PHILOSOPHY OF ART ‘A contemporary introduction Noél Carroll a Ree Fie poh in 999 5 Sy Rowtige 2 Bk Sasa. Mion uk Angee, Ono 4 «RN Bitrsouly publi in the USA and Cade ‘ by Roatege Gi 27 Motion Ave, Now York NY 2016 ae Repl e000 200 004.205, 200, 3057 Reyne oe Ed a Ch inf bie © soy Noe Cart “ype i Ades Roos by Refine ited, Bungay, Salo Froted and bund n Great ry “Tt Bn Coe Al gh sore. No prt af Rs bok maybe ops o proce rset in form o by ony serene other means, now knew oreo: ig pocenyng ad ecaing oar ico rereval yer with pean ‘rh rm te par. ty Cataloguing in Pablcation Data se scr tha sale fom the Bh Uibrry Later of Congress Clon n Publis Data ‘Nal roe forte bk as ee eqs ISON sb ISBN-oe eta A) SONG grhslasee 7 obDArt and aesthetic experience Part T Aesthetic theories of art Arcand aesthetics the es “she” as vary of meanings. In ry an ag foc ofen ee fo sands een — for example Site Serthedee Whar dit generally means something ke ‘at arts pen pfctl agenda A rene arene rotewc Son ve San ein itn Here ets her ‘Gavin dn oo Ber prefernces However “tet se hia ‘Reese ge "th pew ou conce thi cps thee ae sever aes of thever asthe eat lfr comment One a thse I ey ra ‘other's ath tenet, Tn the oder ee ates” ogy equ’ “he hilo sophy of are ‘On is bond rage. neocon couse othe Las Ineke book or an led “seb In tr epee ‘et igh hie ben etd Asstt athe hn hilsophy of Fare casthen” a “the poopy of renege Cha ingone ve fs cin ter eincrece Tsao ese bo tor es Paquet ee umang plop However there purposes "aethis” abo hus 2 acrner smeaing “Acie” oily dere om the Greek wor ests, ‘hick mane “rns eerin®orserooy eognion Inthe mil of Treinen cova ts eon war apd by Alsander Beungaten ‘hele cueing te phlei say of Bamgaten chore is iMalicous he tong tha ers pry aren ena peep thn and ver low level fre of cnt, Te important hing noe ‘out hnumganc’s wage ofthe term hat be ood a from the Tecpon sof tings He conve fom he perspective te way shit aires geo “Thos hen looper alk aboot aesthetic in the mcrower Se, OTE TN AST WUTC PRATER OS ‘ha eqn ign th they re nteretd nthe nodes potion of the ination frwodls and tenders Eanes eed ewes Comonly aerhens” aod es an abiecve, main nouns the ley refer tothe suena’ share Some examples nae aeae ‘tperenee™ “sores poespion.” and “the ashe atade™ Thee hss ll refer a sre mena ate that peda rng oo de either In esponge to ortwors oF waaare That you a have an sethetc experience of cance or of» sunset The mk of plilsoper af sehen thi conten ta atop | tiny wha iediineve about sett experience [aesthveprcpin es ps0) in contract to other sar of explece (sepa, Fics and oon). Wha for insta i the irene betwen ae the experince of snalysngs computer program? thet expres ‘he Here the phasis primary onthe experiencing suber object he gts reo the exerenee, However ination “neste epaiencas” heres slo aesthetic ropes or quis What re thse! Express proper when wes ncaa n Caper ate cao uber of athe popes Bune all shes properties sve expesve restos, sine aor alo them Invuhe amhropamorsic terminology. For exp we sy of ators tnd nota viae tha hey se mnaumentae“Sypnmic “anced Saal” “gael “logan” "beele” end “soraniaed” Une st te ole w ele mieny anthropomorphic proper But ke expressive proper hee Hofer apenen so cee qrprir nd ra Moreove, wheter sethrc propenies are exprstive or not these oper te reverts sill fferent fom propre sch a bing {yee meters lng Beno they are eaponeedopendon propor Beng the eter lg property tha ebjee auld ve whether or net humane ena Inn people vnverse objects would sll poses desecrinelength. However the propery of monument ~ asrbed to's mount. for empl - i dependent pon human pereptn Mountain af erin sales snd cofgurins sree era Tie (penn our seslities four peru and cog ker), a ng ovement “This no to sy tats aicary Ht we alls gen mount ‘monumental ices cestere ofthe art we re, mec ll age hat MU Cook is monument Neverdesn le depends upon restart like us to date ir monamenaly. The se and confgurnon of Me Cookies a ene ofmansmentsity incu kind on eplay retrng tes Gotan all probability, would nat be stacy th monatnr= ty f Me CokSe patLosorny oF Ant Involar at seuthetc perce are ceponden-depennt proprtic, they arto impli Govan othe reapton leo hnge Tso too suggent at when we sernbue the property of monument Se Cals rnd womens Maneater property ofthe objeto some seuss oscar propery bu ite {propery that tebe posatn and dons en nsec the rey of pray ew ie epee ee i Sle of ebjers ike Mt, Cook cathe than pooper of ouececs Bur thoe propersi of ebess can ory sbnn info to sues lhe we (ay ike ur" rather than “hom since eer Kinds of tinal beings sch as ET, may abo be able 19 deve aesthetic rope, ‘Understod a erm indicating “audenclaebe" or “reve send here a est apse denon tobe ds Bawcen Teesthet and “are” In pile + teary of vc Be dened ihr ference penal ences igh ante a cy by ‘mean ofeferecno wart objec ond ite oncom, without alluding ton Ilene Pehaps pein peoples thought of what we now cl ee ‘Betison avorng in Nel eve potting magia dees for topoltng thei hunting grounds than abundance of poy Who as Important for he wes tthe experience he imager aed in ewe oF the properties made avasbe for viewers bur the futon of the ae for sre If thee od ben a prise theory of re ht Rove ientied areara certain orf technology ikewis seth venigaion cold proceed thot reference oat cbjccts Natl ebjessdsenty He se srry oy at nigand sens Soe, provoke arts expenenss and pons ache proper, A Ahoopber cold develop theory of the sesies of mature without fvermensonng ar Thus at leasin princi "and “aesthetican Bocelli sy at pry theorecial domain of certain objects (wtone nature, for cpl the tepesenoal tery af tae to doy whereas “aeti ‘primarily the tort domain a cessn tov of rece expen perception, or of respae depends popes which eno es, Syfume to arco Thr bok cals Phlssopy of rt bse primary fc of enon ion Ie doesnot del withthe eet of ‘ture dey, andere on open quo he no cent. tay tha on oi eed vpn he ei eon of Tn the broad theoreti sess, bri enone eae hee need be so iferencebever the pongo at an ete they ight be tsken sr imerchangesle aes fore sono nap ta ve ‘ve are Burin the sso theoreti sane the two fra eas rinepe eign differen primary focs: the philosophy of are abjec- ‘rented seth je eepton-ortted. One cn Tent imagine p= "uphy of ae thar endevequeaton of eesthtice peripheral perclaly (erm af the doin ofr Te principle then, these ra domaine of inestigatin cn be ontreted Aes is broader han the philosophy ofa since suds nator Well And philosophy of set might define “art” without reference 10 there experience or aslience reception, Such» philosophy of art would roe regard aesthecie experiences or aesthesie properses tp nesrsay Ingredients inal ar alhough esl might recognize them as important) However to complicate matters theres also one apprnnch othe i saphy of at hich maintin that any definition of att muss neceerly Involve nosins of aesthede experience. Such definitions, for abvious essen recalled aesthetic defstions of et. On this view tobe retned in he mest secon, seworks ae objec whose function iso engender ats thetic experiences, For aesthei theorists of et though the pilosophy of faand ssthees might have in sme rene, been independent areas of Inguiry, are mater of fot they re not Ar 9 mater of fc ar sate ie inamarely and inseparably connected vo aesthate experiance, Artworks etic oben and tens pedi epnsnoniing whee egress ‘hie way of understanding the elatonship betes at and aesthetics isrendentousbesuae reprecente parcel theoretical bia males 3 Substantive cin about the notre fet According to aesthetic theo, “rv and “esthetics igh in some abso sense have turned to be he names for eiferentdornins of ingury bu in fat once one sties ‘he mate i dsenvered that they ave ro, Fecnse ane cannot, he sesthei theo alleges say what tis witht invoking the conept of testheie experince. Thus on shi view, the philosophy of at belongs ‘surely inthe domoin of estat long wih che study af he asters feature For aesthetic heoristof rt calling tis book Phlasophyof Artis not» rater of indifference shou have ben ald Aesthener, bene ach theorists belive that questions about the nature of art are edly refocile to questions o nesthel experience For esthetic theorists ofr. “esthescs" and "phloaphy ofr” are not interchangeable bem hey are eraly acu theoretically commited Inbels forthe same inquiy cher they are interchangeable becuse art is esentlly& vee for es ‘hee experience Thus onthe tendendous use of “ar” and “aesthetics” the underlying thecrencal viewpoint is thatthe rwo terms are sner- {efiable:epetilly, ar can be define interns of aevthetcs For the testhovetheodst ofa the discovery that are can be defined i terme St aestheucexperience his tthe dacovery thet water HO, |‘The aesthetic definition of art ‘We have already had a rash with ete hee of in or das ton of forma, Clive Bel dened srt n tra of gen form, Howeres if you hd soled him bow to Holy sigue for, his fsmer wala Rave been interme af tit which has the capacity to ‘BSlon we dd vor eat Bells verona lornlivm ean ent hry of de da tot onsite gree en xpi, The difference berween« Beletype formant and enought Serko thet of at leh the later one might say, “ess tothe ‘Save esting dry to ether experince thot the intervening Concept eign oy nied of e. “he ashe soon fart stats withthe supposition that chee something spec abost ovr commerce with amok Arbok, she

‘ence shat itored to support aesthetic experienc: Here we infer the prsence ofan aesthetic intention onthe same kid of grounds chat we Infor very intentions stheber explanation the behavior a agent. Tn this cee he agente the areeher beavis i he wy i which she Inanles her materials On there grounds tha ake had an atsthatic inte tion is the mot protable explanation of her behavior Farcermore, wth reworks addional evidence for hypothesizing sotheue inendons Includes the genre ofthe work Ia work belong to ot artistic gre in ‘which the promotion of esthetic experince isa standard feature of works fn thr gene then its Hay the anyone working in that genre shares, thie generic intention5 Art, definition and identification Part I Against definition Neo-Wittgensteinianism: art ‘as an open concept define are. The representational theory of ar aeorepresentcona tan the expresin they, formalism, aeoforaalt ad arth chores of ar are ll atemes to provide comprehensive defini fal 2 But each of them sppont adequate in turn. Undoubtely tht hs led ome readers to sospec that maybs one cannot define arta all the dvvt= Shy of eject we call rt may sem too rest ro be encompassed by tingle delision, Ot perhaps some of you thaught this fram the very tesinning perhaps vu sated reading his book withthe opinion thatart cannot be defined ands 2 result regarded each ofthe theories that we revuwed as predestined tol. Maye the entire projet srack os “victim he outa, Bot however you cune to he casein thar at anat be defined, you may fel reeseed to len that ie also plo ‘ophcalposiin,omesimes called Neo-Witgensteinanism. ‘Throughout the rwerteth century espe philosophers of at have anempted to define art Peobibly ane reason that Wester plesophers have Bee preoeed with defining at Fr te st entry o 0 ft te during this period thc we have found ouraclves confronted with Sneling array of diferent Kinds of art who sheer variiy lunprecedented. On she one hand, hare have been the mls tions of the avant-garde which fom Remaniem onward hve cos ten challenge stl idea of art with thei radial depres fen onvenciona practice ‘Andon the ther hood, during the sme perio, Westerners grew more nd more falar wi he are of other cultares which hough deviating ftom he conone of Westen ar, nevertheless have a prima fai aim on Tier this book, ve have examined secesve attempt are stu, Whereas for cet at developed lowly ond sooty in sts that eld be ecorodatl sly weiner undortadig, Uy-thetentit entny mai ere geting conosing There sich sthversny nf taon oer ht ere pres to sl hese fay the Tris ales plausible to spp that i we had ssl group of lnfonmed a lover at some tagoary pint sound the mide of he sightceth centary and pad!» setion of objets afore the = pie {ures shovels poems Bille of sl cavoly rpiments pies of music ee of alley sain ships rcks pple chads acs ad ances fey wold have ben sl to une to srpiing extent sour which of the object were art tnd wich were ot They would ot have needed & ‘sinion to guide them. Thay ponsued » sbued,thovgh often ; anaciulred, understanding of ar upon which they could ely to deliver ‘onsistent and convergent jugrient about wh was end weno at. “Arist, to, shared inthe common understanding and they created ‘whas audience expoced, Noun ha vo be told explcly what was a Eserynnc jst knew imply: she concep mis mite ol eile in the laguoge. And the pracie more or lee confirmed thet tht naziculted common understanding was tbl. Just as taday we all Jonow what an fr ereum cone without nding» definition of one we may hypothesize that the eancpt of ar wae Uke gall ipl nd untroubled eo handed vats 2 Bur the apearance of revolutionary at movernents, ike Romani andthe nition of progressively accelerating wlocies of change bythe Sarious prolferadng svane-gune in addon to the Hain of non ‘Wester ac from all over the work altered tht station Foceve alling ‘hear Irom the nonae ws suenly dele. ‘dentyng at became a pressing issue one could no hnger suppose tha dere war esl oF implicit colar understanding redy-to-hand Sinceavant-gede at was designed to problematze any sch eanventanal, ‘unexamined premises aad ot Western art hole from other clare, ‘vith poten different prevsiling assumptions ane. The station ‘es noe boring one a Which ab he old ayng has ou couldn’ etl ‘he players without a scorecan Tes imporant ra be able iensfy are ~ to be abl 9 lhe at fom the nonsrt~ for many zeasos. Whether or not sting i act igh tksermine whesher or nt it lige fora wae fromm governmens srs ageney or whether ale or impor shouldbe tae For example, 2 ‘question arose over the Lnpocation af Branco abstract sculpture Bird in Tligh ao whether was an aevork ora cillecion ond stl Tings rbing «corms fe would have hed to have been pid bait nit ould ener the US dryfrc(Ofcourse, determining whether or not something iar no merely Importat for he purpose of eting practical and political questions list these Hentfying whether something should be clase arto not {racial to ascertaining how we should respond tot Should we aera 0 Interpret it? Should we explore it or asthe: properties? Should we Uy to fathom es design? These sos of questions begin be answered whe ‘snow that smerhing art, For instance suppose we come across, as we might at 2 garage sale, 2 seuffed angorn gost wearing an automobile ie arzund i mide and ‘funding anu cavas. Should we cali p asa tendon aserblge of Srcler aging thatthe over bad no place eae to put the Bre oF ‘should we uy to lcerpre t= shold we ey to aso what ie mane and ‘why his acumulaion of things should mean exactly that? OF ours if ‘ne Hen ie aan artwork ~ a Robert Rauschenbere’s combine Mono {ram obs prise ~ thas exactly what we'll d;we ley eo interpre i SBurotherwise took jas ike things shoved into a forgacen corner of he attcand a northy of atenton a5 anyother old ple of junk. denying something sar then, is ndispensble to our artistic prc ses That something 42 art signals how and even whether we are 1 ‘respond ir interpreively, ertheilly, and apprecnively. fe have ro sway of cssfyng art ~ no means of determining whether smething Telongs tothe stegory of things that warrne art responses ~ then o8F| sre prcties would vein rior tothe modern period people knew tactly how to match objet with the appropate rerponies. They’ cold tall whether things were Being put forth to be interpreted ~ perhape theo Iagialy prety enc by looking and Ustening). Bat the advent of evo Tetionary and avantgarde ary, alongwith the aval en muse of at rom other cultures made thisatheraier afar ‘The philosophy oft inthe ecentithcenury rele this station. As ‘he question of iensifying art became more and more perplexing, the relation eo the problem seemed busca come up with an split def nition of at. Ifthe ol implicit ways of identifying art no longer work, define the concepe of art explicy #0 tat it can cover every cae. The ‘representational hooey of at, neorepresenatonalism, the expression ‘heory formulimy netormalin ad sertheie theories of ar anal be ‘iewed in his light. They are ll seompts co provide an explicit way of naling she concet af an artwork by mean fs definition thar provides ‘neestry and slfilent conditions for counting omething ean erowork [I Brancus’s Bird in Tight an artwork? Is Rauchenker’s Monogram? Lack tothe core definition fat tl, "This approach to denying art~by defining it—aceme prety sight forward and commonsensia. However, by the 19505 a sgnifant group cof philosophers grew suspicious of this approach, They noted as many of FIOM AND IDENTIFICATION amy ‘you may have tha every atemge to define ar inthe pst hs failed This ‘oes prove dha farure ateaps wl els fail, Buc it doce give oe fo for thought. Specialy, there pilsophers asked wiether or not there night be sone dep philosophic! reason why this prjee kept ong up ‘vith such unanifcory reat, ‘Similarly. these philosopher alo were impressed by how many difer- ent and smusingly diverse and of ar thers ar in the world. What does fh oratorio by Handel have in common with »readymade by Duchamp! ‘Thus they wondered whesher any deinucon could caver every single rework nonvacuotsy hat ine way thas was informative and sonar tale Formalism and the expression theory were of course informative — ‘hey excluded many candidates from the corpar of art. But ar we have see they were aio fale they excled too many candidates Thehistry ‘fart theory seemed belinered with sucessve conjectures each refed ‘Ofcourse neither of thee considerations ~ that pat debnons have failed and that she data ace incredibly complex proved that art cau aot be defined, But such servations did encourage philosophers to evi the projet erty. And one reviewed erclye many eame to believe thar the projec of defining at wa inerenly ieguied. The continued fale ofthe projet > deine ae war not she rn of lack of magn to. intelligence or ingenuity om the part of theorists of art Rather, here tent a deep philosophical reson why att theotes always foundered. The eaion wae that arts necessarily indeinabe “The philosopher whe believed that art cannot he defined were often indluonced by Lading Witgenstin’s book Pilophial Insetgetions ‘Thus they can be clled"Neo-Wigenscniane”" The Noo- Witenes thought the te philosophy of rtp to their inerven- ‘hon rested upon a mistake: The mistake was to atempe to deine att ‘essenually (hats in ers of necersary conditions that are conjoint) ‘cen. They are that we eed some wy anya thy ‘ought the proper way to go about isnot o fame dfiniton of ee eis patel coc faving Winget ey ough the procear that we hou follow i what they called the method of fama resemblances "Many ofthe conepts that we employ in everyday fe ike he concep of chai largely go undefined Bu we ae abl o get aang without del titions When we are confronted with new Kind of abject for ang Purposes we deride whether or not ie «chair by comparing to aren xeting chats Is the svealled beanbag che sell 9 ehae? We dete Inne whther ot nog the enya by omaig 2 hinge sleadysquarly i the ategory. That ine sak whether 3 ‘resemble whse we antecedent belive to be chars enough tobe counted tone of thelr number Many of our concepts are lke di, Many of our“concepts lick dfnton in terms of necessary and efcent conditions, but are appli on the bai of resemblance, tether than by means af formula Could the encep of art be ke cis? “The Neo- Witgenstiians ay yes. One argument thatthe ‘half ofthis cancuron is simply that art eannot be dened and, tne it ‘anno: be define, cannot be sie we clarify objects ling wader the fancep of arty mens ofa definition We mast hae some coher method the method of family resemblances, Bur before saying what this merhod involves, there i price quesson ‘Why wore the Neo-Wingenstenians eo sure that at on Iga grounds, «arot be defined? Pechaps the best ay wo give you the aver for their feasoning is to quote e passage by the most frequendy ated Neo- Wirgenstenian, Morris Weitz His argument i ealled the “open concept argument? and he states i his way “Ar” isl s an open concep, New conditions (aes) have constantly asen and will undoubtedly constantly srs; new Set fms, new movements will emarge which will demand ‘scisons on the part of thos interested uray profesional ‘rts a 0 whether the concer should be extended ot 0 ‘Aestheticians may ly down conditions but never necerary and fulicient ones for the corres application of the concept. With “aus conditions of application ean never be exhaustively numeral ine new ests can leas be enviged or ered by arsts a even ature, which would ell fora desien on sarcen's part o exend ort close the oo vent nem once ‘What 1am arguing hen is that che very expansive adver torour character of at it cverpresnt changer and n0¥8) cxentions makes it logically impossible to ensure any se of eiing properties, (Wisi 3956, “The Role of Theory in Aesthetic") What Wie seams ob yng here tat et the prc ofa it alwys et etn pring, open to reolutonary dang This fn co Say daca muse aay be expansive Some ase eadions wal ve ‘Rus ve change acl Chines pane ay be valid more fo it Sppronnaon of pr-csing paradigm chan fr innovators at, innova ay bc dscourge in een radios Arti mo egued a ‘conga norder coun as are Nevertheless the pace of t= or our eonept ofthe racic I suc da it mas acarnodate the per rane pry of change, expansion o ov: Our concept of et buch tha there mes away boom for ari do semen new Baril hie so, Welz argues then the tempt e arcive a dfn of arin terme of nessary conden that are conoinysufcient for Chconsmuous ot interwening sands of rtm Bln The farses pprosch explains how soe for ws tcsow tear fom tenor iiour ining the equbly naval Common fsture thar ently deine ae The fey resranr Speech is ths nore fae account of haw we enti ry ince ‘tooblancer re something we bve acs, when no one ses ever gier ofthe sential defi etre oe “Te arly resemblnce meted leo Hs te glove with the open trates fhe lageof te cone st prncple so unpedicable that no se of eondson cen eve be ai dow, iar the ame tng its al the oe that we cn cotine fo ay wort a ae then what resort enable us to do is’ Resenblance Tres yeradge sod tele aeadysecgaieddeendans, the Neo ‘Wigenstensn suggets the only ve andi Nes Wrugenschtniam tea pllsopy ofa pees tn account of she corcpe fart =et isan open concep And propre» view of hw thacconcr plist of ly eemblncer ints ory tt ar where the erm “theory ofa ens “a eel ton” tkiniion a terms of neceaty condone that are conn sue) Ince rear ar there canceved fe dbnians to be fxd: thmly faved” Ant since the Neo'Whagenteinane bsleve sl ar theese she frame ror of constving chp n ems of ental deinions NeoWhigenssnens CMe Saal or hey ‘Doe thir mean sha he iar fa hear is comply wets Here she New Werte sl ae ome nd words for the ust Art theorists nthe pk the expression thor ad the formal. were inthe in Bebo hn he old pode an een defo fr Ina tey were atempng vo do the imposible and thi effore: were fue Bu thous Knowing they wer sa doing women de and that "sedge ale Whos war? Ar eae ‘ine Ball hough tht hi theory of gene frm closed she cee naa oft He ws wing abou that, But i wring ws Mok tcl inva or what he proposes th ence fal a= igniat teen salon nigh abou at was ipo ncern dsof evo See ne ved ose ac imprate, hough ited ‘Scabeort ofa el wars very good ce ead people wha look {Scand what vase n ney emerging a maveets al agined ta Re was opening top soa ar forall time Rr the Now Witonnetinon se cube tated him at state ete for his own tae informing the English-speaking word out the way in which to understand soem ar. He showed thes how formal possibiis thae were reese or aeglected in previous arise practices like elsm, wee ealy ee hing to atené coin the new arte taught people haw wo appreciate the new art Thus, his writing, reson strued 25 ar criticism, has lasting value, even iP his theory was fly Aste Siar reeuperative readings, the Neo-Witgenstcinian suggests, can be offered of many other past theories of art. The expression theory of, for etample canbe reconceived a offering critical insight into hear of the Romantc period or well a cetaln modernist tendencies that owed from ie Even the presentational theory ofa can be re-read a instr sive art eieism: by stressing the importance of mimesis Aristo was telling bis felloe Grocks what was the mort important feature of Poetry he was saying wha audiences shoul tend tots order to get the row of aged "The Neo-Wittgenstlalan philosophy of at, then as thee pats. First ‘heres the open concept argument Tis hae spose sige and a negative side. The poiive sie athe chractetation of the concept of att 20 ‘pen concept The negative or critel side isthe rejection ofthe prop ston that ar canbe essenally defined by means of necessary an Su lent conditions The second pat of the Neo- Witgertenin Few is he family resemblance method, Thi pare can be called recostrcsve: it attempts to reconsrast the may in hich we go about identifying and ‘loeying objet ear. The le part ofthe poo ie eehabsive: it proposes fo recperte what worhwle in existing rt heares by ce Fealing them as unconscious entibutions tear cries. "Neos Wargenstemiarim therefore, noe simply skeptical potion, noteworthy nly frie diamisel ofthe defntoal sppreach, I lo ‘coberent, comprehensive philosophical viw that ince » poriive fecount of she concept of arta conerpion of how we dasfy ect and rereading of the history of the phlorophy of art. Were Neo- ‘Wregenseeleianisn merely form of skepccsm, i might not appear so formidable. e's eaey to sy no, but unless you have amething t pot = the place of what you're rejecting, rch skepticism ie rarely pressive “That Neo-Witgenscinianism table to weave its "no wo debnions nto an ostensibly informative philosophy of such apparently broad breadth ‘makes it particulary attractive For that reason, it war the dominant ‘losophy afar for uch ofthe 495 and sonFurbosonny oF axe ‘heir spproach was not elective enough, since everyhing resembles ‘verything ese some respec So fy ofcourse eis oust a ferent Soy of geting at some ofthe objections har we've already ser gaint [Nev-Witgensteinanism. However this way of approaching the problem ‘suggestive no way tht our previou formation wane or this way of stating the mater hints sta posible soaton tthe probiem of how we go about idenntying are. The Neo-Witgenseiion vised us to lok for fay eesemblancs, He misspoke, beste fly Feemblances arent something that you can determine spl by lok- ing Fara ceemblacer le depend on somthing the you cannot see— {utet ineritace, How the resemblance came about — its genesis ~ i ‘uc for calling esemblance 4 family resemblance. This is what the NNeo-Wasgenstiion ignored, bo a the same ume, ic provides a ch for ow weidenify artworks, namely chat the genesis ofa candidate is ruc foriteareeatis. ‘Wie donot sly poople as members ofthe same family beau ofthe ‘way they look. Two people say exit or manifest the sme properties, Tht we donot sy they belong to the ame family on tha basi Tony vihen they ate genetically inked thar we say they Belong to the sme ‘amily. We wl all so people sisters even Hf they donot Tok alice if they are gency linkedin the right way. Nonmanifest properties ~ iene properses—are what make for farly membership aot perce ‘semblance tha a the Neo-Witgenstanian says, you en dete by ooking and sexing (or istening and hering) That at tras might ely 2 wel on # candidate's posesion of erat nonmarifest or unexbied properties ithe clu tha nein Theor of Are lear for Man ‘eaur’s rte ofthe Neo“ Wigensteinion> misuse of he nocon of family esmblance “Of course, aroorks ate not the product of genes Thay originate socally, not biologically, They are generated within 2 socal context ‘wheres the oct of the ait and the audience are co-ordinated by Certain underying sos rules, Being an artwork is» faeton of certain Soil aston, These relations are ot something thatthe arwork wears fn is face: they ace not something that one can detect by simply looking ‘They are nonmanifest or unehibted socal rolations Thus the Insi- {unsoe! Theor suggests tha if we can ialate tho festares of he seal Context of he prot in virtue of which a candidate for ae satus ‘Tecmod an artwork we wll ave a way of soreng atom none ‘Neo-Witgenternanism hasan obvious problem dealing with ready~ smades and found objets IE Advance ofa Broken Arm isan artwork, then any ang shovel tat i ndiacenble from it ncoding your and Inine shoul be an artwork at well If we spy attend the percep Fearne ofthe shovels question, hey shoul all count as artworks, since co RRRIBTFINIFION Avo TOEWTTFTERTTON Sy they ar pereeprully indncernble. Moteover, ths bind of problem cont result wth any kind of eject since any Kind of ebject could be a found ject. Bur this erie wrongheaded x Advence of» Broken Arm that my snow shovel t not deppte the fact shot Ie looks exact Dachamp's What tthe dllerencr? The inetaonal Theos appeals Certain montane, relational properties that In Advance of 2 Braker “in poseses and hat my seow shovel docs not, namely its postion ‘within certain se of co-ordinated scl practices that iy location in ‘rain socal context "The Institutional Theorie calls the relevant soll pracce “the art sword” The areworld he clans ia social instition ike eligion, nso frie is underaiten by roles and procedures. Candidetes are artworks ‘eenuee they abide by the pertinent arworl! rules apd procedures. In ‘ther wordy an artwork i generated by playing by the required rales and procedures These sacl rales ate the underlying factors that a Tworks posible (they aze analogous 10 the genetic mechanisns chat ‘secu for family resemblance) The relation of she artwork to che rules ie not « manifest property of the artwork ~ you cannot eyeball i by ‘concentrating onthe object in ioaton t= fantom ofthe soa context Into hich the artwork sete, What are these rales and procedures? According to the Institutions] “Theory ofA: isan artwork dhe dslctory senee if and nly 4) 28 Sarlac (3) upon which someone acting on behalf of cern ination (he ertwor) comfers the status of being acandate forayprecation. ‘This theory comprises ew necesary conditions that ae conjintly suf- fico. The Inetitsonsl Theory of Aris advanced ws w comprehensive definition ofall ar indicated nthe ast section, it as been designe in Sach wey tha tallow that ay Kind of object can be an artwork slong As is pt fort in accordance tthe right procedure Jedoes not impede ‘ny imaginable type of astlc experimentation, and, therefore its a Cunteresampl tthe central contention of the open concept purest {thus an esential definition i ingompanble wieh aistie Innovatio). Howeve though eallows tha anything can be arin pin itdoes nt cer —in the way the family resemblance method does ~ by proposing a ‘procedure fr ienrifyng ar that ental hat everything iar no ‘Neording tothe Inetwtional Theory a wook of ar erat be a artifact Here sarifatsshoold Be understood iberaly. To bean artifact fequires thar the eandite must somehow be a product of human labor although theextent ofthe labor maybe exceedingly minimal. Something may beananc eure suman hus worked it pt of ey ei Bat ll iso be an aac forthe Insteaent Theo i omeone bee merely framed or indeed the ojeaysendynnce antici neo putt forth toreahion porpresoreven points ot andsaye that an at sje at Daun onc di with he Woolworth Balding in ower Mane fate A prt smb a rc hr swe ee is prot ‘human bor noc ony objet tht say the racy cond ton. Moreover the eufactaty codon i so meant to indice tt theworkin gueston must be pbb scene ‘Many theoritsof at would agree thea ncetsary condition for at saan abn she cndiate bean at inthe broad sce Ii the second ‘Graton ofthe thenry thar i ost dante I eine tht some thing isan arnork ony Wit has had the stars anit fo pyres fon confered on by some pereon opens acting on behalf the Scnraon ofthe arewold. The confecal of seas here ea poe “That why nso Theories of se ae called procera theories, Freda there of ee contrat with uncon eerie ike thee the theory of becuse procedural theses aja canddte obe arein vite of it confit with erin rl, an natin te of tert rfc (sas the poducon a thes xperens). ut what is this sange-souning procedure ~ the confer of che stu of candidate for ppraton? The mel orth poclure ome: thing lies bsho’scoferrng holy everson w pre or the queen's ‘ool of fnighthood on some luminary, oF university's onerl of ‘Bo sure of lnchelor of vs pon » gadoning enor Just ope ‘Sue the str of “ord hen te at othe pence pronoones them man ad wile oa aici sn arvork when someone ang on IelalfofthearoweLdconfersthesttaol candidat foroppection pen Neverhles who ae the people who confer thie tar on arate! In the gent ajoricy of ese they ae rine, They confer the sts of ‘andar for eprecason om nics by taking the jects and then ting them ou in the worl fo poole aed appre — that {sro cnfr thesis of ene fo apresaton on artlats by ‘retng arcs with undevtanding such hat oudenes ca size hem sp and asess them with undersandng, evenly the understanding exe Ged by the ara and that exeraed by the audlon are taghly complementary “his the most standard case, However on ocasin the person who confers the relevant season he objet may not be the rear a the eee A’ museum curator might selay cial implemen, ean Eelimo fishing ook aa candies for apprecaton becuse of ng seat properies nd thereby tanaor tl inte an scork. Bat in the genoa cw the cnfral of sarseecare when an ent maker an ARE DAFINITION ANO IDENTIFICATION ony srk and puts forward for appreciation, or when an arte sles found object aad dplys for otersosize up and ase Here iis nportnt to nate that the ars doesnot confer the stars of sxonok on her artic. The ate that she confers on hear is candi- tne for appreciation, Aro, preventing something a6 2 candidate for typeeation does aot guarante tha itil be appreited by yore The ‘elac is simply nomsinted for appedativeatenton But jst aa cad dare for Vice-President wo hasbeen duly nominated may’ lose the elec tion, eo an afc an be nominated as candidate for apprestion and ‘en go snappresnel, “The base socal interaction that ce Istana Theory describes i cone tat fe qulte fruliar An are makes something and presents 1 ( ‘pectcnrs for thei arenion and underetanding te up t the adlence then to decde whether or not ts worth thei flor The Insttusonal Theorit decries this fir interaction in enfin terme lke 00 feral of satu and “cndidate for appreciation” ~ inorder tall our titeation tothe way in which tis ornary trasacsion is governed by ‘Social rules nd role Jost as there is ramework ~ socal context with derlying eee and roles ~in place when se buy 3 newspapet there i tho framework ~ an itivaonal nerwork f elaions~ in place that ‘rakes the inter elated production and consumption of aroworks posible In the nandard care fe the arest who contre the status of candidate for appreciation onthe aria, though, es mentioned, somesines ahers ‘ay fonction in thi ole orepacy. A curtor, 4 ite oF # diatbutor Thigh lee an objec ara candidate fr apprecstion and pu it forward for “lapny. Avalg for oamgle, might recommend the water clove of t ‘evtainchisnpanae to hs render as romething interesting took a, due ‘other aesthetic properties forthe purpose of precision. In tis sei ‘sche ert not the chimp, who confers taras the objects. Resend the ft historian Mia Fieman has secrnmended the printings of elephants {or our tention But this isan exeepsonal ase To the main iis the ets who confer season he atc on behalf of the arworld, But what does mean eo confer satus on behalf ofthe aroorl? Why ‘se that she att and the ete ate empowered r0 act on behalf ofthe Sraworl but the chimpunze and the clephant re not? Whats the narare Sl shete authority? It ike dhe authority ofa plosophy profesor whe, fn the basis. her knowledge of the Sel, ass chat a paper propor ‘oes or doesnot adden palosophis probler, Slay, a eens ins igven area judges onthe basis of he experience inthe el whether oF Sota research proposals ikl to et te game. ‘Analogously, the people who play the zoe of confersing status on behalf ofthe atword do a in itu oftheir knowledge, understanding, tnd experience of the artword.Artts have the requisite Backgroundsla rca of eal i son al ts knorgy endearing nd eon eater tsar dere th ay nd oe ego eal of ec et ete Fa redo Kao ngng ct he theron! No gran eb ny uae ing er ae ce ston ewe cs ee ecm at vee th apg of ct ~ ts ior evlig esha ncn aan blo ha a I efor apn. Te stot Fe yor ore psi oe he a umesng ea hey SE ig of comes pn 0 SI cane epee ponon mr hl rey ch des ot the ch cat oe i cow whe a bere arama oe pa of he Leia re enor aa bal fe Dada i ea atin Te See emt De an ing at jm mone wal inte si a eo ea onde th ten Te fe hc eager anyone nin od ig andrning ne ha tae “This why the artwold~ ae the Isirationsl Theay portrays ie— ie ot elit or ntcdemerratic Anyone ear act on behalf only they cannot taming and understanding, This cn be done without Tee ely in monn, erate calatesK need not be very much Fe porate you can atgure ion your own; you need not go 0 art hoot though obviously that makes things somewhat easier Nor isthe Speeds dcatorship ce te agents ofthe setworld only nominate Einddate for apprecaton — for eample for design appreciation. Ic SEMIN pouley thar no one wil nd she candidat worthy of the ‘atest atom. Thus the national Theory of callow for bad ar Slay awial proportions. nth, is a asctory theory of at nor x fommendatory ery TUnioubrely itis not difcle for something co qualify a arin o nat wch thefottaona Theory of Art Many of us have enough know iedgc to puten objet forth with aulcent understanding as candi wtecitlon, But tis 5 not» shortcoming of the theory, since iis nat Bip ery deat ro coete at. The ik 0 crate rt chat actly snort of appreciation. ‘Unkle Nee Wingensteinianism, the Inestuional Theory does not locus the ceri forse stats inthe manifest properties of the aria Vacant deemitant of gt state Is the socal gamers of these Tes emerged fem the social neo of he areworld i the right way Me She She ind of gualied people put it forward for the right (eons, Sie previous philowopies of st, including formalism, the sear statinal tory ofa he expression theory. westhetc cheorics of ores Neos Wlitgarostlaisn nelec the roca! genesis of artworks. {his ger the Instuonal Theory a wider rexh than mom previous "ppecches to dency ar. Trike some tiny, the naittonal Theory posseses the means t0 clade candacs fvom the oder of I the wrong person (person SE he requisite knowledge and understanding of ar) puts forward cae eal noe ossese the apality to confer the appropriate Blunt and he object wil note art. Thisizno airaryf ld See ree ledge of at history brings a snow shovel tan are gallery, wey or ved ir an arworke, Moreover, even if the person in Sisto spel infred~even ihe rlevan person isan ati Fe aera is avfacs ae art rls chey are prevented forthe wep etsans os andes for apreiation), That fanart makes a voc onl rs ota acm Ths, though generously indusive a uunonal Theory of Ai 90¢ 9 Wberal ha i acept everything sag artwork Eg Re RSDefining art historically: As we have sen, a major bone of contention with regard to Institutional Theories of Avis the question of whether at can be produced by ai- tary ast operating out of any socal satiation practic or Felton ‘hip, The national Theos i apt to reject such possibilty on the ‘rounds thet humans ate encltarated beings and tht ar wherever it ‘Sone iss fancono ha encltuaton Pople aways, aa matter of fc, tearm about ar and artnaking ax part oftheir socialization. Ths sae ‘whether we ve lling aboot igh ae, folk ror wba ar. TF Robinson Crusoe made art on his lonely sland he would ave been le todos, theInstutional Theor azgucs,oniy becuse he learnt “hows artduing his upbringing in England He was no soiary, aul tural artist He had alzedy Been educated i dhe paces ofan arto ‘And farther, weve he made would have been as res, ces ible to ealturly prepared andince of fellow Europeans who theiselves hd been tried co understand fe Artis not made by wolf children; aris the product of socal beings who are initiated seo she arworld in the rots oftheir socialization “Anmeking, of any sory requires knowledge, That knowledge isnot lingate st most be scl aquired For any existing etork the lnsi- onl Theos css he wl be ale co show that ic emerged fom 2 ‘oil practice fom which the artist is question derived the conceptal {esourees and basic aris ls necessary to produce the relevant a= ‘ror Civen human natare oman scl nature isa practical impos {bly that anyone creates aout » context of socal practice fom ‘which the ponsibiny of making art emerges ‘These afe serious consideration. However the opponent of the Ins tuconal Theory, though agreeing tat this i how ost at origins ‘hd pehape that this show all htril ras originated ~ argues hat neverthcler ie logical posbly, ven ifs « pracial impossibility, that smeone could crest ar outie of «soil pratice One can imagine societies without art like che cleure of our Neolthi uiberman, where Someone dances upon the iden of arranging pretty stones forthe purpose Steirng vnul pleasure and never shares that discovery with anyone ‘lsc If hiss og posite the national Theory of Ar has fled to show tha allt ecersaiy invelves soca relationships ~ even socal relationships as thin asthe eeguicement that atts make andlor present artworks with understanding for audiences prepared 0 respond © them with anderanding “Tis itis ofthe Institutional Theory of Ari the trtng point for ‘the Hintrial Delian of Aree wiewpoat defended by Jerod Levinson, Levinson atcps he posibiliy that rmeane could make an aren the manner of our imagined Neolthie eibeoman and that we would have n9 Conceptual fealty togardng i as an artwork Even ifthe Neolithic trbesman did not have he conept of artwork in is cogitve stock ~ there the posession of sucha concep admiredy would require socal Tedigound sell we wll count she arrangement of tones a at under burconcepe of at ‘What enables us to coune the stone artifact. art? What makes che Neaihicdelay sh artwork? According tothe defender ofthe Historia Delain of Ari the intention thatthe maker hadi producing the tirangement of stones, Hi intention was t© promote Vsual pleasure Moreoves ftom our perspective, promacing visual pleasure is «well precedente intention for making art. Thus, we would have no problem ithe stones as at since this ee widely rebgnaed masive for ‘senting arr (Of course the promotion of visual pleasure is not the only intention with which an arfit might ceate an artwork. Some artists do make sr With the governing inenton that the results have the capacity 10 ngcoder sul plensure Bat other atts make aevorks with the inten Clon to thar wel pleture, Many German Exprssonists made ar works intended eo elicit enget a way of signaling theiratctde to heir ‘Tes: they made werks expressive of moral horoc But we coun thei rafts artworks becuse hit Intention, to, «hissy wel precedente one ‘We al the Neslthicaibesman’s stone art becuse they ae intend wo promote visual plessure, weal the German Expressionist’ pining re bees they are intended promote visual disgust. The intentions Couldn't appear more diferent. And yet thee ea eomamon tread that fons Serween them, in both eves the intentions have through the cours history been sclowwedged ae arvana relevane intentions. That is taking artifacts withthe intention that they be regarded ws vources of Winul pleasure ora cources of visual disgust bth traffic in what the Fistral Definition of At cll wll-procedented art regards ~ ways of ‘garding eemething sa work of a ‘Many diferent at roards have emerged the course of history, icing epardng anal san expression of feeling, aba represent on es dopey of orm, ae an arclton of clara ideal a elletion Spon the nature oft and soo. According tthe Historie Detiniion of ‘Ave somthing isan artwork ony fs intended to support some well precedente are eu “This apptoach sleds historia dion brevet connects anil dues to the history of ae. We know that many historeal aruifcts are AStworke whether Or noe we havea definition. We lo krow how thoseworks wete intended tbe regard by audiences, We can use thet how Inge to construc a defnitson of rt Something wil bean artwork oly iewas made with db tension wo snsoucngeat eat on ofthe many wel ‘precedente art regards tht ave emerged it the couse of istry. This Frncpl i wat eves our concept of ate coherence. ‘As wehave sen, there ite hope oferftinga definition of art spy 1 tr ofthe internal properties of things, Nor can we ope tid ‘oonmon thread between artwork on the bate of thei areal eects not simpy bectuse chose effects may be 20 diverse and condlcive, but slo because many of the effects of artworks such a sensuous pleasure can slso be seeued by ater mean, sch adres So Instead the Historica Defnition of Ar draws our atenion to anther posible shared prose of ereeorks that they all be intended to support some scowl act egard ome way of covey responding tart thats wllpreceeen bustrially, “This way of thinking unis our concepe oft. Ie mkes of arta cher cent body of artifact Ail artworks are elated to exch other historically in the sence that they al share some or ancter intended, wll prcedesed fr regard Unlike the family reremblance prow, she listo Deini- tion of Ar doesnot zly upon tacking the manifest properties of candi= dase focuses ona nonmanifst propery. namely the attic intention to proffer objects for scknowledged am regards onthe part of potent audiencen Morever his propery isa genetic property of the work Suestin, for she genesis af the object nthe ais intention. That the Intention i to promote acknowledged art regasds als exams why the bjectisar Furthermore his approach iiferent fom the instuional Tory of ‘Aas snc there 9 requirement that the intention be formed within te concert ofan institution ora socal practice. One sould come npn the Intention to promote» certsin art regard — sch ss vst lense outside any social contoet whatsoever Yer it will ell count af an ic nenton if even unbeknownst tothe arc in gueton the inten tiomis one tat we now acknowledge i isorially well preceded. OF couse, we ae rendering hi judgment from the perspective f es at ‘world. Bat the artist need not be a member of our asoworl oof any “The Historical Definition of Artis an account of our concept oft an ‘hough ovr conerpt of art evlved history ia our society. our concept far canbe applet arafats outside four soety and even waits produced in contexts where theres no concet of art nar even an aevorld rare proces We recagnie the Neolithic tribes’ stones asa, tren i he and hs caleure lacked the concpr of at and an etworld because his intention thatthe stones be regerded ar souree of sual ~RETTOW ANS roeNTTREKTTON” a teas any yh, happens 0 orate, wth hit Setpreceknnderaeitenoe “it anand fra wel precedente form of ar regs 4 nasi conden forse ss: tte Hate Deion Ar inthe ons eu tha sb ochre e propery Heber the ct in uaton Tari te aie mon owe sre ghvowedhe musta adsense en sents eed invone hitoraly weltpceened my. Tis ndton & men Mccain gps fund oes em eigen of Toreampl noted prey, Dskanp tempt propre the Wor Baling rs encyade Muy have dined art's te rey tat Deca nel sachs aa The en, ‘cir othe Histor Benin of Are ae Dechy eter Gon the Wervorh Bling nr Ad thee who Ad enone hs ‘Sonpeaasgariton of iti a Tat Duta Iced reuied propey hs wih rage tothe Wesker Balding erg conden ant pope conden ae bth neceaiy cos for t-scneeg fe te Heal Don Together they re conjial sunt Combining he two cndont we ee 1 is am artwork if and only if isan objet of which ts tue She tome ron or sos) who hee «propria phe ver (3) nonparsingly intend (or intended) = fr regad-a- lwork-oFare~ Le, for regard in any wy (oF ways) in which jects already inthe extension of “arwer” are oe were correctly or sanded regarded. The proprietary ight conan rus tht Ihave rights tthe ejece in question Teannot amply dese your ul tes aework oven send htt be regard the way peopl regarded Fahne hve your permission to so Furth the at-regd ono ees thar ited the art regard in quationnonpssingly. Ths mens a the inten mest be ay serous longlved and delibrt sould nos be ‘pusing whi ar eke ny model seplane an jig cagetey thare omentry omg ht ‘rel plnsre My ivenon mist aly inne oe oughout The proces af ceadon If ost bea presiding intention, nt ping though Ar wel chal bet the hurt of my padi o the aac Isinllcoe adn inary ce oughout he work.