We have discussed so many times, the art of Andy Warhol.  It seems that, at the very least, Danto and Carroll have mentioned his Brillo Box,  and possibly Dickie, and others as well.  Why? In my opinion, it is the aspect of ordinary objects that Warhol can make art.  In our constant discussion of defining art, what better to examine than a work of widely considered art, which, as far as content goes, should not be?  It is for this reason that many art critics look to the external factors in Warhol's work to fine tune their definitions or theories of defining art, or judging the quality of the artworld.

Carroll Q&A #2

Carroll's Narrative theory is based in linking candidates for art to legitimate predecessors.  How would this theory work for "animal art," or would it be applicable at all?

I personally think Carroll's theory does not apply to animal art.  The linkages Carroll supposes that we connect art candidates to is based on the presupposition that it is "legitimate." How do we know that it's legitimate?? Carroll is vague about this claim, although I can say with fairly strong  certainty that there is an implied premise that underlies this assertion that some art forms and styles are legitimate.  This premise would be that, one reason we can say with certainty that that work of art, or that style of art, is legit, is simply because we (humans) made it.  Humans created said art, and therefore, some humans do exist that have mastered the concepts of the art, and can distinguish it from non art, or even bad art.  In this case, living experts in cubism, for example, can claim it to be art, and a legitimate artform, because they created it, mastered it, and can distinguish it from other art or non art that seems similar to it.  

It is for this reason that I would say animal art does not apply to Carroll's theory.  Humans do not create Animal art, so how can we link new animal art to legitimate animal art, if we have not created it?  I would say that there is no way for humans to safely and confidently state that "this bird art" is art, because it is distinctly reminiscent of the classical form of "nest art forms" that the most artistic birds create.. I think Carroll's theory is exclusively applicable to human art, as it should be.

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."

The Artworld: Dickie vs. Danto

Dickie and Danto have many simmilarities in their views of the artworld.  However, the main difference, is that Danto includes the knowledge condition, and Dickie's does not.

Danto discusses the concept of contextual knowledge of the history of the artworld.  With greater knowledge comes a greater understanding of art, contextually speaking.  Danto elaborates upon this, and with this knowledge comes greater status and power within the art community.

Dickie however, discards this knowledge concept..I do think this would have greatly enhanced his definition.  Without the knowledge condition, his social institution, his artworld, and his definition of art, becomes almost opaque in its flexibility, and seems almost to be playing politics in some aspects of the definition, such as his examples of Cohen's argument of aesthetic appreciation, and his conditional clause of candidacy and conferred status, seemingly meaning the same thing.  I think the knowledge condition would have strengthened the structure, credibility, and quality in his artworld.

Dickie Q&A #2

1)      Even if art is mistakenly introduced into the artworld, Dickie states that the art itself can never leave the artworld.  What do you think?

      Dickie specifies that once art is introduced into the artworld, it cannot go back.  Art is conferred by any member of the artworld however, as Dickie states, even the common theater-goer is a member.  What if art that, by the standards of most people, is not art, is conferred by a member?  One would have art in the artworld, that is not art.  Dickie eventually evolves his debate into the subject of good art and bad art, as opposed to art and non art.  Would this art then simply be classified as bad art, or should it be removed from the artistic community? 

      I do think Dickie is right in this regard.  What would the purpose be of defining art if one person or one group of people could override it?  Defining art with the exemplary clause that art can be changed at the tip of a hat is contradictory and superfluous at best.  In this case, Dickie's view on the definition and conditions of conferring art stands to good reason.  

      

Dickie Q&A #1

1)      Dickie states that status is conferred in the artworld by means similar to a person being elected Rotary President, or gaining the status of “wise man” within the community.  Could he be implying that his institution relies more on societal pressure and hierarchy for structure, instead of adding more stringent conditions to his definition of art?

dk

df I think that this could be a legitimate tool of Dickie's.  He does make the point that his version of the artworld maintains legitimacy, while at the same time being open to "frivolous" art.  Perhaps Dickie is relying upon the members of the inner inner circle to keep the unspoken rules, and maintain the integrity of his social system.  Dickie does elaborate on the status of various members of the artworld, and even uses examples of how one might gain this status, such as, wise man of the town.  This somewhat unspoken yet largely universal consent by townspeople provides a plausible example of what Dickie's version of social justice and responsibility may be.  

      "My thesis is that, in a way analogous to the way in which a person is certified as qualified for office, or two persons acquire the status of common -law marriage within a legal system, or a person is elected president of the Rotary, or a person acquires the status of wise man within a community, so an artifact can acquire the status of candidate for appreciation within the social system called 'the artworld' " (Dickie, 432).  

  i

TA's Question on Dickie

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.