North American Philosophical Publications Defining Art Author(s): George Dickie Reviewed work(s): Source: American Philosophical Quarterly, Vol. 6, No. 3 (Jul., 1969), pp. 253-256 Published by: University of Illinois Presson behalf of the North American Philosophical Publications Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20009315 . Accessed: 21/11/2012 19:48 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]. . University of Illinois PressandNorth American Philosophical P ublicationsare collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to American Philosophical Quarter ly. http://www.jstor.org
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Defining ArtAuthor(s): George DickieReviewed work(s):Source: American Philosophical Quarterly, Vol. 6, No. 3 (Jul., 1969), pp. 253-256Published by: University of Illinois Press on behalf of the North American Philosophical Publications
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 of
content 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].
.
University of Illinois Press and North American Philosophical Publications are collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to American Philosophical Quarterly.
Morris Weitz has even argued that being an artifactis not a necessary condition for being a work of art.1
More recently, however, Joseph Margolis has
offered a definition2 and Maurice Mandelbaum has
made tentative suggestions about defining "art."3
I shall not repeat the well-known argument of
Weitz, whose views I take to be representative of
those who maintain that "art" cannot be defined,
but shall state his main conclusion and comment on
one of his arguments. Neither shall I repeat the
arguments of Margolis or Mandelbaum, but I do
want to note (i) that they agree that artifactualityis a necessary condition of art, and (2) thatMandel?
baum points out the significance of the non
exhibited characteristics of art for the definition of
"art."
Weitz's main conclusion is that there are no
necessary and sufficient conditions for the definition
of "art" or for any of the subconcepts of art, such
as "novel," "tragedy," "painting,"and so on. All
of these notions are open concepts and their in?
stances have
"family
resemblances."
Weitzrejects artifactuality
as anecessary
con?
dition of art because we sometimes make statements
such as "This driftwood is a lovely piece of sculp?ture."4 We do sometimes speak this way of natural
objects, but nothing follows from this fact. Weitz
is confused because he takes the driftwood remark
to be a descriptive statement and it is not. Weitz
himself, quite correctly, distinguishes between an
evaluative use and adescriptive
use of "work of
art,"5 and once this distinction is understood it
can be seen that the driftwood remark is an evalu?
ation of the driftwood. But it is, of course, the
descriptivesense
of "work of art" which isat
issue
when the question of whether "art" can be defined
is raised. I maintain that the descriptive use of
"work of art" isused to indicate that a thing belongsto a certain category of artifacts. By the way, the
evaluative sense can be applied to artifacts as well
asnonartifacts, as when we
say, "Thatpainting
is
a work of art." Such remarks are not intended as
tautologies.
Before going on to discuss the second condition of
the definition of the descriptive sense of "art," it
will be helpful to distinguish the generic concept of
art from the various subconcepts which fall under
it. It may very well be the case that all or some of
the subconcepts of art, such as novel, tragedy,
ceramics, sculpture, painting,and so on, may lack
necessary and sufficient conditions for their appli?cation as
subconcepts and it still be the case that
"work of art," which is the genus of all these sub
concepts, can be defined. For example, there maynot be any characteristics which all tragedies have
which would distinguish them from comedies, satyr
plays, happenings, and the likewithin the domain of
art. Even if this were the case, in the light of the
foregoing, tragediesand all other works of art
would have at least one characteristic in common,
namely, artifactuality. Perhaps artifactuality and
some one or more other features of works of art
distinguish them from nonart. If all or some of the
subconcepts of art cannot be defined and, as I
think is the case, "art" can be, then Weitz is rightin part.
* * *
Assuming that artifactuality is the genus of art,the differentia is still lacking. This second condition
will bea
social property of art. Furthermore, this
253
1Morris Weitz, "The Role of Theory in Aesthetics," The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, vol. 15 (1956), pp. 27-35;
reprinted in Philosophy Looks at the Arts, ed. by Joseph Margolis (New York, 1962); Paul ZifF, "The Task ofDefining
a
Work of Art," reprinted in Aesthetics and thePhilosophy of Criticism, ed. by Marvin Levich (New York, 1963) ;William Kennick,"Does Traditional Aesthetics Rest on a Mistake," Mind, vol. 66 (1958), pp. 317-334.
2The Language of Art and Art Criticism (Detroit, 1965), pp. 37-47. Margolis' definition is not satisfactory, however; see Andrew
Harrison's review in Philosophical Books, vol. 7 (1966), p. 19.3
"Family Resemblances and Generalization Concerning the Arts," American Philosophical Quarterly, vol. 2 (1965), pp. 219-228.4
Op. cit., p. 57.5
Ibid., p. f\6.
This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.205 on Wed, 21 Nov 2012 19:48:33 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions