Actual Art, Possible Art, and Art's Definition.pdf

8/12/2019 Actual Art, Possible Art, and Art's Definition.pdf

1/8

Actual Art, Possible Art, and Art's Definition

Author(s): GREGORY CURRIESource: The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol. 68, No. 3 (SUMMER 2010), pp. 235-241Published by: Wileyon behalf of The American Society for AestheticsStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40793265.

Accessed: 01/04/2014 03:11

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Wileyand The American Society for Aestheticsare collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend

access to The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=blackhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=tasfahttp://www.jstor.org/stable/40793265?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/40793265?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=tasfahttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black


2/8

GREGORY CURRIE

ActualArt, ossibleArt, ndArt'sDefinition

It sthirtyearsince erroldevinsonntroducedhishistoricalheoryf rt.1 ther,elated heorieshave eenproposed.2utLevinson'sheorysthemost laborated nd themost learlyommittedto he rojectfdefiningrt.3Much f he isputeabout his heoryas centered n howpreciselyit s to be formulated.4willbe careful-o thepoint,ometimes,fbeing edious- odistinguishways f ormulatinghe heory'sentrallaim. oformulationcome pwith rovides satisfactorydefinition:o I argue.I starty ayingomethingbsurdlyriefboutthe ules f ngagementn this ontest.providesomemotivatingackgroundboutbicondition-als,necessity,ircularity,nd their elationo theprojectfdefinition.characterizeevinson'st-tempto void ircularityymeans f techniqueofcollapse. show hat sing ollapsemakes hedefinitionfferedythehistoricalheorynac-ceptably arochial. suggest way nwhichnewhistoricalefinitionighte craftedhat s abitmore osmopolitan,houghot, erhaps,os-mopolitannough. also note hat hehistoricaltheoristseed to take stand n what eems ome a difficultuestion oncerningow we aretointerpretur ntuitionsboutwhatwould,ncounterfactualircumstances,e art.I. METHODDefininghingssnot oeveryone'saste. shallnot ake ccountgeneral oubtsbout he os-sibilityfor needfor efinitions.ven fwe takea generally pbeat pproach o definitions,e-rious oubts emainoncerningevinson's ro-

posal.Wedo,however,eed to ask whetherheprojectalls n one or the therideof familiardivide: hat, oughly,etween eal and nominaldefinitions.s Levinsonmaking claim bout henature f rt r about hemeaningf art'? be-lieve he is making claim bout the nature fart.5 ut there resigns hathe also has hiseyeon the emanticgenda, nd there ertainlyreconnectionsetween he wo. o avoid warontwofronts,amgoing ostick,s far s possible,to hemetaphysicaluestion. ow houldwepro-ceed nthinking etaphysicallybout henatureof rt?Anadequatemetaphysicsf rt hould eresponsiveo howwe ntuitivelyhinkbout rt'snature ndespeciallyohowwe think rtmightor wouldhavebeendifferentndifferentircum-stances.Withoutny uch esponsivenessehavenoway fkeepingotopic. urmetaphysicsayviolatentuition,ut t needs reason or oingso. When talk bout urconceptf rt, meansomethingistinguishedy ntuitionsf his ind;peoplewith ifferentut ullyeflectiventuitionsaboutwhatwould e art f he acts ere rrangedthisway r hatway ount shavingifferenton-cepts f rt.6 nother ay oput his s to ay hatwehave ntuitionsboutwhat s rt nvariousos-siblebutnonactualircumstances;allthese ntu-itions bout ossiblert.Ata certainointn theargument,will ttend o Levinson's laim hathe sconcernedo makehisdefinitiononformoourcurrentoncept f art.Considerationf ourintuitionsbout ossiblert how hat laim obewrong;o I say. will, owever,ssue warningabouthow difficultt canbe to decidewhetherpeople's ntuitiveudgmentsnthis rea arefullyreflective.

TheJournalfAestheticsndArtCriticism8:3 ummer010 2010 heAmericanocietyorAesthetics

This content downloaded from 182.185.224.57 on Tue, 1 Apr 2014 03:11:54 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/8

236 TheJournalfAestheticsndArtCriticismII. BICONDITIONALS, NECESSITY, DEFINITIONHere sa purportedlyecessaryiconditional:(1) Somethings red ff tappears o be redtonormalubjectsnder ormal onditions.This s no reductiveefinitionf red,' ince hetermppears n both ides.Nonetheless,emayholdthat t s an informativeropositionboutredness.t saysthat here s no more o some-thing's eing ed han ts ookinged ntherightcircumstances.7(1) is said to be necessary.ow is that o beexpressed?he most erspicuous ay, iven hedistinctionsshallneed,s n terms fquantifica-tion verworlds. orthoseworriedy hemeta-physicaltrangenessr excess fpossibleworlds,I say hat se of hismachineryoexpressmodalnotions oes notrequire s to believe nthere-ality fpossibleworlds; amdoing t thiswaybecausetprovidesclear haracterizationf hecrucial ifferencesetweenertain ersionsf hehistoricalheory.owe have:(Ico) For llco,omethings red n offt ppearsinco o be red onormalubjectsnder or-mal onditions,where o angesverworlds.his, f ourse,akesus no closer o a noncircularefinition.Supposewe form list, ,of ll the hingshatactually ave,do,or will ppearred to normalsubjectsnnormal onditions. e thenay:(lcoL) For all co, omethings red n co ff t isnamed nL.

It s mportanto ee thathe ist sexactlyhat:just list f tems.t doesnot ell s, or xample,that these re the hingshat rered, or henwe wouldnothavegot way rom he ircularityof Ico).The ist pecifiescertain et- he etofthings hichre ctuallyed-by pecifyingts x-tension.t s that xtensionalpecificationhichappears ntheright-handide RHS) of lcoL).Wemay aythat lcoL) employs techniquefcollapse: he ntensionn theRHS of Ico)col-lapses,n lcoL), nto nextension,ettingid fthe ircularity.

We couldnever, fcourse, opefor defi-nitionlong hese inesbecausewe couldneverformulatehe ist.But even s formulatedyanomniscienteing,lcoL)would e a hopeless ef-inition.tsays hat xactlyhe ame hingsreredin very orld,amely,he hingsnthe ist.lcoL)ismaximallyarochial:tpurportsotell s aboutthecircumstancesnderwhich hings ouldbered and endsup claiminghat, owever ircum-stances ary rom hose nthe ctualworld,hedistributionfredness emainshe ame.III. A PURPORTEDLY NECESSARY BICONDITIONALABOUT ARTAs Levinson riginallytated t informally,isview sthat a work f rt s a thingntendedorregard-as-a-work-of-art;egardn ny f hewaysworks f rt xistingrioro thavebeen orrectlyregarded. 8e has gooddealto ay boutwhensomethingounts shavingeen ntended or e-gard nanyofthewayspriorworks ave beencorrectlyegarded,eekingo avoid bjectionsohis account ased on unclaritiesoncerninghatnotion. amgoing o assume hat his s an en-tirely nproblematicotion,o I willnotreviewany fLevinson's laborationsn this-xcept onote hat e wants s to understandhis elationtransparently:omethingountss art o ong s tis ntendedor egardnwayR,andRhappensobe a waynwhich ome riorrtwas orrectlye-garded,rrespectivefwhetherhe ntendernewthis obe so.Also, tmayhappen hat he rtistintendshework or egardnwayRi,where iis anacceptedway fregardingrt.And aterwecome o ee that heworkanusefullyeregardedinwayR2,where 2 s not yet) nacceptedwayofregardingrt.And later till, ecauseof theattentionaidto thework, 2maybecome naccepted orm f rt-regarding.nthatway,whatcountssa legitimateay fregardingomethingas art hangesver ime.Bearinghisnmind,etusexpress evinson'stheorynthisway:(2) Somethings artfft s ntendedor egardssomepriorrtwascorrectlyegarded.9What sthemodal tatusf 2)?Art as, ccordingto Levinson,n essential istoricity,nd that



4/8

CurrieActual rt, ossible rt,ndArt's efinition 237iscertainlyequiredfhe is to tellus somethingabout rt's ature.10hat heways ppropriateoregardingrtworkst a given ime nclude hoseappropriateoregardingrt t earlier imesmustbe a fact bout rt nanycircumstances,ctualor not.As before, willusequantificationverworldsoexpresshis:(2co)For allco, omethings art nco ff t s in-tendedor egardn o s some riorrtwascorrectlyegardednco.Accordingo 2co),n whateverircumstanceswe have rt,we have omethingntended or e-gard n thewaythat rior rtwascorrectlye-gardednthose ircumstances.Considereds adefinition,2co)s ircularn heway hatIco) s.This oesnotmakeIco)useless.tmighttill ean mportantlaimbout henatureof rt,s Ico)may ean mportantlaim bout henature f olor.And f he rojects a metaphysi-caloneratherhannattemptogive hemeaningof art' n othererms,hy otbe content ithclaimwhich isplayssoit sclaimed)rt's eflex-iveessence?11utLevinsonoes o considerablelengthsoprovideswith noncircularefinition,apparentlyn the roundshat hat swhat ome-onewhowants oknow hemeaningf art' s

entitledo.Atthis ointhemetaphysicalrojecthas taken n a semanticimension.n linewithmy arlier esolution,will ontinueo treathisas anexclusively etaphysicalssue,whichnpartitsurelys. I now askwhetherhepurportedlynoncircularefinitionevinson ivessadequateas an accountf henaturef rt.Levinson'sesponseo he ircularitybjectionis a shiftarallel o the hift romIco)to icoL).He suggestshat2co)be reformulatedn a waywhichpecifies hat t takes obe artnow, otintermsfwhatspriorrt, ut implyyrefer-ence o a list fregards,amely,hosewhich,samatterffact, avebeen, pto this oint,egiti-mateways fregardingrt.As Levinson uts t,his ccounts not ircularecause Whattdoesis definehe oncept: eingrt t a given ime yreferenceo the ctual ody f hingshat re artpriorothat ime - ogether,e shoulddd,withthe ist fwayshesehingsctually ere roperlyregarded.12lsewhereesays,the oncretethatis the ctual] istoryf rt s ogicallymplicatedin heway he onceptrt perates. 13o nowwehave:

(2coL)For all co, omethings art n co fft isintendedor egardn ononeof hewaysonL,where issimplyhe ist f ctualwayswehaveofregardingrt.14IV. TIME AND COMMUNITYWe must dd two hingso (2coL) fwehopetoexpresshenotionwhich evinsonsattemptingtocapture. irst, e do not count omethingsartwhen t sputforwardt time for egardnsomewaythat s theregardntended or omeother hingsnthe amecommunity,utonly tsome time ater han ;thatwouldmake ome-thing'status s artnowdepend n futureontin-gencies.heregardselevantt t have obe thoseacknowledgedrior o t.Secondly,worldmaycontain istinct,ven solated rtisticommuni-ties; world s ust oobig nentityo suit ll thecomparisonse needto make.Buta communityis notust bit f world.t s a transworldntity,forwe can think boutthe samecommunityndistinctircumstances.o ifK is a community,ecanspeak boutwhat shappeningotmerelynK,but n K-in-world-W.akinghese wo hingsinto ccount, e have:(2coLTK)or allco, ,k, omethings art nco t rfor -in-cofft s made nK-in-cotr, ndintended or egard y tsmakernoneof heways nL


5/8

238 TheJournalfAestheticsndArtCriticismof ome lien ociety epend n ourown rthis-tory,fwhichheymay now othing.nrespond-ingto suchobjections,evinson asurged hatheis not ttemptingo define he oncept f artingeneral, ut rather heconcept f artwhichwe haveat a given ime.He says hat the on-cept f rthascertainlyhangedver ime... Itisthusworthmphasising thatmy nalysissaimedust tcapturinghat he onceptf rt satpresent. 15urther,insofarsanythingutsideour rt raditionsproperlyaidto fall nder urconceptf rt,t s becausewe canappropriatelyrelatet to ourtraditionfart, nd nparticularto thenormativeegardshathave, s a contin-gentmatter ffact,mergednthat radition. 16This uggestshatweshould ut side rt ndfo-cus on art-for-us-now.y (double) nstantiationon 2coLXK)eget(2&>Lus,now)or llco, omethings art nco or snow fft s ntendedor egard y tsmaker none of thewaysL that savailable ow,whereus' and 'now' are rigiddesignatorsfcommunitiesndtimes: urcommunitynd thepresentime.I accept, or he sake of theargument,hat(2coLusnow)icksout a legitimateategoryfthings:he hingshat re rt or snow. etus ay(again, or he ake ofthe rgument)hat ome-one whounderstandsndaccepts2&>Lus,nOw)asan adequate oncept fart-for-us-now.o theytherebyave a concept f art nythingiketheonepeople ctually peratewith?No. The con-ceptofart-for-us-nows not theconcept f artthatwe now peratewith. et meexplain.Supposewesay:(3) Forall co, omethings nowtall n co fft snow fheight reaterhan nco,where is someparticulareight,ayS'IO , heheightbovewhichwe currentlyount maleas tall, nd now rigidlyesignateshepresenttime.Wemightay hat3) defineshe onceptftall-for-us-now.sthat he onceptf allnesshatwenowhave?No.Wenow nderstandhat eopleandthings enerallyre tallwhen heyre aboveaverage eight,hatevereighthat appensobefor he elevantroup tthat ime,ndwhateverthat imes. Weunderstandhat t s contingent

that heightbove5'10 ounts s tall or umanmales tthis ime.Weunderstandhatfhumannutritionalistoryad beendifferentn a certainway-f ome therworld adbeen ctual- henmale bove '9 would e tall.Weunderstandhata womanmay e tallwithouteing ver '10 , ndthat omeonenanotherommunity aybe tallwithouteing allbyour tandards. urpresentunderstandingf tallnessncompasses ossibili-ties hat3) entirelyails orecognize.Turn ow oart. upposewegrant evinson-what s actuallyontroversial-hat urconceptof rt s at easthistoricallyonstrained:rant,notherwords,hat t s anessential act bout rtthatwe udge urrentampleso be art nthe a-sis oftheir elationso ourpast rtisticractice.Justs werecognizehe ariabilityf he elevantstandards or allness, e are able to recognizethe ariabilityf he elevanttandardor rt.Weare abletorecognizehat he orrect ay o de-cidewhetherome tem fMartian are s art stocomparehe ntentionsehindtsmaking iththeways fregardingvailablentheprior is-tory f Martianulturend to see that twouldbe a mistake osay hat hese hingsre art nlyif ntended or egardn omeway anctionedyus.11We cansee,additionally,hatfour rthis-tory adbeendifferent,nddifferenttandardsofregard adbeen anctionedy t, hen ur ur-rent tandards orudging hings utforwardsartnowwould edifferent.e cansee thatwhatis tocount s art nthe uture ill epend n theways f egardingvailable ous tthat imen hefuturend notonthose vailable ow.Wecouldnot llow or ny f hese hingsf ur onceptfartwere he nedefinedy 2&>LUSinow).Wheredoes that eaveus? Without reduc-tive efinitionf rt, ertainly.utnot, s I haveemphasized,ithoutomethingorthwhile.on-sider:(2coTK)or llco, ,k, omethings artn o t r forK fft smade nK-in-cotr, nd ntendedfor egardy tsmakernoneof hewaysthat rtproducednK-in-corioro r wasproperlyegarded.This s a circulariconditional,ust spruced-upversion fourearlier2co). ut we have eenthat ircular iconditionalsan be significantn-dicators f thing'sature.2coTK)ighttand san ndicatorf henature f rt, ellings that he



6/8

CurrieActual rt, ossible rt,ndArt's efinition 239factsbout hewaysnwhichomethingowmaybeput orwards art annot utrunhe actsbouttheways fregardingppropriateoprior rt.18That his s so is an nterestinglaimwhich ouldsurvivehe ailure f nattemptt reductiveef-inition. heremay e other easons or egardingit sfalse, ut heyrenotmy oncern.VI. GIVING DUE WEIGHT TO THE ACTUALThis snot uite he nd f he ebate. historicaltheorist ightgree hat he efinitionalroposal(2&>LUSnow)ies heconcept f art oorigidlyothe ctual istoryf rt. till,hemightay,hereissomethingn the dea of connectionetweenart's ature nd he ctual istoryf rt.Our on-cept f rt,he ays,sonewhichs to ome egreetied othehistoryf artweactually ave,withthosegnorantf hat istorysinghe ermart'deferentially,s most f us use elm' and othernatural ind erms.19o that xtent,rt s some-whatdifferentrom allness; ifferentnough,anyway,o underminehe laimed arallelismx-ploited bove. 2LUSinOw)s too parochial,ut(2coXK)s toocosmopolitan. hatwe want s anaccount f art'snaturewhich llowsfor omecounterfactualariationnart'shistory,utnotfor heunlimitedmountnjoyed y thingsiketallness.With his dea nmind, e shouldmoventwostages. he firsts togive purely eneralhar-acterizationf a historicalractice f regarding.Such practices onewhere tems elong o thecurrenttage f hepracticenvirtue fbeingn-tended or egardnways hat revioustems nthepractice ere. uchpractices ay e ofmanykinds,ince n no one's ccountre llways f e-gardingocount s artisticays fregarding.hesecond tage s to specifyhosehistoricalrac-tices fregarding,ctual ndpossible, hich reto count s artistic,nd hence spractices hereitems elongingothe racticereworks f rtnthehistoricalense. othis ndwemay ay:(4) A historicalracticefregardings artisticif t s a historicalracticefregardinghatis sufficientlyimilar o actual rt-historicalpractice.

Degree of similarityetween actual art-historicalracticend someother andidate rt-

historicalractice,, is to be measured ythedegree foverlap etween hekinds fregardson the istL and thekinds fregardsnplay nP. If theoverlap s complete,here s no diffi-cultyncounting as an art-historicalractice.Iftheoverlaps null, here re no groundsorregardingas an art-historicalractice.What sit for historicalracticeooverlap ufficientlywith ur actual rt-historicalractice? do notknow, ut do notbelieve hat his reates nyserious ifficultyor heproposal,ust s thefactthat do notknow owmuch air omeonemustlosetocounts bald hows hat here reno baldpeople.We redealing ithomethingssentiallyvague ndperhapsontestable.eoplewho greetotakethis pproacho the dea of a historicaldefinitionf rtmustxpecto face ases hey onotknow ow oclassifyndperhapsodisagreeabout aseswithouthere eingnyway vailablewithinhe esourcesf hehistoricalheoryrper-hapsanywherelse to decidewho sright.hatsort fvaguenessnd rresolvableisagreementsurely ervades urordinaryhinkingbout rtitself.Still, am not confidenthat his pproach,basedon theoverlap f two ists fregards, illdeliver hegoods.First fall, tdepends n re-solving dispute etween wodifferentccountsof our ntuitiveesponseso cases of alien rtin a certainway- disputewhich trikesme ashard o settle. he historicalheoristlaims hatwe ntuitivelyecognizelimitedegreefdepen-dence nactualitynthenaturef rt tself. hysaythis,ather han ayinghatwe are too muchdependentnactuality,ndourexperiencef t,for urknowledgefwhetheromethinglaimedtobe art sor snot rt?Whyan tnot e, notherwords,hatwe have modallylexibleonceptfart-2o)TK)-ndmuchessflexible ays fknow-ingwhetheromethings art rnot? hehistoricaltheoristwes s reason orhinkinghatt s rt'snature hichsdependenttoadegree) n actual-ity atherhan he ualityf urudgmentsboutwhats art.Let us make his littlemore oncrete.up-pose, nthe piritf xperimentalhilosophy,ecomeupwithweird asesof ommunitiesf lienbeings hohave raditionshichnvolveatternsof egardinghings hich ave ittle rnooverlapwith atternsfregardhatwe are used toap-plyingo the hings erecognizes art.Assumethat,fwe asksubjectsn theexperiment,Are



7/8

240 TheJournalfAestheticsndArtCriticismthese hings orks f rt? heywill ayno.Thatcould e for ither f wo easons.t couldbe be-causethey ave a concept f art hat ells hemthat hese hingsrecontraryo thenature f rt.Or t ould ebecause hey implyhink, rongly,that hese hingsre not rt.Youmightaythatthe xperiments nfact ecisive,ecause heresno ndependenteason or hinkinghat ubjectswouldgive factually rongnswer. ut thereis.Notoriously,eoplemake ategoryudgmentsaccordingo theprototypicaleaturesisplayedby timuli,udginghingshat o not ook ikefa-miliaramples fwater ot o bewater,ndnotsaying hingsike Well,t doesn't ook ikewa-ter, utwhethert s ornotdependsn tshiddenessence. ndthis oldsnot nly fnatural indterms.f show ou omethinghat ooksnothinglikeany arburetorouhave ever een and askyouwhethert sone, fullyxpect ouwill ayno, ven houghnfact t s a carburetor,avingbeenverynnovativelyesignedo fit hefunc-tional oledefinitivefcarburetors,ndyouun-derstandhat arburetorsrefunctionalbjects.Similarly,tcouldbethat eoplewilludge heseweirdbjectsonot eart implyecause hey onot ooksufficientlyimilar ofamiliar orks fart,ndnot ecause hey ave restrictivender-standingf rt's ature.do not espairf indingways o test etweenhese wohypothesesboutthe xtent fcounterfactualariationnart, utI cannot eewhere,nadvance fserious xper-imental ork, historicalheorist ould ettheconfidenceocomedown n onesideratherhanthe ther.Here sanothereason or oubtinghe ccept-abilityf 4). Imagine historicalracticefre-garding,,which tartsff retty uch s our rt-historicalracticefregardingid howeverhatwas),butthereafterivergesn such way hatthe ist f egardsssociated ith hat racticeasminimalverlapwith . P might avea historywhichmakes he emporalhiftnways fregard-ingwithinhat ractice erfectlyntelligibles anartisticractice: emight e able to providenarrative hichinkshe tages fP in uch waythat achchangenregards an ntelligibleesultof a response ysomepractitionero thekindsofregards reviouslyvailable. ach changenthepracticeakes tfurtherway romhe ctualart-historicalractice e re upposedomeasureitagainst,ut achchange,onsideredn ts wnterms,eems ike perfectlyegitimate,erhaps

evenhighlyreative,rtistic ove.20 obert oz-ick nce rguedhat currentistributions ust fit s obtained rom justdistributiony hanges,eachofwhichs ust.21takeno view n whetherNozick's rinciplesright.ut am uggestinghata historicalheoristughtoaccept nanalogousprinciple:hat currentracticefregardingsartisticf t sobtained romn artisticracticefregardingy hanges,achofwhichs ntelligibleas an artisticesponseo that rior ractice.In the face of suchan objection,he histori-cal theoristouldmoveup a level: eplacing,rsupplementing,mphasis n overlapnways fregarding ith mphasis n overlapnways fshiftingetweenways fregarding. historicalpracticefregardingould hen e artistico theextenthat tsways f hiftingetween ays f e-gardingverlapwithheways xemplifiednourown arthistory.r perhaps measure fartis-ticness ould egiven y omeweightedverageofthese wokinds foverlap. leave topenasto whetheristoricalheoristsillbe able to de-velopthis uggestion.fthey renot, r iftheyareunable oresolven heirwn avor he hoicebetweenompetingxplanationsf ur ntuitionsaboutwhatspossiblert, invitehem ofall ackto 2coXK)nd o laim hatt ffersn lluminating,ifnonreductive,hesisbout henature f rt.22GREGORY CURRIEDepartment fPhilosophyUniversityfNottinghamNottingham G7 2RDUnitedKingdominternet:[email protected]

1. DefiningArtHistorically, he British ournal fAesthetics9 (1979):232-250; Refining rtHistorically,TheJournalfAestheticsndArtCriticism7 1989):21-33,bothreprintednJerroldevinson,Music,Art nd Meta-physics,nd d. Oxford niversityress, 006); ExtendingArtHistorically, heJournalfAestheticsndArt riticism51 1993):411^23, reprintednThePleasures fAesthetics(CornellUniversityress, 996); The rreducible istori-cality f theConcept fArt, The British ournalfAes-thetics 2 (2002):367-379, eprintednContemplatingrt(Oxford niversityress, 006).Referenceshroughoutretothereprints.In formulating y objection o Levinson's roposal,amdrawing eavily n theobjections f a number f au-thors: tephen avies,BerysGaut,GrahamOppy,RobertStecker, nd others.My contributions at mostone ofoverall larification.or a comprehensiveibliographyf



8/8

CurrieActual rt, ossible rt,ndArt's efinition 241contributionso thedebate, ogether ith he ocations fLevinson's arious eplies,ee his The rreducible istori-cality f heConcept fArt.2. For xample, ames . Carneyn Defining rt, TheBritish ournalfAesthetics5 (1975): 191-206; What sa Work f Art? JournalfAestheticducation 6 1982):85-92; DefiningArtExternally, he British ournal fAesthetics4 (1994): 114-123; nd Nol Carroll n His-toricalNarrativesnd thePhilosophyfArt, TheJour-nal of Aestheticsnd ArtCriticism1 (1993): 313-326,reprintednNolCarroll, eyondAestheticsOxfordUni-versityress, 001);see also other ssays nPart I ofthatvolume.3. In a recent ssay, evinson efers o his account sthe ort fcomplete efinitionf art am inclined o fa-vor The rreducible istoricalityf heConcept fArt,p.13).4. Levinson ecently ejected n attemptfmy wntoformulatet. See my A Note on Art nd Historical on-cepts, heBritish ournalfAesthetics0 2000):186-190,andLevinson's eplyn The rreducible istoricalityf heConcept fArt, p.22-25.5. Introducingistheory,evinson aid, What s theartness f nartwork? herein oes treside? DefiningArtHistorically, .3). But see below, ote11, nd accom-panyingndfollowingext.6. I do notclaim, nd do not need toclaim, hat ame-ness of ntuition akesfor ameness fconcept. also donot claim hat his s anything ore hanone way, sefulincertain ircumstances,odistinguishhosemental om-petencieswhich ave omerighto be thoughtonceptual.I do not laim hat ther heories fconcepts ndconceptpossession,f which here reradically ifferentarieties,arewrong.7. At east, tcan be interpretedhisway, ather han sa statemento the ffecthat heperceptualensitivitiesfnormal ubjectsn normal onditionsrack hefacts boutcolor. or n ntroductiono he omplexssues aised y hisdistinction,ee,for xample, rispinWright,Realism: heContemporaryebate-W(h)itherNow, ndMarkJohn-ston, Objectivityefigured: ragmatismithout erifica-tionism, othnReality,epresentationndProjection,d.John aldane ndCrispinWrightOxford niversityress,1993), p.63-84 nd85-130, espectively.8. Levinson,Defining rtHistorically, . 6. A state-ment oughlyquivalento this sgivenn Levinson's TheIrreducible istoricalityf heConcept fArt, .6.9. Levinsonwarnsus that, ecauseof theproblem frevolutionaryrt,wemay ave ovaryhe ight-handideof(2) along hese ines: X is ntended or egardssomeprior'artwascorrectlyegardedr n someotherway ncontrastto and against hebackgroundf thoseways DefiningArtHistorically, . 17). For the sake ofsimplicitywillignorehis.10. Levinson,Defining rtHistorically, .4.11. Atpp.14-15of Defining rtHistorically, evin-sonmanifests,believe,omeuncertaintys towhetherndif so in whatrespect hecircularitybjection eally s an

objection o hisproject.He says hat to eliminate his e-flexivityould e to visceratehe ermart,' ut oeson toclaim hat hedefinitione offers oes eliminateeflexivity.12. Levinson,Defining rtHistorically, . 14.13. Levinson,The rreducible istoricalityf heCon-cent fArt. d. 24. emohasis dded.14. There reotherways o nterprethat evinsonaysabout his. ne stotake he se of actual' n actual ody fthingshat re art s logically edundant ut heremerelyfor mphasis.hatwould e to ay,n ffect,hatwhat eter-mineswhetheromethingsartnow n a worldWdependsontheprior istoryf art n W- W being he ctualworldfrom hepoint fviewofW itself. his would amount ogoing ack to the ircular3ct>). lternatively,e couldun-derstandhe roposaln hisway:nstead f hinkingf achpossible ituation s given y possibleworld,we think fpossibilitiessgiven y choice fone world s counterfac-tual ndanother s actual. n thatwaywe can think boutwhatwouldbe art na givencounterfactual)orldf omeotherworldwere the actualworld, ndwewouldgetdif-ferentnswers o thequestion, What s art n worldW?dependingn the hoicewemake boutwhich therworld sactual.This mounts otreatingevinson's roposalwithinwhat s called wo-dimensionalemantics.heprospectsorsuch n approachwerediscussed n thepapersreferredoinnote4 above. While continue obelieve hat he two-dimensionalpproach o this ssuehasmerit,tdoesnot,think,ffernyroute o thekind f noncircularefinitionof rt hat evinsonwants. o for resent urposeswe neednot onsidert.15. Levinson,Defining rtHistorically, .23.16. Levinson, The Irreducible istoricityfthe Con-cept fArt, .21. The firstmphasiss mine.17. This seems to be acknowledged yLevinson,whoapproves very lear statement f theposition oncern-ingMartian rtgivenbyStecker. ee Levinson, The Ir-reducibleHistoricalityf theConcept fArt, p. 373n20,quoting rom obert tecker, rtworks:efinition, ean-ing, Value (Pennsylvania tate University ress,1997),p.108.18. Here adapt formulationf MarkJohnston'son-cerningolor Objectivity efigured: ragmatismithoutVerificationism,. 106).19. I am not uggestinghatart' s a natural ind erm:merelyhat t s a term seddeferentially,s natural indterms re.20. I am ndebted ere o Nol Carroll's dea that ateractivityounts s artisticf here s a narrative hich ntel-ligiblyinks t to earlier rtisticracticesnd nthe ight fwhichhe ater ctivityanbeseen s a responseoproblemsintrinsico the earlier rtisticractice. arroll mphasizesthat e snot fferingdefinitionf rt. ee his HistoricalNarrativesnd thePhilosophyfArt.21 See RobertNozick, narchy,tate,ndUtopia NewYork:BasicBooks,1974), .151.22. I amgratefuloJerryevinson or ommentsn anearlier ndsignificantlyifferentersion fthis rticle,ndfor suggestionbout he itle.

This content downloaded from 182.185.224.57 on Tue, 1 Apr 2014 03:11:54 AM
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

Documents

Actual Art, Possible Art, and Art's Definition.pdf