Weitz looks at art the same way that Wittgenstein looks at language, that is, in terms of "family relationships." They say that these categories have no solidly defining traits, that there is no one trait or set of traits that links the parts of these categories. Instead, they say, the components of these categories are linked by family relationships.
I find it tempting to accept this explanation--we haven't collectively come up with a definition of art yet, and all of the different essays argue rather different and sometimes conflicting points (with varying degrees of finesse). Maybe there isn't even one trait that all works of art share. With all of art's categories and subcategories, it is easy to be overwhelmed. However, it seems that art should have a definition, otherwise it becomes this unexplainable force, something practically omnipotent.
To some, like Bell, it may well be omnipotent. To others, like Dewey, it may be ordinary but also the work of a Creator or nature itself. But I think that, while that art is undeniably powerful, it is not beyond our grasp.
No comments:
Post a Comment