reply to ryckman.pdf
TRANSCRIPT
8/22/2019 Reply to Ryckman.pdf
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/reply-to-ryckmanpdf 1/2
Reply to Ryckman
Author(s): George DickieSource: The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol. 47, No. 2 (Spring, 1989), p. 177Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of The American Society for AestheticsStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/431831
Accessed: 01/04/2009 15:35
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black .
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
The American Society for Aesthetics and Blackwell Publishing are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism.
http://www.jstor.org
8/22/2019 Reply to Ryckman.pdf
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/reply-to-ryckmanpdf 2/2
Discussioniscussioniscussion
to conceive of examples outside the realm of artwhereunmoved,untouchedobjectsare used to servea
purpose.Hereare three suchexamples.NE8: A says to B, "Note thatpiece of driftwood.
If, whenyoureturn ater oday t is gone, I've
gone to town, and if not, then I've gonesailing." When B returns to find the drift-woodwhere heandA lastsawit, he will havebeen informed hatA hasgone sailing.
NE9: A uses the cliff in NE1 as a marker o thatshe knows whatpartof the beachto return owhen hersailingis over.
NE10: B uses a largemapletree nearthe beach asshade so that he can wait for A without
getting even more sunburned han he al-
ready s.In each of NE8, NE9 and NE10 an untouched,unmovedobjectis usedto serve apurpose.
Of course, since I contendthattheobjects
inNE1throughNE7 and the object in E7 are being used to
serve a purpose, I should be ready to specify that
purpose. Dickie has made this an easy task; for,whereP is thepurposeforwhichtheobjectinE5 wasused, P will do asthepurposeforwhichtheobjects nthe new examples and the object in E7 were used.
Assuming,of course,that heobjectinE5 was usedtoserve a purpose.
Finally,since I holdthat heobjectsin E7 andNE1
throughNE7 are ust as qualifiedforartifactuality stheobjectin E5, Dickiemightdemand hatI saywhat
"complex object" they became as a result of theartists' behavior.
Anyone of the following three"complexobject"typeswill do:1. Workof art.2. Objectregarded orused)as a workof art.3. Objectused to distractorworry philosophersof
art.It seems likely that if the object in E5 is now a
"complexobject,"then it too is a "complexobject"of one of theabove"complexobject"types.
One mightobjectthata crucialelementof Dickie's
analysis of artifactuality s absent from A, that it isnot simply in virtue of being used but in virtue of
being used in some special way that an object quali-
fies as an artifactandcomplexobject.Thisobjectionseems wide of the mark;for Dickie has not told uswhat this special way of using might be, andcareful
to conceive of examples outside the realm of artwhereunmoved,untouchedobjectsare used to servea
purpose.Hereare three suchexamples.NE8: A says to B, "Note thatpiece of driftwood.
If, whenyoureturn ater oday t is gone, I've
gone to town, and if not, then I've gonesailing." When B returns to find the drift-woodwhere heandA lastsawit, he will havebeen informed hatA hasgone sailing.
NE9: A uses the cliff in NE1 as a marker o thatshe knows whatpartof the beachto return owhen hersailingis over.
NE10: B uses a largemapletree nearthe beach asshade so that he can wait for A without
getting even more sunburned han he al-
ready s.In each of NE8, NE9 and NE10 an untouched,unmovedobjectis usedto serve apurpose.
Of course, since I contendthattheobjects
inNE1throughNE7 and the object in E7 are being used to
serve a purpose, I should be ready to specify that
purpose. Dickie has made this an easy task; for,whereP is thepurposeforwhichtheobjectinE5 wasused, P will do asthepurposeforwhichtheobjects nthe new examples and the object in E7 were used.
Assuming,of course,that heobjectinE5 was usedtoserve a purpose.
Finally,since I holdthat heobjectsin E7 andNE1
throughNE7 are ust as qualifiedforartifactuality stheobjectin E5, Dickiemightdemand hatI saywhat
"complex object" they became as a result of theartists' behavior.
Anyone of the following three"complexobject"typeswill do:1. Workof art.2. Objectregarded orused)as a workof art.3. Objectused to distractorworry philosophersof
art.It seems likely that if the object in E5 is now a
"complexobject,"then it too is a "complexobject"of one of theabove"complexobject"types.
One mightobjectthata crucialelementof Dickie's
analysis of artifactuality s absent from A, that it isnot simply in virtue of being used but in virtue of
being used in some special way that an object quali-
fies as an artifactandcomplexobject.Thisobjectionseems wide of the mark;for Dickie has not told uswhat this special way of using might be, andcareful
to conceive of examples outside the realm of artwhereunmoved,untouchedobjectsare used to servea
purpose.Hereare three suchexamples.NE8: A says to B, "Note thatpiece of driftwood.
If, whenyoureturn ater oday t is gone, I've
gone to town, and if not, then I've gonesailing." When B returns to find the drift-woodwhere heandA lastsawit, he will havebeen informed hatA hasgone sailing.
NE9: A uses the cliff in NE1 as a marker o thatshe knows whatpartof the beachto return owhen hersailingis over.
NE10: B uses a largemapletree nearthe beach asshade so that he can wait for A without
getting even more sunburned han he al-
ready s.In each of NE8, NE9 and NE10 an untouched,unmovedobjectis usedto serve apurpose.
Of course, since I contendthattheobjects
inNE1throughNE7 and the object in E7 are being used to
serve a purpose, I should be ready to specify that
purpose. Dickie has made this an easy task; for,whereP is thepurposeforwhichtheobjectinE5 wasused, P will do asthepurposeforwhichtheobjects nthe new examples and the object in E7 were used.
Assuming,of course,that heobjectinE5 was usedtoserve a purpose.
Finally,since I holdthat heobjectsin E7 andNE1
throughNE7 are ust as qualifiedforartifactuality stheobjectin E5, Dickiemightdemand hatI saywhat
"complex object" they became as a result of theartists' behavior.
Anyone of the following three"complexobject"typeswill do:1. Workof art.2. Objectregarded orused)as a workof art.3. Objectused to distractorworry philosophersof
art.It seems likely that if the object in E5 is now a
"complexobject,"then it too is a "complexobject"of one of theabove"complexobject"types.
One mightobjectthata crucialelementof Dickie's
analysis of artifactuality s absent from A, that it isnot simply in virtue of being used but in virtue of
being used in some special way that an object quali-
fies as an artifactandcomplexobject.Thisobjectionseems wide of the mark;for Dickie has not told uswhat this special way of using might be, andcareful
reflectionon E5, E7, and NE1 throughNE7 suggeststhat any attemptto do so would not save Dickie's
analysis. Even if there is a special way of using, theobject in E5 is not used in this special way until it isresting on the wall. It is not at all unreasonable oclaim that the objects in E7 and NE1 throughNE7may be used in exactly the same special way even
though heyare nottransported.Movingandhangingon a wall are not necessary to using in whateverspecial wayDickie mighthave in mind. Moving andhanging are merely ways of making such use moreconvenientandpractical.
I have notargued hat the objectin E7 oranyof the
objects in NE1 throughNE7 are artifacts,but onlythattheyhave ustas mucha claim to artifactualityasthe object in E5. Unless I am mistaken, Dickie'sviews about artifactualityare problematicand weshouldrefrain romacceptingAC.4
THOMAS C. RYCKMAN
LawrenceUniversity
1. George Dickie, The Art Circle (New York:Haven,1984). All quotationsare fromthis work.
2. GeorgeDickie, ArtandtheAesthetic CornellUniver-
sity Press, 1974).3. E7 is myown summaryof anexamplethatDickiecites
throughout he chapterwhere he gives El throughE6. ElthroughE6 arepresentedon pages44 through46.
4. I wish to thankan anonymousJAACeferee forhelpfulcommentson anearlierdraft.
Reply to Ryckman
1. I did not give ananalysis of artifactuality.2. I did not speak in a general way of "used to
serve a purpose" or "the intentionthat it might beused to servea purpose."I spoke in a specific wayofDali's rocks: "The rocks are not altered in any wayby the 'pointingandcalling.' Norare the rocksusedin any way similar to the way in which driftwoodmaybe usedto dig a hole in the sand orthe like orthewayin which Duchampused the famousurinal."
GEORGE DICKIE
Universityof Illinois, Chicago
reflectionon E5, E7, and NE1 throughNE7 suggeststhat any attemptto do so would not save Dickie's
analysis. Even if there is a special way of using, theobject in E5 is not used in this special way until it isresting on the wall. It is not at all unreasonable oclaim that the objects in E7 and NE1 throughNE7may be used in exactly the same special way even
though heyare nottransported.Movingandhangingon a wall are not necessary to using in whateverspecial wayDickie mighthave in mind. Moving andhanging are merely ways of making such use moreconvenientandpractical.
I have notargued hat the objectin E7 oranyof the
objects in NE1 throughNE7 are artifacts,but onlythattheyhave ustas mucha claim to artifactualityasthe object in E5. Unless I am mistaken, Dickie'sviews about artifactualityare problematicand weshouldrefrain romacceptingAC.4
THOMAS C. RYCKMAN
LawrenceUniversity
1. George Dickie, The Art Circle (New York:Haven,1984). All quotationsare fromthis work.
2. GeorgeDickie, ArtandtheAesthetic CornellUniver-
sity Press, 1974).3. E7 is myown summaryof anexamplethatDickiecites
throughout he chapterwhere he gives El throughE6. ElthroughE6 arepresentedon pages44 through46.
4. I wish to thankan anonymousJAACeferee forhelpfulcommentson anearlierdraft.
Reply to Ryckman
1. I did not give ananalysis of artifactuality.2. I did not speak in a general way of "used to
serve a purpose" or "the intentionthat it might beused to servea purpose."I spoke in a specific wayofDali's rocks: "The rocks are not altered in any wayby the 'pointingandcalling.' Norare the rocksusedin any way similar to the way in which driftwoodmaybe usedto dig a hole in the sand orthe like orthewayin which Duchampused the famousurinal."
GEORGE DICKIE
Universityof Illinois, Chicago
reflectionon E5, E7, and NE1 throughNE7 suggeststhat any attemptto do so would not save Dickie's
analysis. Even if there is a special way of using, theobject in E5 is not used in this special way until it isresting on the wall. It is not at all unreasonable oclaim that the objects in E7 and NE1 throughNE7may be used in exactly the same special way even
though heyare nottransported.Movingandhangingon a wall are not necessary to using in whateverspecial wayDickie mighthave in mind. Moving andhanging are merely ways of making such use moreconvenientandpractical.
I have notargued hat the objectin E7 oranyof the
objects in NE1 throughNE7 are artifacts,but onlythattheyhave ustas mucha claim to artifactualityasthe object in E5. Unless I am mistaken, Dickie'sviews about artifactualityare problematicand weshouldrefrain romacceptingAC.4
THOMAS C. RYCKMAN
LawrenceUniversity
1. George Dickie, The Art Circle (New York:Haven,1984). All quotationsare fromthis work.
2. GeorgeDickie, ArtandtheAesthetic CornellUniver-
sity Press, 1974).3. E7 is myown summaryof anexamplethatDickiecites
throughout he chapterwhere he gives El throughE6. ElthroughE6 arepresentedon pages44 through46.
4. I wish to thankan anonymousJAACeferee forhelpfulcommentson anearlierdraft.
Reply to Ryckman
1. I did not give ananalysis of artifactuality.2. I did not speak in a general way of "used to
serve a purpose" or "the intentionthat it might beused to servea purpose."I spoke in a specific wayofDali's rocks: "The rocks are not altered in any wayby the 'pointingandcalling.' Norare the rocksusedin any way similar to the way in which driftwoodmaybe usedto dig a hole in the sand orthe like orthewayin which Duchampused the famousurinal."
GEORGE DICKIE
Universityof Illinois, Chicago
Editor's Note
The Discussion sectionof the Journalreplaces"Afterwords:CriticismandCountertheses." The changeinname is meant to indicate a broadeningin scope of this forum for the discussion of issues in theoreticalaestheticsand artcriticism. Submissionsneednotbe restricted o criticalcomments on previousarticles in theJournal althoughwe continue to welcomethese), butmayextend to issues raised in other ournalsandbooks.Weare also willing to considerself-containedessays thatare not of articlelength (upto 10manuscriptpages).Authorsshouldfollow the regular nstructions orthe preparationandsubmission of manuscripts see page 2of this issue), keepingfootnotesto anabsoluteminimum,andindicating n a cover letterthat thesubmissionis
intendedforthe Discussion section of the Journal.Weexpect to be able to publishdiscussion entries withinafew months of theiracceptance,and we look forward o receivingyoursubmissions.
Editor's Note
The Discussion sectionof the Journalreplaces"Afterwords:CriticismandCountertheses." The changeinname is meant to indicate a broadeningin scope of this forum for the discussion of issues in theoreticalaestheticsand artcriticism. Submissionsneednotbe restricted o criticalcomments on previousarticles in theJournal althoughwe continue to welcomethese), butmayextend to issues raised in other ournalsandbooks.Weare also willing to considerself-containedessays thatare not of articlelength (upto 10manuscriptpages).Authorsshouldfollow the regular nstructions orthe preparationandsubmission of manuscripts see page 2of this issue), keepingfootnotesto anabsoluteminimum,andindicating n a cover letterthat thesubmissionis
intendedforthe Discussion section of the Journal.Weexpect to be able to publishdiscussion entries withinafew months of theiracceptance,and we look forward o receivingyoursubmissions.
Editor's Note
The Discussion sectionof the Journalreplaces"Afterwords:CriticismandCountertheses." The changeinname is meant to indicate a broadeningin scope of this forum for the discussion of issues in theoreticalaestheticsand artcriticism. Submissionsneednotbe restricted o criticalcomments on previousarticles in theJournal althoughwe continue to welcomethese), butmayextend to issues raised in other ournalsandbooks.Weare also willing to considerself-containedessays thatare not of articlelength (upto 10manuscriptpages).Authorsshouldfollow the regular nstructions orthe preparationandsubmission of manuscripts see page 2of this issue), keepingfootnotesto anabsoluteminimum,andindicating n a cover letterthat thesubmissionis
intendedforthe Discussion section of the Journal.Weexpect to be able to publishdiscussion entries withinafew months of theiracceptance,and we look forward o receivingyoursubmissions.
1777777