No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Some Fundamental Features of Major “Revisionary” Aesthetic Theories
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 March 1966
Extract
In the present paper I wish to consider three important features of some or all “revisionary” aesthetic theories, which disqualify them as accounts of the nature of art. By ‘revisionary theory’ I mean a theory which overtly modifies, or altogether abandons, the ordinary meanings of the key terms it utilizes. The Expression theory, Intuitionist theories, Formalist theories and Symbolist theories are some of those I have in mind. There is one extremely important feature which these have in common with practically all other classical and current aesthetic theories, which I shall not consider.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Dialogue: Canadian Philosophical Review / Revue canadienne de philosophie , Volume 4 , Issue 4 , March 1966 , pp. 491 - 505
- Copyright
- Copyright © Canadian Philosophical Association 1966
References
1 In Melvin Rader, A Modern Book Of Esthetics, Third Edition (New York, 1961), pp. 199–208. Reprinted from The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, vol. XV (1956).
2 Cf. O. K. Bouwsma's excellent criticism of the theory in his “The Expression Theory Of Art,” Aesthetics And Language (Oxford, 1954), edited by William Elton, pp. 73–99.
3 For a detailed critical discusion of the Expression theory, see my “The Expression Theory Of Art: A Critical Evaluation,” Journal Of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Spring 1965.
4 “Expressiveness and Symbolism”, in A Modern Book Of Esthetics, p. 249. Reprinted from Problems of Art (1957). Italics in original.
5 Ibid., p. 254.
6 Ibid., p. 255. Italics mine.
7 Ibid., p. 253.
8 See for instance Beryl Lake, “A Study Of The Irrefutability Of Two Aesthetic Theories” in William Elton (Ed.), Aesthetics And Language (Oxford, 1954), pp. 100–113. It is my view that the circularity of Bell's definition of ‘work of art’ is one main reason for the irrefutability of his “theory” of art.
9 However, the new usages of ‘expression’ and ‘expressive’—also ‘express’—given to them by the Expression theory are themselves fast becoming a part of ordinary aesthetic usage. This is a good illustration of how a “theory” may sometimes affect, in one way or another, our everyday ways of talking in some area or other.
10 I say “tended to become” because their authors frequently oscillate between their conscious or unconscious desire to keep them intact in the face of all possible attacks—at the expense of making them irrefutable in principle—and their desire to preserve their alleged empirical character by attempting to support them by argument. (Cf. our later discussion of Croce's definition of art).
11 Rader, Op. cit., p. 63. Italics mine.
12 Ibid., pp. 199–208.
13 Rader, Ibid., p. 207.
14 There are usually all sorts of historical reasons for this in any given period. The redefinitions of'art' that are dominant in a given age or society may reflect the general “climate of opinion” an d the artistic tastes of that period or society. This is well brought out by W. B. Gallie in “Art As An Essentially Contested Concept,” Philosophical Quarterly, vol. 6, No. 23 (April, 1956).
15 O. E. D., meaning (2) of ‘intuition.’ Meanings (1) (a) and (1) (c) are obsolete, and (1) (b) is archaic.
16 “Intuition and Expression,” in Melvin Rader, Op. cit., p. 89. Reprinted from The Breviary of Aesthetics (1913; translated 1915).
17 Ibid. Italics in original.
18 This is particularly interesting because it is the reverse of the familiar “genetic fallacy”; i.e., the attribution to works of art of properties that are thought to belong to the creative act.
19 Ibid., pp. 101–102.
20 Especially as Croce gives what he considers to be empirical arguments in support of the foregoing “views”. An example is found on page 102.
21 “A Study of the Irrefutability of Two Aesthetic Theories,” in Aesthetics and Language, pp. 100–107.
22 In Racier, Op. cit., “The Gap Between Intuition and Expression,” pp. 104–115. Reprinted from Art and Reality (1958).