Morris Weitz argues that one cannot and should not attempt to define art. I have already discussed his circular reasoning in his premise/conclusion, that, defining the undefinable is illogical, art is undefinable, therefore, defining art is illogical. This argument begs the question, is art really undefinable? This circular reasoning is noticeable in a few other of Weitz's theories.
"Art, as the logic of the concept shows, has no set of necessary and sufficient properties, hence a theory of it is logically impossible and not merely factually difficult" (Weitz, 410).
While this shows his first instance of circularity with logic and defining art, another one is present as well. Weitz argues that it is illogical to define art. How then can he logically asses the "logic of the concept?" If art is as undefinable as he claims it to be, would it then be irrelevant? Weitz uses logic to build his definition of art that, there cannot be one, and then uses this as a tool to prove that any further definition of art, besides the idea that there is not one, is illogical. I would argue that the use of logic would be irrelevant in the first place, as he has used it fallaciously. The use of sound and valid logic to refute a definition of art would be appropriate, but Weitz's use of fallacious logic seems to imply that using logic in his reasoning at all could be unwarranted.
Weitz seems to use logic to help his case, and then point out how his biggest counter example is then illogical, and fallaciously at that. Weitz employs a convenient and fallacious use of logic to progress his argument, in which his premises rest on one another. If he is so adamant that art cannot be logically defined, than perhaps it is best that logic not be applied in the first place, for if it were truly applicable, logicians would have solved the many questions of art centuries ago. Surely, it is not that easy.
No comments:
Post a Comment