On page 431 in our book, Dickie claims that institutional formality and rules for art “would threaten the freshness and exuberance of art.” In what ways would rules and formalities do this? In what ways could these things promote and sharpen creativity? Is it possible to conceive of art without a certain set of rules and expectations?
I think Dickie makes some good points in his reasoning, but leaves holes in his argument. He does have a point in his remark about the threat to the "freshness and exuberance of art." For example, new types and concepts of art may be hard pressed to emerge into the artworld, if said artworld was strictly structured. Artists may be expected to cater to a certain style or critic that may boost the status of their work. In this regard, institution formality is better off to be taken lightly, or without. An absence of institutional formality could also sharpen creativity, in the sense that originality could prove invaluable, especially with the absence of formality. In this way, artists would be truer to their vision of form and content, and remain less influenced by more powerful or established styles or artists.
However, Dickie's argument leaves the question, how can one teach art if there is no rules or institution? For example, athletes learn a game by watching and observing the rules. Aviators learn from the rules of flight, and so on. While Dickie is right in the sense that an over indulgence on the rules may stunt creativity, you cannot learn anything without at least a semi structured view of the concept you are studying. I think moderation, as far as the rules are concerned, is best for art, and perhaps this is what Dickie was implying. But one cannot learn from something with no rules or guidelines.
No comments:
Post a Comment