Carroll Q&A #1

How would Carroll answer the issue of circularity in his Narrative theory?


Carroll's Narrative theory lies in the concept of linking candidates of the artworld to their legitimate predecessors, through intelligent conversation, be it style, form, conversational rebuttal, content, or school of thought.

"The historical approach also differs form the Historical Definition of Art insofar as the former is not a definition.  A major virtue of the Historical Definition of art is that it calls attention to the importance of the artistic intention to promote acknowledged art regards" (Carroll, 452).

"At the same time, the historical approach avoids the most frequently cited pitfall of the Institutional Theory- specifically, the charge of circularity.  The reason for this is simple: circularity is a defect in definitions, not narratives" (Carroll, 452).

Carroll kind of maneuvers around the questionable circularity of his theory in a few ways- one, stipulating that his theory is not a definition, but thorough examination of the art in an attempt to promote it via "acknowledged art regards."  In this way, he avoids assigning a definition to his theory, which would make it much more suspect to circularity.  Well how can we trust that this narrative is doing the work, or others, justice, or a lack thereof?  Carroll supplies an answer for that as well.

"Thus, from an explanatory point of view, a historical narrative, when accurate, provides us with a compelling argument for classifying something like a Brakhage film as an artwork.  Indeed, given the details of such a narrative, supposing them to be historically accurate- it is difficult to imagine how else we might classify such an artifact" (Carroll, 452).

In this instance, Carroll presupposes that explanatory narratives are naturally accurate, if done properly, because, "artists and audiences must share certain understanding, namely, an understanding of art history, its practices, and the aims and purposes that underpin those practices."