Fisher Chap. 1: Can Art Be Defined?

How can what counts as art include both the Mona Lisa and a pile of bricks (Carl Andre) P. 0

Subcategories of Art

Visual Arts (painting, sculpture, drawing)
Literature, Dance, Music, Opera, Ballet, Poems, Plays, Tragedy
Just beginning to be included? Controversial cases? Do they deserve the status of Art?

Jazz
Movies
Photography
Furniture making
Cooking

Lump all these creative activities (in various media) into a broad category of art

All similar in virtue of being art making activities
Is there an essence or nature that defines art?

Reasons for thinking art can't be defined

Art's nature is to be original and always changing
For every feature that might define art or its subcategories, there is an experimental 20^th century artwork that lacks it
So art is undefinable

Denial of essence of art

Order assumed in our use of term art does not correspond to a property in the world

No common and unique property: Feature common to all artworks that makes them art and distinguishes them from other activities and artifacts.
No property every work of art has and that guarantees it is a work of art (only works of art have)

No set of necessary and jointly sufficient condition

Square example: Four sides (nec); 4 right angles (nec); Together they are sufficient and define a square; All and only squares have four sides and four right angles

Wittgenstein's challenge to all abstract concepts,

Like justice, truth, games; so with art:
Such concepts don't refer to an essential property that all instances of concept exemplify

Morris Weitz and Wittgenstein's explanation how we can pick out artworks from other things, even though no definition possible
Game example

Nothing common to all games (P. 4 and 14)
Only relationships and similarities and a complicated network of overlapping and cris-crossing similarities

Art also has no common property only strands of similarities

Knowing what art is, is not apprehending an essence but recognizing similarities
Art is an open concept: not bounded by strict and unchanging criteria

Family Resemblance Doctrine

Fisher believes that Phil of Art doesn't depend on our ability to give a def of art.

Can make generalizations about art even if no one thing in common

Why?
Because we can agree on examples of art

This is what is fundamental to rational discussion of nature of art
(If we couldn't agree we would not have a common conception of art)

Clear examples of things art and not art

NEA grants to poets not gardeners
To orchestras and not sports teams

Use of paradigm cases of arts and subcategories

Allows us to know what we mean
Great Art masterpieces
Agree on greatest poets, painters novelist composers, playwrights are artists and their finest works are art
Beethoven, Bach Mozart Shakespeare Dostoevski Tolstoy Michelangelo

Even though no nec/suff conditions, "Is it art" is not an arbitrary predicate and often has an answer that is true or false

'Art' is vague, but not arbitrary
Not arbitrary if one should extend "art" to novel works
Are criteria of application and recognition
Is a new medium art or not?
Decision is new work similar in certain respects to other works already included under art

(Ned: once the respects are specified, it isn't a "decision" but a question of judgment about the facts)

For Weitz, MOST art exemplifies these (not nec)

Artifact
Production requires human skill
Involves ingenuity, imagination, creativity activity
Embodied in sensory medium

Fisher adds

Has intended audience
Audience assumes a special attitude (aesthetic) toward artifact
This attitude or mode of attention such that multiple exposures don't diminish its interest to audience (????)
Art has universal quality: distinguish it from momentary interest evoked by sports contests

Seeing Babe Ruth hit record home run over and over?
Boxing match
Going to same art gallery over and over

Fisher response to some problematic claims about defining art

Private Def of art: This is art if I think it is and whatever I think is art is art

Each individual must determine what is and isn't art (subjectivism)
Reply: But art a public concept: Language community determines it and (there must be sufficient similarities with other given examples of art)

Though not essence to "game," can't call empire state building a game

Only artists have right to determine what art is

Only practitioners in a field can define the field

Reply

But who are these? Art students, art historians? Anyone ever played instrument, gallery directors, faithful audiences?

Unfair to rule these others out: Aren't they entitled to a valid opinion?

Fisher argues that because of very nature of art, all these play important role in determining the direction of art

Specific version of Cultural Relativism about art

Art is an elitist concept--Herbert Gans

Claim that our concept of art is elitist

Social critics like Gans claim that concept of arts harmfully distinguishes between

What elite and educated and powerful enjoy

Which they call art and say is more valuable than

What the lower class enjoys

Thus, concept of art is merely conventional

Art is a group of artifacts identified by an elite of a society as a way of articulating their superiority

Herbert Gans defense of popular culture and critique of art as elitist (p, 7)

Popular entertainment forms & media not usually counted as art

They are unfairly considered inferior to high culture (high art)

Everyone's choice of cultural products is equally valid (low and high brow)

All function to entertain, inform and beautify life and express values and standards of taste and aesthetics

Taste cultures exist and they have values, cultural forms that express them;

Every class has own taste culture and its own type of art that is just as good as other types of art.

Examples: Newspapers, magazines, TV, popular music,

Just as good as literature, drama, poetry

Even ordinary consumer goods (furnishings, clothes appliances, autos express aesthetic values)

Can something express aes values-aes of everyday-and not be art?

Fisher's provocative way of putting this critique of art as elitist and defense of relativism

Values represented by art

Originality, artistic freedom expression, uniqueness, sophistication, knowledge of history of art form, affirmation of humanitarian ideas

Simply values of an elite class

Values of art forms and media of pop culture

Escapism, mass production, marketing, artistic anonymity, audience domination

Just as valid

This is an attack on art and proposal to replace it with dif cultural values

Two claims

One (less controversial, interesting)

Pop movie no less artistic interest than art film by serious artist

Superman/Casablanca (Humphrey Bogart)

John Coltraine's jazz performance just as profound as Vladimir Horowitz playing a Chopin piece?

Beetles as good as Beethoven?

Two (controversial and troubling)

All media and forms are of equal worth

Comic books just because comic books are just as much art as novels and they are just as good

Sousa's marches just because they are marches are of equal claim to art as any symphony

Fisher: Our paradigm of art comes from high art

But doesn't' mean only art media exemplified by high art is really art

That music, painting , dance of folk/pop art can't count as art

But doesn't it give priori preference to these art forms?

Fisher's response: Need a theory of art

To see what makes art valuable

To see if traditional elitism that accompanies art is justified

To see if pop culture doesn't produce art in traditional sense

What we value in traditional masterpieces is alive and well in pop art and new art media

Many using intuitive concept of art have recognized similarity of photography, jazz, and movies to high art and they are becoming more accepted as art