Essences, Family Resemblances, and Avant-garde Art.
Art is an expression of an innovative mind. Aesthetics is mostly a matter of delectation, a consideration of how events appear to the senses. However, the importance of aesthetics was primarily challenged by art in the 20th century. Some philosophers claim that traditional aesthetic is only concerned with taste and beauty. The work of art has many qualities that belong to objects materially indiscernible from them but not themselves artworks. Human vision can be discussed from the time of self-creation and self-transformation, which are called cultural evolution. It is essential to differentiate the works of art from natural things to define the appropriate kind of response. This essay will discuss essences, family resemblances, and avant-garde art.
Art is bold, progressive, innovative, and experimental works that push boundaries to create change. Avant-garde is responsible for most of the memorable characteristics of art. However, the use of aesthetic innovation has lead to some misunderstanding and also the rejection of the theory (Weitz 27). The French military first used the term avant-garde, and they were referring to a group of a troop that was carrying out surveillance ahead of the main army. The socialist thinkers later started using it to call for political reforms. A group of artists, scientists, and society leaders used the term to guide people.
Subsequently, many modern movements arouse and started to use the term in their activities. This marked a new revolution for cultural practices because most artists express their traditions through art. The avant-garde art was going against the academic understanding of art, the imposed rules of art, and how art should be produced. Some art would communicate through nudity and even exposed Bible events in a naturalistic manner through paintings and sculptures (link). People who believed in religion and the movements of art were against the artistic works. The cultural revolutions tried to change the perception of the people, but it was still rejected. During the interwar and post-war periods, the movements tried to change the traditional way of looking for art. Some people believed that traditional art was the way to go because it maintained their beliefs and morals.
Nevertheless, some theorists suggested that it is necessary to abandon the traditional perceptive on art and embrace the modernized. The modern art movement is known as impressionism, which broke almost all the major rules and composition nature of art.
The theory of aesthetic defines artworks as artifacts that tries to trigger the aesthetic experiences to consumers. The theory helps in locating art in the lab; thus, helping people to understand the biology behind the art. Formalism, voluntarism, organicism, intellectualism and institutionalism claim that aesthetic theory is true because it gives the real nature of art (Weitz 27). Analyzing the theories can help in coming up with a conclusion about the nature of art. Aesthetic theory had faced both criticism and appreciation when it explained the nature of art. Analyzing the theories mentioned by Weitz is critical to understand the nature of art. The role of theory in aesthetics is mostly objected on three grounds; namely, family resemblance fails as a means for the identification of art, manifest properties as a definition of art, and closed concept of art (Volt 267). The scant summary of Weitz’s work is the one that has brought a lot of criticism to his works.
Moreover, some aestheticians argue that aesthetic theory was not trying to offer an essentialist definition of art. Some theories are inadequate, circular, general, and others have some general principles. This makes it quite hard to understand the theories are defining the properties of art. The theories tend to have the same grammatical form, especially when generalizing art as one or whole. The standard way to view art is through an objective component and a subjective component. The objective part is when art is considered to be beautiful works, and it is independent of a person’s beliefs. On the other hand, the subjective component describes art is inside our minds. Subjectivists and anti-realist believe that aesthetic values are necessary when tied to human judgment.
Nevertheless, aesthetic value is deeply inherent in the object that is being ascribed. Ludwig Wittgenstein developed a theory to describe the work of art because there was a lot of confusion (). The writings were crucial in understanding aesthetic experience, poetry, visual arts, and cultural interpretation. Aesthetics represent a wide field of conceptual inquiries that may be criticized by people. Language plays a big role in how we understand and interpret art. In most cases, most people will describe art as beautiful and quality work. The statement may be used to show personal experiences with art. Wittgenstein went further and criticized those who describe aesthetics as a science and the perspective of understanding aesthetics as a branch of psychology (Mandelbaum 220). Defining art can help in understanding aesthetics, but art is timeless and beyond resolution. However, describing art a slang good, beautiful, or ugly is not enough because it is only focused on a specific group of people. Language use that employs improper contexts and disrespect categories of words may cause philosophical problems.
Morris Weitz derived terms such as a family resemblance, open concept, and game from Wittgenstein’s works. Previously, the words were used with the intent to refute the idea that the task of philosophy I grasp the essence of language (Barroso 3). However, Weitz later denied the idea that art can be described in terms of necessary and sufficient conditions. The concept of the game is necessary because it is used as a paradigm of an open concept. Most sets of games have no common characteristics, which makes it possible to use the concept of the game when there are no sufficient characteristics. There may be similarities between two games or more games but not all games have the same properties. Luck, competition, and entertainment are the most common characteristics shared by several sets of games. These features that are common in several aspects are known as family resemblance. They help incorrect use of the word game, especially when describing art. Compromising situations may arise if we depend on the knowledge of art when describing art. However, the use of family resemblance may be used to describe art because it is easy to get a deeper understanding when we relate to the common games.
Additionally, Weitz does not seek any definition of the essence of art. He rejected the true definition of the properties of art. The concept of the game is raised by Weitz because he claims that aesthetics is the elucidation of the actual employment of the concept of art (Barroso 13). This makes the essentialist theories to be wrong because they highlight necessary conditions and consider art as a close concept. Weitz adapts the game concept, family resemblance, and open concept, which make him have a strong background to reject other theories. The open concept does not allow sufficient conditions to specify certain objects. It is important to note that, it is ridiculous to close the concept of art because it will exclude the notion of creativity in art.
Moreover, the best way to approach art is by describing how we correctly use the word ‘work of art.’ The main purpose of aesthetics is not to seek a theory but to elucidate the concept of art (Weitz 33). Bundles of characteristics ma are used to describe the work of art because they show similarities and differences in art. Therefore, there is no generalization because there is no common feature of all works of art. Weitz argued that we must embrace the new way of embracing art and abandon the traditional project of finding the essence of art. Weitz’s theory can be viewed into two perspectives; being excessive and being confined (Barroso 16). This makes the criteria of recognition have no practical utility, especially in the family resemblance concept. However, inadequacies in research may be solved through further studies and research. Criticizing a theory will not come up with a solution, but will arise more confusion.
Mandelbaum’s arguments were based on the fact that transcendental and pragmatic are distinctive aspects of religion. People who follow on religion have a hierarchical caste system that must be obeyed. Mandelbaum refuted the claims of Weitz and Wittgenstein because he rejected the concept of art and family resemblances (Mandelbaum 221). However, he further admits that closing the concept of art will lead to closing the inherent creativity conditions of art. There is an argument that we obtain specific substantive moral knowledge from art. This makes it difficult to understand the morals behind avant-garde art because some of the works are arguable, not right, despite calls from different theorists to adapt to modern art. Religion was influenced to the way in because some of the Bible verses were highlighted in the art which was provocative. On the other hand, there is an argument that some aspects we encounter in the art can be simulated by the activities we do. Our own reactions will determine how we adopt art whether it is good or bad. Therefore, each person should be careful when dealing with some modern art.
Nevertheless, Weitz formed a counterattack on Mandelbaum to show that family resemblances work. Having an open mind creates an opportunity where the concept of art goes beyond the reliance on family resemblance. In my opinion, the Weitz approach has two risks; the risk of classifying something that does not work of art as work and abandoning some work of art because they do not share some of the characteristics of other works of art. This can make it difficult for for the Weitz approach to be used in avant-garde art. Two risks can be a harmful to the success of modern art. However, religion do not agree with some of the aspects that have been used in avant-garde art. I believe that Mandelbaum’s argument did not succeed because he knew some of the weaknesses in the essentialist theories especially when he argues on the family resemblance. We may see the resemblance in people but we cannot categorize the similarities as famil resemblance. Biological relationship is required in such an instance. He used similarities between games because it is quite easy to visualize and understand what we can see or what we do. Sports are most common and people can relate when discussing about similarities and differences. If artwork has a family resemblance, then there must be a common characteristic. He further argues that a common feature is not physical or visible but it is relational (Hoe, 12). This was one one of the achievement of Mandelbaum as compared to other aestheticians.
Additionally, Mandelbaum was successful because he clearly misrepresented Wittgenstein by saying that there must be a common characteristic in games since they have a family resemblance. Mandelbaum’s argument clearly stated that family resemblance must have biological relations. Most games have some characteristics in common but do not have any relationship. However, art can understood as a form of some relationship.
Conclusion
The avant-garde art of the twentieth century was radically different from the art that had come before it. Adapting to the new art is often faced with several challenges because some people opt the traditional art. Theories that describe art with physical properties are often criticized because they do not explain family resemblance clearly. Morris Weitz’s works are often critized because they did not describe more on relational properties. Mandelbaum’s argument
Works Cited
Barroso, Paulo. “Meaning (de) coding of symbolic experiences.” Proceedings of the Arts, Culture and the Public Sphere–Expressive and Instrumental Values in Economic and Sociological Perspectives (2008), https://repositorio.ipv.pt/bitstream/10400.19/5014/4/article.pdf
Hoe, Lok Chong. “Problems with the Essentialist Definitions and the Institutional Theory of Art.” KEMANUSIAAN: The Asian Journal of Humanities 23.2 (2016), http://web.usm.my/kajh/vol23_2_2016/kajh23022016_02.pdf
Mandelbaum, Maurice. “Family resemblances and generalization concerning the arts.” American Philosophical Quarterly 2.3 (1965): 219-228
Volt, Marek. “Doing Justice to Traditional Aesthetic Theories: Weitz Reconsidered.” Trames 3 (2002): 6. file:///C:/Users/Admin/Downloads/Weitz.pdf
Weitz, Morris. “The role of theory in aesthetics.” The journal of aesthetics and art criticism 15.1 (1956): 27-35.