According to Weitz a Game Is a Work of Art

As we motility closer to mail-mod thought we find that philosophers, aestheticians and others shift in how to grapple with the "Fine art Question." The search for an essential quality that all works of art share and that tin thus be used as a benchmark to determine what is art and what is non, seems more and more than outdated to thinkers in the 40's and 50'due south, and while the quondam concepts of universal beauty even so dominate in nearly circles, some people are commencement to question this. Thinkers such as Paul Ziff and Morris Weitz are inspired by Ludwig Wittgenstein's anti-essentialist ideas, best exemplified in his concept of family resemblances.

Therefore, in society to employ Weitz application of family unit resemblances to art, we must first explain Wittgenstein'south original concept. Wittgenstein concerned himself with language and the absolutist thought it promotes and is oft not questioned. He argues information technology is impossible to define certain concepts admittedly and vastly enough to cover every single instance of the concept that is being defined. The consequence of this is the use of abstraction which is used to derive essences, but the lack of a single common feature defeats this way of thinking.

Instead, Wittgenstein proposes an culling form of thinking, where instead what is attempted is to find similarities between every instance of a concept. To achieve this he uses the concept of "game" to illustrate both the failures and the way out of an essentialist definition.

For case, some types of games include: card games, soccer, tick tac toe, and a child playing with dolls. With these games in listen, lets wait at the Merrian-Webster definition of game:

1. ane a(1) :  activeness engaged in for diversion or amusement:  play (2) :  the equipment for a gameb :  often derisive or mocking jesting:  fun, sport<brandgame of a nervous player>

2. 2 a :  a procedure or strategy for gaining an stop:  tacticb :  an illegal or shady scheme or maneuver:  racket

3. 3 a(1) :  a physical or mental competition conducted according to rules with the participants in direct opposition to each other(2) :  a partition of a larger contest(3) :  the number of points necessary to win(4) :  points scored in sure card games (as in all fours) by a player whose cards count up the highest(5) :  the fashion of playing in a contest(6) :  the set of rules governing a game(7) :  a particular aspect or stage of play in a game or sport<a football team's kickinggame> b plural :  organized athleticsc(1) :  a field of gainful action:  line<the newspapergame> (2) :  any activity undertaken or regarded as a contest involving rivalry, strategy, or struggle<the datinggame><thegame of politics>;also :  the course or flow of such an activity<got into aviation early on in thegame> (3) :  area of expertise:  specialty 3<comedy is non mygame>

4. 4 a(1) :  animals under pursuit or taken in hunting;especially :  wild animals hunted for sport or food(two) :  the flesh of game animalsb primitive :  pluckc :  a target or object peculiarly of ridicule or attack —often used in the phrasefair game

Off hand we can dismiss the second and 4th definitions as they practise not refer to the types of games we are talking most, one refers to a criminal activity and the other refers to hunting animals. And so we are left with the following 2 definitions and their extended clauses.

• 1 a(i):  activity engaged in for diversion or entertainment:  play(2):  the equipment for a gameb:  frequently derisive or mocking jesting:  fun, sport<makegame of a nervous actor>

• three a(one):  a concrete or mental contest conducted according to rules with the participants in direct opposition to each other(2):  a division of a larger competition(3):  the number of points necessary to win(4):  points scored in certain bill of fare games (as in all fours) by a player whose cards count up the highest(five):  the manner of playing in a contest(vi):  the set of rules governing a game(7):  a particular aspect or phase of play in a game or sport<a football squad'southward kickinggame> bplural:  organized athleticsc(1):  a field of gainful activeness:  line<the newspapergame>(two):  any activeness undertaken or regarded as a contest involving rivalry, strategy, or struggle<the datinggame><thegame of politics>;besides:  the course or catamenia of such an action<got into aviation early in thegame>(3):  surface area of expertise:  specialty 3<comedy is not mygame>

The kickoff definitions argues it is an "activity engaged in for diversion or amusement" and then within in we tin fit several of our previous examples within in: card games, soccer, tick tac toe, and a child playing with dolls. Immediately questions arise that complicate the definition and forcefulness it to aggrandize into the third part of the definition. I could argue soccer can exist skillful not for diversion or amusement as in the case of professional soccer players or professional person gamblers. So while we actively refer to a soccer game equally a game, it is very probable that certain individuals inside the field of professional soccer would balk at the thought of it existence a mere diversion or amusement as their livelihoods depend upon information technology. And then the definition proves inadequate equally in dissimilar contexts the game of soccer transitions into "a physical or mental contest…" And all the same again this complicates the definition even more as ane could contend a weightlifting competition matches this definition, and even the offset one, yet it is widely accepted that weightlifting is a sport, not a game. These linguistic games (here is that word again) can continue forever and serve to illustrate the fact that there is no essential quality that helps ascertain what is a game. Instead it shows u.s. that our construction of what a game is, hinges on certain similar qualities shared by all activities we consider games.

Wittgenstein calls these similar qualities family resemblances, and explains them in the following way

"I can think of no improve expression to characterize these similarities than "family resemblances"; for the various resemblances between members of a family: build, features, colour of eyes, gait, temperament, etc. etc. overlap and criss-cross in the same mode."Philosophical Investigations §65-71

And but like these family resemblances are non shared equally across the board, nosotros can do the same with linguistic families. Lets say for example that we have a family (F) and a certain number of characteristics (a, b, c, d, e, f, g) these can be combined and overlapped in a series of ways, and yet all are members of the family unit. In graphical grade we could graph it in the following way:

F I         a, b, c, d

F II        b, c, d, eastward

F Three      c, d, e , f

F 4      a, c, east, k

While the characteristics between F I and F IV are express, they are withal shared between them and other members of the family unit and if we were to add together a "F V 1000," it would nevertheless share a family resemblance through the "g" feature.

Weitz believed he could utilize the same process to art and in such way he could go past definitions as art as a term is an open concept and the very act of defining art constrains inventiveness. An obvious question arises from this:  Why would a definition limit creativity? The answer is uncomplicated, if we define art as paintings, sculptures and illustrations, nosotros limit the avenues of creative expression by excluding anything that does not fall within these categories. In effect we would be excluding functioning, theatre, mix media, digital fine art, and whatever else our successors might think of using to create art.  By creating an open undefined concept, we invite artists to experiment in order to challenge what nosotros call up we know about art.

By freeing art of any theoretical limitations, Weitz hopes to create an art earth where the artist tin can create without worrying about whether their creation falls inside the accustomed forms art might take and instead focus on the cosmos of original pieces. An case of such freedom can be plant in works such equally Blendie (2003-2004) by Kelly Dobson or the multiple works of Pippin Barr.

In Dobson's case, the work of art does not reside in the object (in effect any blender tin be modified to perform the exact same actions) but in the communication occurring between human and hardware through wetware and software. If we were to employ a definition that limits art to specific methods of cosmos, Blendie would struggle to notice a fixed position in between functioning, sculpture, constitute object, intervention, interactive art and kinetic art (I might have missed a few adjectives), under Weitz' estimation notwithstanding, Blendie is art. This epistemological freedom allows the piece of work to be taken every bit is with no demands for it to cover an indefinite checklist in gild to be considered fine art.

Marcel Duchamp, Rotary Glass Plates, 1920.

Even more poignantly, Pippin Barr'due south work, would unremarkably be defined as video games, however that is not their sole or defining reason to exist. Barr's works question the art world at the aforementioned time they fit inside the ideals of Fluxus and Dada, playful but questioning and critical of both the fine art world and its rules and of video games themselves. Sometimes it seems like Barr veers abroad from "fun" on purpose in order to challenge the idea that video games accept to be a chase for points or a bodycount. Critics like Jonathan Jones and Sieskel Ebert have constantly come against video games for being interactive works of art and subverting authorial intent. This criticism rings hollow if we take into account the fact that "interactive" art has existed at least since Duchamp'south Rotary Glass Plates (1920) if not way earlier with a work past Parrhasius of Ephesus (5th century B.C.) nevertheless none of his work survives to this day. Not only does interactive art already exist earlier Barr, but the idea of lack of authorial control tin can be plant in Fluxus' Art Boxes, too as Marina Abramovics' Rhythm 0. Instead what those criticisms highlight is the dogmatic effect of definitions, since the object tin't be easily fit inside the existing definition, it about probably does not belong in the definition. Weitz' familiar resemblances theory sidesteps the entire debate by drawing comparisons like I did to preexisting works that share characteristics to Barr's work.

Unfortunately, not everything is perfect with the theory. Several criticisms exist, that stem from the circular nature of the "definition" of works as art, to the credence of way too much into canon and even uncertainty as to the necessity of being gratuitous of limitations or novelty itself.

In terms of naming things as fine art, the definition allows us to induct new works into catechism past comparing them to other like works, all the same information technology does null to analyze what art is. If nosotros were to describe this arrangement of family resemblances, what are the Adam and Eve of fine art, is at that place a slice of Ur-art that encompasses all fine art? A form of genetic predecesor that by definition would hold all the characteristics of art seems absurd and poses a philosophical question that we can never discover an reply to. Keeping in mind that what contemporary western thought holds every bit art is definitely non the same as what other gimmicky cultures values, or even what renaissance artists would recognize, information technology is hard to say this theory solves the problem of what is art. It works for now in a express manner simply it definitely would not piece of work in medieval times and it might not work in the futurity.

As I previously mentioned, the risk with family resemblances involves it allowing too much into the category of art, equally annihilation that shares some qualities could aspire to be chosen art, all it takes is for someone to make a instance for it. A very good example happened a few years ago when Wren Studio a Los Angeles based womenswear brand released the video "Get-go Kiss."

This video fooled a large amount of people (I include myself) into assertive it was a work of art (Lets call this art historical ingenuity and lack of experience) until it was revealed it was a staged shoot.  Until the reveal pop media and some of us were admittedly willing to grade it as an artistic creation, later all information technology ticked a lot of the superficial markers of fine art. It was only when information technology was revealed that it was a publicity stunt that it lost the "art aura." This case highlights how easy it can be to induct and dismiss works under this theory, nosotros can conscript it when we believe information technology is an honest work, yet we dismiss information technology when it becomes articulate information technology is comercial. So far the distinction is clear, fortunately for us, the world is not and so elementary. What happens then with something similar The Godfather or Denizen Kane exist and are recognized as loftier achievements in picture show? Both are honestly creative pieces of work with thought provoking concepts, and yet be every bit mass consumer products. The amount of unfolding necessary to grapple with these works makes Weitz' interpretation unwieldy to say the least.

Finally regardless of what a definition says or what academia and the art world might believe, unlimited unrestrained liberty might does not guarantee novel art. Outstanding works have been created nether truly dictatorial situations, where not merely was there a linguistic barrier, but ideological and fifty-fifty physical ones existed. And so nosotros have the event of novelty, not all great works are novel, and novelty does not signify slap-up piece of work. Therefore the bones justifications for the theory might exist irrelevant in the bodily world where creative person can create either through brake or liberation, through novelty or refinement of previous forms.

In the end Weitz' interpretation serves as a middlepoint between the ideas of Collingwood and Bell and the final theory I volition mention: the institutional theory.

beamanfitte1977.blogspot.com

Source: https://ragc.wordpress.com/2016/07/25/family-resemblances/

Share this post