness of the realm of art (quite apart from
mere physicality of the 'object of art'. the ones being made by Miss Gablik are simply conceptual deliberation) is an implicit denial of
Objectivity simply presupposes that its not. As a consequence this approach is liable to the operativeness of conceptual frameworks
subject-matter is objectively real and the all the traps that Post-Wittgensteinians like (and of conceptual thinking by artists). This
upshot of theoretical or practical reduction is Kuhn have so frequently fallen in attempting to becomes especially crucial when developments
inevitably the forwarding of this as a exclude their own theoretical generalizations in post-Duchampian art have reached the point
metaphysical norm for art. The reductions are from their dictates concerning theory. In the where the reductionism which has been
in a sense honorific because aesthetic final analysis Kuhn himself negates his idea of exercised in successively contravening
objectivity forwards what it presupposes by categorical systems by ultimately appealing to pre-established aesthetic norms insists only on
the very manner of so forwarding it. This is the consensus opinion for the identity of their the mere act of nominal election of pre-existing
true danger of positivism in its import in the subject-matter. Exactly the game is observable entities to the status of art-works. In this stage
practical and theoretical activities of art, as well in Miss Gablik's appeal for the inclusion of of nihilism the sole resolution is on the basis of a
as the more obvious commitment to the abstract painting and post-object art. The range new theory-practice relation. To preserve the
afunctionality of practical constructs (as mere of her subject-matter is thence determined by old one is to advocate the situation in which
physical things). all that are conventionally supposed to be post-Duchampian radicalism in practice seeks
It may be true that Gombrich's transposition art-works. However, if theoretical and practical to alter consensus aesthetic opinion (Art For
of positivistic ideas is insufficient in explaining constructs mutually contribute to frameworks Art's Sake) and at the same time theory
the radicalism of post-Duchampian art, but at the choice of the range of subject-matter must attempts to use consensus opinion as a basis for
the same time it should be recognized that it is also be framework-bound. This seems framework-bound judgement (in the Kuhnian
only in the Post-Duchampian refutation of particularly pertinent where it concerns just the sense). The two endeavours are at odds with one
representationalism (and of emotionalism and work which Miss Gablik seeks to introduce for another, commiting each in their respective
expressionism etc.) that positivism gains its consideration — post-Duchampian art, where reductive processes to greater and greater
real import in the realm of art. So at least a very often the works elected are manifestly nihilism. It is this to which Miss Gablik is
sympathetic explanation of post-Duchampian art question-begging concerning their art-status (I believe unwittingly) contributing in
might adopt the Popperian scheme formulated and, more to the point, it is this area of embracing the fashionable Kuhnian revision
for scientific theory. However, a difficulty art-activity which most obviously operates by of positivism.
arises here. Miss Gablik would presumably not changing consensus opinion concerning art in a JOHN STEZAKER
regard the theory of art itself, as a principal `programme' of radicalism or 'Art for Art's London, W8
part of her subject matter in proferring Sake'. The way that a residual commitment to
explanation of art, and might confine judgement objectivity seems to manifest itself in a great
to the practical constructs of the realm deal of art-theory is in a rather important

170