Leonardo

The Concept of ArtAuthor(s): Haig Khatchadourian and Donald BrookSource: Leonardo, Vol. 7, No. 2 (Spring, 1974), pp. 189-191Published by: The MIT PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1572835 .

Accessed: 16/06/2014 08:09

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 formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

The MIT Press and Leonardo are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toLeonardo.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.45 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 08:09:01 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Letters Letters Letters Letters

effects of time and distance give me an objectivity that I might otherwise lack.

Harold Cousins 46 Place du Chdtelain

Brussels 5 Belgium

Allan Shield's attempt to show that there is not a 'black' aesthetics (Leonardo 6, 319 (1973)) gives the im- pression that there is no aesthetics of any kind. His reliance on the universal character of creativity negates the importance of ethnic contributions, particularly those of the black peoples. For example, he states: 'Knowing that a dance is "black" does not allow one to infer anything else significantly about the work in advance of seeing the work performed' (p. 320). But is this true? If I am going to attend a dance perform- ance by a group from Mali or Ghana, I expect it to be significantly different from one, say, by the British Royal Ballet.

In spite of Shield's arguments, I believe there is an aesthetic that informs the art works of black peoples just as is the case for those of other peoples. In ancient Benin's 'Street of the Sculptors', the craft of sculpture continued over many years with clear, if unwritten, formulations of methods and of aesthetics. That the art of one African tribe can be so radically different from that of another seems to me to mean only that it was derived from philosophies differing on the nature of life and of art.

During the 1920's and 1930's in America, one who knew jazz well could recognize in what tradition a side- man had been schooled-whether of New Orleans, Kansas City or Chicago. One might add that jazz was a response of black musicians to the American environ- ment, not an extension of the Negro culture of Africa, as Shields states (p. 319). Many white musicians emu- lated the manner of the black jazz musical form, since aesthetic formulations derive from cultural responses not from inherent racial endowments. But it is not fair for Shields to say that 'obviously, George Gershwin was no black but, equally obviously, he has written a black opera' (p. 321)-he did not. He availed himself of one of the cultural traditions in America among several, including the Indian, the Anglo-Saxon and the Negro.

No aesthetician, to my knowledge, has analyzed the influence of the jazz idiom (or what I would call jazz aesthetics) on Abstract Impressionism in American painting, with its emphasis on improvisation within clusters of patterns. Such a study would be of much interest to me.

I agree with Shields that 'it is impressive just how recalcitrant are the problems and arguments of the theory of art' (p. 321). But, to paraphrase Goethe, gray is all theory but green the ever blooming tree of life.

Romare H. Bearden 357 Canal St.

New York, NY 10013 U.S.A.

Romare Bearden's response [above] to the arguments in my article (in Leonardo 6, 319 (1973)) was predict- able. The article, in the first paragraph, predicts it and further affirms the very real difficulty of making,

effects of time and distance give me an objectivity that I might otherwise lack.

Harold Cousins 46 Place du Chdtelain

Brussels 5 Belgium

Allan Shield's attempt to show that there is not a 'black' aesthetics (Leonardo 6, 319 (1973)) gives the im- pression that there is no aesthetics of any kind. His reliance on the universal character of creativity negates the importance of ethnic contributions, particularly those of the black peoples. For example, he states: 'Knowing that a dance is "black" does not allow one to infer anything else significantly about the work in advance of seeing the work performed' (p. 320). But is this true? If I am going to attend a dance perform- ance by a group from Mali or Ghana, I expect it to be significantly different from one, say, by the British Royal Ballet.

In spite of Shield's arguments, I believe there is an aesthetic that informs the art works of black peoples just as is the case for those of other peoples. In ancient Benin's 'Street of the Sculptors', the craft of sculpture continued over many years with clear, if unwritten, formulations of methods and of aesthetics. That the art of one African tribe can be so radically different from that of another seems to me to mean only that it was derived from philosophies differing on the nature of life and of art.

During the 1920's and 1930's in America, one who knew jazz well could recognize in what tradition a side- man had been schooled-whether of New Orleans, Kansas City or Chicago. One might add that jazz was a response of black musicians to the American environ- ment, not an extension of the Negro culture of Africa, as Shields states (p. 319). Many white musicians emu- lated the manner of the black jazz musical form, since aesthetic formulations derive from cultural responses not from inherent racial endowments. But it is not fair for Shields to say that 'obviously, George Gershwin was no black but, equally obviously, he has written a black opera' (p. 321)-he did not. He availed himself of one of the cultural traditions in America among several, including the Indian, the Anglo-Saxon and the Negro.

No aesthetician, to my knowledge, has analyzed the influence of the jazz idiom (or what I would call jazz aesthetics) on Abstract Impressionism in American painting, with its emphasis on improvisation within clusters of patterns. Such a study would be of much interest to me.

I agree with Shields that 'it is impressive just how recalcitrant are the problems and arguments of the theory of art' (p. 321). But, to paraphrase Goethe, gray is all theory but green the ever blooming tree of life.

Romare H. Bearden 357 Canal St.

New York, NY 10013 U.S.A.

Romare Bearden's response [above] to the arguments in my article (in Leonardo 6, 319 (1973)) was predict- able. The article, in the first paragraph, predicts it and further affirms the very real difficulty of making,

effects of time and distance give me an objectivity that I might otherwise lack.

Harold Cousins 46 Place du Chdtelain

Brussels 5 Belgium

Allan Shield's attempt to show that there is not a 'black' aesthetics (Leonardo 6, 319 (1973)) gives the im- pression that there is no aesthetics of any kind. His reliance on the universal character of creativity negates the importance of ethnic contributions, particularly those of the black peoples. For example, he states: 'Knowing that a dance is "black" does not allow one to infer anything else significantly about the work in advance of seeing the work performed' (p. 320). But is this true? If I am going to attend a dance perform- ance by a group from Mali or Ghana, I expect it to be significantly different from one, say, by the British Royal Ballet.

In spite of Shield's arguments, I believe there is an aesthetic that informs the art works of black peoples just as is the case for those of other peoples. In ancient Benin's 'Street of the Sculptors', the craft of sculpture continued over many years with clear, if unwritten, formulations of methods and of aesthetics. That the art of one African tribe can be so radically different from that of another seems to me to mean only that it was derived from philosophies differing on the nature of life and of art.

During the 1920's and 1930's in America, one who knew jazz well could recognize in what tradition a side- man had been schooled-whether of New Orleans, Kansas City or Chicago. One might add that jazz was a response of black musicians to the American environ- ment, not an extension of the Negro culture of Africa, as Shields states (p. 319). Many white musicians emu- lated the manner of the black jazz musical form, since aesthetic formulations derive from cultural responses not from inherent racial endowments. But it is not fair for Shields to say that 'obviously, George Gershwin was no black but, equally obviously, he has written a black opera' (p. 321)-he did not. He availed himself of one of the cultural traditions in America among several, including the Indian, the Anglo-Saxon and the Negro.

No aesthetician, to my knowledge, has analyzed the influence of the jazz idiom (or what I would call jazz aesthetics) on Abstract Impressionism in American painting, with its emphasis on improvisation within clusters of patterns. Such a study would be of much interest to me.

I agree with Shields that 'it is impressive just how recalcitrant are the problems and arguments of the theory of art' (p. 321). But, to paraphrase Goethe, gray is all theory but green the ever blooming tree of life.

Romare H. Bearden 357 Canal St.

New York, NY 10013 U.S.A.

Romare Bearden's response [above] to the arguments in my article (in Leonardo 6, 319 (1973)) was predict- able. The article, in the first paragraph, predicts it and further affirms the very real difficulty of making,

effects of time and distance give me an objectivity that I might otherwise lack.

Harold Cousins 46 Place du Chdtelain

Brussels 5 Belgium

Allan Shield's attempt to show that there is not a 'black' aesthetics (Leonardo 6, 319 (1973)) gives the im- pression that there is no aesthetics of any kind. His reliance on the universal character of creativity negates the importance of ethnic contributions, particularly those of the black peoples. For example, he states: 'Knowing that a dance is "black" does not allow one to infer anything else significantly about the work in advance of seeing the work performed' (p. 320). But is this true? If I am going to attend a dance perform- ance by a group from Mali or Ghana, I expect it to be significantly different from one, say, by the British Royal Ballet.

In spite of Shield's arguments, I believe there is an aesthetic that informs the art works of black peoples just as is the case for those of other peoples. In ancient Benin's 'Street of the Sculptors', the craft of sculpture continued over many years with clear, if unwritten, formulations of methods and of aesthetics. That the art of one African tribe can be so radically different from that of another seems to me to mean only that it was derived from philosophies differing on the nature of life and of art.

During the 1920's and 1930's in America, one who knew jazz well could recognize in what tradition a side- man had been schooled-whether of New Orleans, Kansas City or Chicago. One might add that jazz was a response of black musicians to the American environ- ment, not an extension of the Negro culture of Africa, as Shields states (p. 319). Many white musicians emu- lated the manner of the black jazz musical form, since aesthetic formulations derive from cultural responses not from inherent racial endowments. But it is not fair for Shields to say that 'obviously, George Gershwin was no black but, equally obviously, he has written a black opera' (p. 321)-he did not. He availed himself of one of the cultural traditions in America among several, including the Indian, the Anglo-Saxon and the Negro.

No aesthetician, to my knowledge, has analyzed the influence of the jazz idiom (or what I would call jazz aesthetics) on Abstract Impressionism in American painting, with its emphasis on improvisation within clusters of patterns. Such a study would be of much interest to me.

I agree with Shields that 'it is impressive just how recalcitrant are the problems and arguments of the theory of art' (p. 321). But, to paraphrase Goethe, gray is all theory but green the ever blooming tree of life.

Romare H. Bearden 357 Canal St.

New York, NY 10013 U.S.A.

Romare Bearden's response [above] to the arguments in my article (in Leonardo 6, 319 (1973)) was predict- able. The article, in the first paragraph, predicts it and further affirms the very real difficulty of making, marking and maintaining the distinction between the two meanings of 'black aesthetics'. In short, what Bearden asserts is in complete agreement with the argument of the article in the sense that there are

marking and maintaining the distinction between the two meanings of 'black aesthetics'. In short, what Bearden asserts is in complete agreement with the argument of the article in the sense that there are

marking and maintaining the distinction between the two meanings of 'black aesthetics'. In short, what Bearden asserts is in complete agreement with the argument of the article in the sense that there are

marking and maintaining the distinction between the two meanings of 'black aesthetics'. In short, what Bearden asserts is in complete agreement with the argument of the article in the sense that there are

unique qualities inherent in black art, there is a black aesthetic. But this is a trivial observation about any cultural effect. The root epistemological problem is to see how a theory of aesthetics cannot issue from a narrow, cultural relativism transformed into a political- social doctrine. Knowledge hangs higher than that. Bearden fails to grasp the basic distinction made.

It is, of course, false that the article '... attempts to show that there is not a "black" aesthetics . . .' and most certainly does not '. .. give the impression that there is no aesthetics of any kind'.

The article was a strange one to write, for it fails in three ways (also predicted): (1) for aestheticians, the distinction is so elementary and truistic that there is no apparent reason for writing the arguments, (2) for the theoretically uninitiated such arguments cannot be registered so laconically and tersely, and (3) for a common sense and currently ubiquitous (and uncritical) view of 'black aesthetics', since the view is motivated out of a political-social consciousness among whites, blacks and others, there is only small hope that a logical analysis of a concept will overcome it. I tried to do what philosophy does best: to clarify a concept. I believe the article does succeed in that respect.

Allan Shields Dept. of Philosophy

California State University San Diego, CA 92115

U.S.A.

6N BOOK REVIEWS

'Holography'

I should like to reply to the comments in H. Arthur Klein's letter (Leonardo 7, 94 (1974)) on my review of his book in Leonardo 6, 270 (1973). I am glad that he has made the point that the concept of negative and positive is really irrelevant in holography but I think that his second comment is misleading. The use of modulated reference beam holography to 'trace patterns of sound vibrations' is not acoustical holo- graphy. In acoustical holography, sound waves are used in place of light waves. His third point does not affect what I said in my review.

Margaret Benyon 60 Ditchling Rise, Flat 1

Brighton BN1 4QP England

'Teaching Secondary School Art'

I am pleased that David Friend in his review of my book in Leonardo 6, 377 (1973) has such fine and per- ceptive insight regarding its intent. May I also say that I respect the high quality of your publication in bringing such educational information before your readers. I believe that art begins in secondary schools and it is there that aesthetic sensitivity to art and, indeed, one's cultural life really begins. Through Leonardo and other high quality journals on art the artistic eye of man has an opportunity to develop.

Earl W. Linderman 6702 E. McDonald Drive

Paradise Valley, AZ85253 U.S.A.

unique qualities inherent in black art, there is a black aesthetic. But this is a trivial observation about any cultural effect. The root epistemological problem is to see how a theory of aesthetics cannot issue from a narrow, cultural relativism transformed into a political- social doctrine. Knowledge hangs higher than that. Bearden fails to grasp the basic distinction made.

It is, of course, false that the article '... attempts to show that there is not a "black" aesthetics . . .' and most certainly does not '. .. give the impression that there is no aesthetics of any kind'.

The article was a strange one to write, for it fails in three ways (also predicted): (1) for aestheticians, the distinction is so elementary and truistic that there is no apparent reason for writing the arguments, (2) for the theoretically uninitiated such arguments cannot be registered so laconically and tersely, and (3) for a common sense and currently ubiquitous (and uncritical) view of 'black aesthetics', since the view is motivated out of a political-social consciousness among whites, blacks and others, there is only small hope that a logical analysis of a concept will overcome it. I tried to do what philosophy does best: to clarify a concept. I believe the article does succeed in that respect.

Allan Shields Dept. of Philosophy

California State University San Diego, CA 92115

U.S.A.

6N BOOK REVIEWS

'Holography'

I should like to reply to the comments in H. Arthur Klein's letter (Leonardo 7, 94 (1974)) on my review of his book in Leonardo 6, 270 (1973). I am glad that he has made the point that the concept of negative and positive is really irrelevant in holography but I think that his second comment is misleading. The use of modulated reference beam holography to 'trace patterns of sound vibrations' is not acoustical holo- graphy. In acoustical holography, sound waves are used in place of light waves. His third point does not affect what I said in my review.

Margaret Benyon 60 Ditchling Rise, Flat 1

Brighton BN1 4QP England

'Teaching Secondary School Art'

I am pleased that David Friend in his review of my book in Leonardo 6, 377 (1973) has such fine and per- ceptive insight regarding its intent. May I also say that I respect the high quality of your publication in bringing such educational information before your readers. I believe that art begins in secondary schools and it is there that aesthetic sensitivity to art and, indeed, one's cultural life really begins. Through Leonardo and other high quality journals on art the artistic eye of man has an opportunity to develop.

Earl W. Linderman 6702 E. McDonald Drive

Paradise Valley, AZ85253 U.S.A.

unique qualities inherent in black art, there is a black aesthetic. But this is a trivial observation about any cultural effect. The root epistemological problem is to see how a theory of aesthetics cannot issue from a narrow, cultural relativism transformed into a political- social doctrine. Knowledge hangs higher than that. Bearden fails to grasp the basic distinction made.

It is, of course, false that the article '... attempts to show that there is not a "black" aesthetics . . .' and most certainly does not '. .. give the impression that there is no aesthetics of any kind'.

The article was a strange one to write, for it fails in three ways (also predicted): (1) for aestheticians, the distinction is so elementary and truistic that there is no apparent reason for writing the arguments, (2) for the theoretically uninitiated such arguments cannot be registered so laconically and tersely, and (3) for a common sense and currently ubiquitous (and uncritical) view of 'black aesthetics', since the view is motivated out of a political-social consciousness among whites, blacks and others, there is only small hope that a logical analysis of a concept will overcome it. I tried to do what philosophy does best: to clarify a concept. I believe the article does succeed in that respect.

Allan Shields Dept. of Philosophy

California State University San Diego, CA 92115

U.S.A.

6N BOOK REVIEWS

'Holography'

I should like to reply to the comments in H. Arthur Klein's letter (Leonardo 7, 94 (1974)) on my review of his book in Leonardo 6, 270 (1973). I am glad that he has made the point that the concept of negative and positive is really irrelevant in holography but I think that his second comment is misleading. The use of modulated reference beam holography to 'trace patterns of sound vibrations' is not acoustical holo- graphy. In acoustical holography, sound waves are used in place of light waves. His third point does not affect what I said in my review.

Margaret Benyon 60 Ditchling Rise, Flat 1

Brighton BN1 4QP England

'Teaching Secondary School Art'

I am pleased that David Friend in his review of my book in Leonardo 6, 377 (1973) has such fine and per- ceptive insight regarding its intent. May I also say that I respect the high quality of your publication in bringing such educational information before your readers. I believe that art begins in secondary schools and it is there that aesthetic sensitivity to art and, indeed, one's cultural life really begins. Through Leonardo and other high quality journals on art the artistic eye of man has an opportunity to develop.

Earl W. Linderman 6702 E. McDonald Drive

Paradise Valley, AZ85253 U.S.A.

unique qualities inherent in black art, there is a black aesthetic. But this is a trivial observation about any cultural effect. The root epistemological problem is to see how a theory of aesthetics cannot issue from a narrow, cultural relativism transformed into a political- social doctrine. Knowledge hangs higher than that. Bearden fails to grasp the basic distinction made.

It is, of course, false that the article '... attempts to show that there is not a "black" aesthetics . . .' and most certainly does not '. .. give the impression that there is no aesthetics of any kind'.

The article was a strange one to write, for it fails in three ways (also predicted): (1) for aestheticians, the distinction is so elementary and truistic that there is no apparent reason for writing the arguments, (2) for the theoretically uninitiated such arguments cannot be registered so laconically and tersely, and (3) for a common sense and currently ubiquitous (and uncritical) view of 'black aesthetics', since the view is motivated out of a political-social consciousness among whites, blacks and others, there is only small hope that a logical analysis of a concept will overcome it. I tried to do what philosophy does best: to clarify a concept. I believe the article does succeed in that respect.

Allan Shields Dept. of Philosophy

California State University San Diego, CA 92115

U.S.A.

6N BOOK REVIEWS

'Holography'

I should like to reply to the comments in H. Arthur Klein's letter (Leonardo 7, 94 (1974)) on my review of his book in Leonardo 6, 270 (1973). I am glad that he has made the point that the concept of negative and positive is really irrelevant in holography but I think that his second comment is misleading. The use of modulated reference beam holography to 'trace patterns of sound vibrations' is not acoustical holo- graphy. In acoustical holography, sound waves are used in place of light waves. His third point does not affect what I said in my review.

Margaret Benyon 60 Ditchling Rise, Flat 1

Brighton BN1 4QP England

'Teaching Secondary School Art'

I am pleased that David Friend in his review of my book in Leonardo 6, 377 (1973) has such fine and per- ceptive insight regarding its intent. May I also say that I respect the high quality of your publication in bringing such educational information before your readers. I believe that art begins in secondary schools and it is there that aesthetic sensitivity to art and, indeed, one's cultural life really begins. Through Leonardo and other high quality journals on art the artistic eye of man has an opportunity to develop.

Earl W. Linderman 6702 E. McDonald Drive

Paradise Valley, AZ85253 U.S.A.

'The Concept of Art'

I wish to comment on Donald Brook's review of my book in Leonardo 7, 74 (1974). Brook's review is, in

'The Concept of Art'

I wish to comment on Donald Brook's review of my book in Leonardo 7, 74 (1974). Brook's review is, in

'The Concept of Art'

I wish to comment on Donald Brook's review of my book in Leonardo 7, 74 (1974). Brook's review is, in

'The Concept of Art'

I wish to comment on Donald Brook's review of my book in Leonardo 7, 74 (1974). Brook's review is, in

189 189 189 189

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.45 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 08:09:01 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

my opinion, seriously vitiated by a series of basic mis- conceptions of the book's aims and contents.

First, he has misunderstood the title of the book and, therefore, its aims, by supposing that the word 'art' is intended in the restricted sense of 'visual art'; whereas it is used in the inclusive sense of 'art in general'. Hence my frequent use of the phrase 'work of art' inter- changeably with the word 'art'. It should not, therefore, surprise him that I made so many references to com- posers and writers.

Second, he has failed to grasp my avowed aim of describing what I consider to be the ordinary concept of art in the West. I nowhere suggest that no revisions whatever in the concepts of, for example, painting, sculpture and music are necessitated by contemporary developments. Although the book does not deal with this important question, it does recognize (vide the Preface) that modifications of some of the present ordinary uses of aesthetic expressions may be neces- sitated by empirical discoveries about, say, the psycho- logical processes involved in the making, the perception and the enjoyment of art. Indeed, a projected sequel to The Concept of Art will be devoted to a consideration of the revisions that I believe need to be made in the ordinary concept of art (and, correspondingly, in the concepts of particular forms of art) in the light of: (a) advances in the psychology of aesthetics and (b) development of, for example, electronic and aleatory music, action painting and conceptual art, including the work of artists such as Christo Javacheff (whose work Brook wrongly thought I dismissed). An outline of some of my views on the appreciation and evaluation of contemporary art is scheduled to appear in the Journal of Aesthetic Education.

Brook's impression that I am 'contemptuous of Sino- Soviet social realism and its attendant habits of criticism as having been "influenced by philosophy" .. .' is unfounded. For example, I fail to see how my remarks about the former on pp. 65 and 66 could have given rise to it. A main reason for not dealing with Marxist aesthetic theory in the book was my awareness of the need for a separate, longer study of that subject. I was concerned with the ordinary (Western) concept of art and, as I stated on p. 66, the Marxist conception essentially constitutes a fundamental revision of it.

Third, I find it rather ironical that Brook should describe my book as 'a synopsis of the conventional wisdom of (roughly) late romanticism . .. .', which I take to mean the expression theory of art in its 19th century formulations. It is ironical, because in my article in Ref. 1 I myself strongly inveighed against that theory's basic tenet that art is the 'expression' or 'outward manifestation' of the artist's feelings or emotions (cf. pp. 32, 33 and 280 to 282). What may have confused Brook was my assertion of the logically quite different thesis that the arousing of feeling (but not emotion) is a main aim of art as we ordinarily think about it in the West (and perhaps also in certain other parts of the world). Moreover, I took pains to distinguish the concept of the aims of art qua art from the concept of a particular artist's aims. It is a contingent and not a conceptual matter whether the feelings that some works of art evoke in qualified perceivers are qualitatively similar to whatever feelings their makers may have experienced while making them. It cannot be ascertained by examining the employment of the ordinary concept of art. In addition to confusing my account with 'late romanticism', Brook has ignored my view that the 'emotional aim' of art is but one of

several major aims that art is ordinarily thought to have in the West and that the emotional, intellectual and imaginative aims of art (together with its pervasive 'hedonic aim') constitute an open set of such aims (partly) by virtue of the fact that these aims are 'essentially contested'.

Finally, Brook fails to consider, let alone appreciate, the significance of my central theses vis-a-vis analytical ('linguistic') aesthetics, on the one hand, and traditional, 'essentialist' theories of art, on the other. For example, he ignored my basic claim that the ordinary concept of art is regulated and nonsharply demarcated by the concept of the aims of art alluded to, even though it is a 'family resemblance' and so an 'open textured' concept. Connected with this, he did not appreciate the vital conceptual connections that, I maintained, obtain between these aims and the criteria of aesthetic valuation. Consequently, he also ignores my (to my mind quite original) account of the relation between 'aesthetic' (or A-) and 'nonaesthetic' (or N-) concepts and the relation of the criteria of good art to aesthetic and nonaesthetic qualities. He makes no comment on the fairly detailed and important analysis of aesthetic judgments in Chapter 10 and of reasons in criticism in Chapters 11 and 12.

Reference

1. H. Khatchadourian, The Expression Theory of Art: A Critical Evaluation, J. Aesth. and Art Crit. 23, 335 (Spring, 1965).

Haig Khatchadourian Dept. of Philosophy

University of Wisconsin Milwaukee, WI53201

U.S.A.

Haig Khatchadourian's first point in his letter [above] is formally correct. He does not write (nor did I take him to have written) exclusively about the visual arts. My word 'nominally' was not well chosen. I had hoped to make the comment, in too short a space, that while the visual arts are repeatedly at or near the focus of the author's overt attention, his general arguments are most frequently reinforced with examples from music and literature. The question is one of emphasis and it turns, in the end, on an unargued presupposition that there is some level of generality at which the differences between the arts are obliterated by their similarities. The comment, in its application to the book (whether justly or not) was given its appropriateness by virtue of its appearance in a journal devoted to the visual arts.

The minor matter of Christo supports my contention. Looking for something recent and awkward on which to test the grasp of his developing theory, Khatchadou- rian chooses the work of Christo Javacheff. The example is quite clearly selected for its outlandishness, yet the fact is that Christo is rather a conservative artist, much more easily assimilated to the past than, say, Acconci or Kosuth or Ihnatowicz. Yet in spite of that, the author uses quotes of misgiving: 'the "art"' of Christo, he writes (p. 278), as if it were still problematic.

His second point is not easy to follow. I wrote that his emerging thesis turns on: '. . . the interplay of des- criptive and evaluative uses of the phrase "work of art" ....' If that is not what his thesis is, or does, then indeed I do not understand the book. About conceptual revision, it is true that he does not condemn the thought or deplore the deed absolutely, nor have I claimed that he does. But I think it is quite clear-and

190 Letters

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.45 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 08:09:01 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Letters Letters Letters Letters

important-that he goes so far as to deplore some such adventures, especially among socialists. 'Unfortunately', he writes, 'all sorts of social, political, moral, religious or ideological factors, wholly unrelated to the particular work or its merits or to art as a whole [my emphasis] often determines whether such works are eventually accepted. Social realism in the Communist world illustrates this perfectly' (p. 249).

His third point concerns what I called 'the con- ventional wisdom of (roughly) late romanticism'. I sympathize with him about this. There is no clear concensus on the question what, precisely, 'late roman- ticism' amounts to. I meant to say that, while I had not the time or space to analyse all the artists referred to appreciatively in his book, I was (and still am) con- vinced that they are substantially the artists generally embraced by the term 'romantic' in one of its neutral current usages to cover a period now approximately 200 years long. They are the artists whose works generated what used to be called 'modern' (as opposed to 'classical') aesthetics and they are followed by artists who work more or less overtly in terms of that aesthetic. Late romanticism in art and theory does not only, or at all, require the Expression Theory. Revelation Theory, Therapeutic Theory and no doubt many others are implicated. The culmination of European ethno- centric romanticism is perhaps the idea (not, I guess, Wittgenstein's) that art is paradigmatically a Western European bourgeois family of various kinds of art. Late romanticism, in my usage, is the defensive rear- guard of a motley alliance of forces now shuffling reluctantly offstage.

On the relation between 'aesthetic' and 'non-aesthetic' qualities, there is far too much to be said. I shall remark only that what is aesthetic in one context may be quite differently taken in another.

Probably the basis of our disagreement is ideological. It evidently seems to him (and it does not seem to me) that there are some considerations that everyone must assume to be 'wholly unrelated to the particular work or its [aesthetic] merits'. But to determine the excellence of, say, Lissitzky's Beat the Whites with the Red Wedge, some knowledge of human affairs and some commit- ment is necessary. In fact, Khatchadourian himself encourages the view that interpretation may be crucial when he insists so firmly on the importance of the teleological component of the concept of art. Or should we read for 'aims' only 'aesthetic aims' and concede the circus of tautologies?

Donald Brook School of Humanities

Flinders University of South Australia Bedford Park, South Australia 5042

'Polyhedron Models'

It was indeed a pleasure for me to read Arthur L. Loeb's review of my book in Leonardo 7, 82 (1974). His comment about the difficulties he had and I am sure many other readers will have with the section entitled, Mathematical Classification, is well taken. My only response is a question: Did he have in his hands the models shown in the photographs on p. 7?

The comment I made in the Preface of the book

important-that he goes so far as to deplore some such adventures, especially among socialists. 'Unfortunately', he writes, 'all sorts of social, political, moral, religious or ideological factors, wholly unrelated to the particular work or its merits or to art as a whole [my emphasis] often determines whether such works are eventually accepted. Social realism in the Communist world illustrates this perfectly' (p. 249).

His third point concerns what I called 'the con- ventional wisdom of (roughly) late romanticism'. I sympathize with him about this. There is no clear concensus on the question what, precisely, 'late roman- ticism' amounts to. I meant to say that, while I had not the time or space to analyse all the artists referred to appreciatively in his book, I was (and still am) con- vinced that they are substantially the artists generally embraced by the term 'romantic' in one of its neutral current usages to cover a period now approximately 200 years long. They are the artists whose works generated what used to be called 'modern' (as opposed to 'classical') aesthetics and they are followed by artists who work more or less overtly in terms of that aesthetic. Late romanticism in art and theory does not only, or at all, require the Expression Theory. Revelation Theory, Therapeutic Theory and no doubt many others are implicated. The culmination of European ethno- centric romanticism is perhaps the idea (not, I guess, Wittgenstein's) that art is paradigmatically a Western European bourgeois family of various kinds of art. Late romanticism, in my usage, is the defensive rear- guard of a motley alliance of forces now shuffling reluctantly offstage.

On the relation between 'aesthetic' and 'non-aesthetic' qualities, there is far too much to be said. I shall remark only that what is aesthetic in one context may be quite differently taken in another.

Probably the basis of our disagreement is ideological. It evidently seems to him (and it does not seem to me) that there are some considerations that everyone must assume to be 'wholly unrelated to the particular work or its [aesthetic] merits'. But to determine the excellence of, say, Lissitzky's Beat the Whites with the Red Wedge, some knowledge of human affairs and some commit- ment is necessary. In fact, Khatchadourian himself encourages the view that interpretation may be crucial when he insists so firmly on the importance of the teleological component of the concept of art. Or should we read for 'aims' only 'aesthetic aims' and concede the circus of tautologies?

Donald Brook School of Humanities

Flinders University of South Australia Bedford Park, South Australia 5042

'Polyhedron Models'

It was indeed a pleasure for me to read Arthur L. Loeb's review of my book in Leonardo 7, 82 (1974). His comment about the difficulties he had and I am sure many other readers will have with the section entitled, Mathematical Classification, is well taken. My only response is a question: Did he have in his hands the models shown in the photographs on p. 7?

The comment I made in the Preface of the book

important-that he goes so far as to deplore some such adventures, especially among socialists. 'Unfortunately', he writes, 'all sorts of social, political, moral, religious or ideological factors, wholly unrelated to the particular work or its merits or to art as a whole [my emphasis] often determines whether such works are eventually accepted. Social realism in the Communist world illustrates this perfectly' (p. 249).

His third point concerns what I called 'the con- ventional wisdom of (roughly) late romanticism'. I sympathize with him about this. There is no clear concensus on the question what, precisely, 'late roman- ticism' amounts to. I meant to say that, while I had not the time or space to analyse all the artists referred to appreciatively in his book, I was (and still am) con- vinced that they are substantially the artists generally embraced by the term 'romantic' in one of its neutral current usages to cover a period now approximately 200 years long. They are the artists whose works generated what used to be called 'modern' (as opposed to 'classical') aesthetics and they are followed by artists who work more or less overtly in terms of that aesthetic. Late romanticism in art and theory does not only, or at all, require the Expression Theory. Revelation Theory, Therapeutic Theory and no doubt many others are implicated. The culmination of European ethno- centric romanticism is perhaps the idea (not, I guess, Wittgenstein's) that art is paradigmatically a Western European bourgeois family of various kinds of art. Late romanticism, in my usage, is the defensive rear- guard of a motley alliance of forces now shuffling reluctantly offstage.

On the relation between 'aesthetic' and 'non-aesthetic' qualities, there is far too much to be said. I shall remark only that what is aesthetic in one context may be quite differently taken in another.

Probably the basis of our disagreement is ideological. It evidently seems to him (and it does not seem to me) that there are some considerations that everyone must assume to be 'wholly unrelated to the particular work or its [aesthetic] merits'. But to determine the excellence of, say, Lissitzky's Beat the Whites with the Red Wedge, some knowledge of human affairs and some commit- ment is necessary. In fact, Khatchadourian himself encourages the view that interpretation may be crucial when he insists so firmly on the importance of the teleological component of the concept of art. Or should we read for 'aims' only 'aesthetic aims' and concede the circus of tautologies?

Donald Brook School of Humanities

Flinders University of South Australia Bedford Park, South Australia 5042

'Polyhedron Models'

It was indeed a pleasure for me to read Arthur L. Loeb's review of my book in Leonardo 7, 82 (1974). His comment about the difficulties he had and I am sure many other readers will have with the section entitled, Mathematical Classification, is well taken. My only response is a question: Did he have in his hands the models shown in the photographs on p. 7?

The comment I made in the Preface of the book

important-that he goes so far as to deplore some such adventures, especially among socialists. 'Unfortunately', he writes, 'all sorts of social, political, moral, religious or ideological factors, wholly unrelated to the particular work or its merits or to art as a whole [my emphasis] often determines whether such works are eventually accepted. Social realism in the Communist world illustrates this perfectly' (p. 249).

His third point concerns what I called 'the con- ventional wisdom of (roughly) late romanticism'. I sympathize with him about this. There is no clear concensus on the question what, precisely, 'late roman- ticism' amounts to. I meant to say that, while I had not the time or space to analyse all the artists referred to appreciatively in his book, I was (and still am) con- vinced that they are substantially the artists generally embraced by the term 'romantic' in one of its neutral current usages to cover a period now approximately 200 years long. They are the artists whose works generated what used to be called 'modern' (as opposed to 'classical') aesthetics and they are followed by artists who work more or less overtly in terms of that aesthetic. Late romanticism in art and theory does not only, or at all, require the Expression Theory. Revelation Theory, Therapeutic Theory and no doubt many others are implicated. The culmination of European ethno- centric romanticism is perhaps the idea (not, I guess, Wittgenstein's) that art is paradigmatically a Western European bourgeois family of various kinds of art. Late romanticism, in my usage, is the defensive rear- guard of a motley alliance of forces now shuffling reluctantly offstage.

On the relation between 'aesthetic' and 'non-aesthetic' qualities, there is far too much to be said. I shall remark only that what is aesthetic in one context may be quite differently taken in another.

Probably the basis of our disagreement is ideological. It evidently seems to him (and it does not seem to me) that there are some considerations that everyone must assume to be 'wholly unrelated to the particular work or its [aesthetic] merits'. But to determine the excellence of, say, Lissitzky's Beat the Whites with the Red Wedge, some knowledge of human affairs and some commit- ment is necessary. In fact, Khatchadourian himself encourages the view that interpretation may be crucial when he insists so firmly on the importance of the teleological component of the concept of art. Or should we read for 'aims' only 'aesthetic aims' and concede the circus of tautologies?

Donald Brook School of Humanities

Flinders University of South Australia Bedford Park, South Australia 5042

'Polyhedron Models'

It was indeed a pleasure for me to read Arthur L. Loeb's review of my book in Leonardo 7, 82 (1974). His comment about the difficulties he had and I am sure many other readers will have with the section entitled, Mathematical Classification, is well taken. My only response is a question: Did he have in his hands the models shown in the photographs on p. 7?

The comment I made in the Preface of the book applies all the more forcefully here: 'It is really sur- prising how much enlightenment will come, following the construction of the models rather than preceding it'. Photographs are at best a poor substitute for the object

applies all the more forcefully here: 'It is really sur- prising how much enlightenment will come, following the construction of the models rather than preceding it'. Photographs are at best a poor substitute for the object

applies all the more forcefully here: 'It is really sur- prising how much enlightenment will come, following the construction of the models rather than preceding it'. Photographs are at best a poor substitute for the object

applies all the more forcefully here: 'It is really sur- prising how much enlightenment will come, following the construction of the models rather than preceding it'. Photographs are at best a poor substitute for the object

itself. With the handling of the spherical models des- cribed in this section, the convex regular and semi- regular solids can indeed take on the fascinating rela- tionships given on pp. 8 and 9. I would be the first one to admit that for the non-convex uniform polyhedra the spherical models become far less useful, precisely because of the abstractness of the theory-polyhedral density (multiple coverings of the surface of the sphere) becomes very difficult to imagine.

It was not my intention in this book to repeat the theory, which can be found for those who want it in the references given at the end of the book in the Bibliography. To quote again from the Preface: 'The object in this book will be to set down an explanation of the solids, at once simple and practical and not too speculative, one sufficient for the purposes of construct- ing the models.'

Magnus J. Wenninger Saint Augustine's College

P.O. Box N-3940 Nassau, Bahamas

' Human Anatomy and Figure Drawing'

The review in Leonardo 7, 83 (1974) of my book by Norman Narotzky reflects a clear appreciation of the text and its contribution to figure drawing theory and practice. I appreciate the constructive nature of his comments but, while they are valuable, I do want to offer a word of explanation.

I agree that more extensive labelling of the master drawings with bone and muscle identification is desir- able but I should point out that all the reproductions have specific descriptive captions dealing in detail with various figure drawing problems. One inhibition to more extensive labelling of bones and muscles on master drawings is the prohibition by museums on the use of overlay lettering on their reproductions.

Narotzky's recommendation to extend the study list to include origin and insertion of muscles is an excellent one and will, I hope, be incorporated into a future edition. I believe my book fills an unrecognized gap in providing the means to integrate anatomic information with significant spatial drawing.

Jack Kramer 67 Thatcher St.

Brookline, MA 02146 U.S.A.

'Sculpture in Glass Fibre'

Peggy Goldstein's review of my book in Leonardo 7, 85 (1974) raises a question that I can easily answer and makes a criticism that I feel should be countered.

In general, I agree that certain recommendations could have been more fully qualified, e.g. 'neat thixo- tropic paste or resin-inadvisable to use as a filler', because there is always a tendency to over fill a defective surface and, unless the filler is less dense and less resistant to abrasion than the parent material, there is always a chance that the surrounding area will be unnecessarily affected in cleaning off.

The criticism refers to the section on direct sculpture. It has, as Goldstein mentions, only two pages and would seem to be grossly disproportionate, however it was far

itself. With the handling of the spherical models des- cribed in this section, the convex regular and semi- regular solids can indeed take on the fascinating rela- tionships given on pp. 8 and 9. I would be the first one to admit that for the non-convex uniform polyhedra the spherical models become far less useful, precisely because of the abstractness of the theory-polyhedral density (multiple coverings of the surface of the sphere) becomes very difficult to imagine.

It was not my intention in this book to repeat the theory, which can be found for those who want it in the references given at the end of the book in the Bibliography. To quote again from the Preface: 'The object in this book will be to set down an explanation of the solids, at once simple and practical and not too speculative, one sufficient for the purposes of construct- ing the models.'

Magnus J. Wenninger Saint Augustine's College

P.O. Box N-3940 Nassau, Bahamas

' Human Anatomy and Figure Drawing'

The review in Leonardo 7, 83 (1974) of my book by Norman Narotzky reflects a clear appreciation of the text and its contribution to figure drawing theory and practice. I appreciate the constructive nature of his comments but, while they are valuable, I do want to offer a word of explanation.

I agree that more extensive labelling of the master drawings with bone and muscle identification is desir- able but I should point out that all the reproductions have specific descriptive captions dealing in detail with various figure drawing problems. One inhibition to more extensive labelling of bones and muscles on master drawings is the prohibition by museums on the use of overlay lettering on their reproductions.

Narotzky's recommendation to extend the study list to include origin and insertion of muscles is an excellent one and will, I hope, be incorporated into a future edition. I believe my book fills an unrecognized gap in providing the means to integrate anatomic information with significant spatial drawing.

Jack Kramer 67 Thatcher St.

Brookline, MA 02146 U.S.A.

'Sculpture in Glass Fibre'

Peggy Goldstein's review of my book in Leonardo 7, 85 (1974) raises a question that I can easily answer and makes a criticism that I feel should be countered.

In general, I agree that certain recommendations could have been more fully qualified, e.g. 'neat thixo- tropic paste or resin-inadvisable to use as a filler', because there is always a tendency to over fill a defective surface and, unless the filler is less dense and less resistant to abrasion than the parent material, there is always a chance that the surrounding area will be unnecessarily affected in cleaning off.

The criticism refers to the section on direct sculpture. It has, as Goldstein mentions, only two pages and would seem to be grossly disproportionate, however it was far

itself. With the handling of the spherical models des- cribed in this section, the convex regular and semi- regular solids can indeed take on the fascinating rela- tionships given on pp. 8 and 9. I would be the first one to admit that for the non-convex uniform polyhedra the spherical models become far less useful, precisely because of the abstractness of the theory-polyhedral density (multiple coverings of the surface of the sphere) becomes very difficult to imagine.

It was not my intention in this book to repeat the theory, which can be found for those who want it in the references given at the end of the book in the Bibliography. To quote again from the Preface: 'The object in this book will be to set down an explanation of the solids, at once simple and practical and not too speculative, one sufficient for the purposes of construct- ing the models.'

Magnus J. Wenninger Saint Augustine's College

P.O. Box N-3940 Nassau, Bahamas

' Human Anatomy and Figure Drawing'

The review in Leonardo 7, 83 (1974) of my book by Norman Narotzky reflects a clear appreciation of the text and its contribution to figure drawing theory and practice. I appreciate the constructive nature of his comments but, while they are valuable, I do want to offer a word of explanation.

I agree that more extensive labelling of the master drawings with bone and muscle identification is desir- able but I should point out that all the reproductions have specific descriptive captions dealing in detail with various figure drawing problems. One inhibition to more extensive labelling of bones and muscles on master drawings is the prohibition by museums on the use of overlay lettering on their reproductions.

Narotzky's recommendation to extend the study list to include origin and insertion of muscles is an excellent one and will, I hope, be incorporated into a future edition. I believe my book fills an unrecognized gap in providing the means to integrate anatomic information with significant spatial drawing.

Jack Kramer 67 Thatcher St.

Brookline, MA 02146 U.S.A.

'Sculpture in Glass Fibre'

Peggy Goldstein's review of my book in Leonardo 7, 85 (1974) raises a question that I can easily answer and makes a criticism that I feel should be countered.

In general, I agree that certain recommendations could have been more fully qualified, e.g. 'neat thixo- tropic paste or resin-inadvisable to use as a filler', because there is always a tendency to over fill a defective surface and, unless the filler is less dense and less resistant to abrasion than the parent material, there is always a chance that the surrounding area will be unnecessarily affected in cleaning off.

The criticism refers to the section on direct sculpture. It has, as Goldstein mentions, only two pages and would seem to be grossly disproportionate, however it was far

itself. With the handling of the spherical models des- cribed in this section, the convex regular and semi- regular solids can indeed take on the fascinating rela- tionships given on pp. 8 and 9. I would be the first one to admit that for the non-convex uniform polyhedra the spherical models become far less useful, precisely because of the abstractness of the theory-polyhedral density (multiple coverings of the surface of the sphere) becomes very difficult to imagine.

It was not my intention in this book to repeat the theory, which can be found for those who want it in the references given at the end of the book in the Bibliography. To quote again from the Preface: 'The object in this book will be to set down an explanation of the solids, at once simple and practical and not too speculative, one sufficient for the purposes of construct- ing the models.'

Magnus J. Wenninger Saint Augustine's College

P.O. Box N-3940 Nassau, Bahamas

' Human Anatomy and Figure Drawing'

The review in Leonardo 7, 83 (1974) of my book by Norman Narotzky reflects a clear appreciation of the text and its contribution to figure drawing theory and practice. I appreciate the constructive nature of his comments but, while they are valuable, I do want to offer a word of explanation.

I agree that more extensive labelling of the master drawings with bone and muscle identification is desir- able but I should point out that all the reproductions have specific descriptive captions dealing in detail with various figure drawing problems. One inhibition to more extensive labelling of bones and muscles on master drawings is the prohibition by museums on the use of overlay lettering on their reproductions.

Narotzky's recommendation to extend the study list to include origin and insertion of muscles is an excellent one and will, I hope, be incorporated into a future edition. I believe my book fills an unrecognized gap in providing the means to integrate anatomic information with significant spatial drawing.

Jack Kramer 67 Thatcher St.

Brookline, MA 02146 U.S.A.

'Sculpture in Glass Fibre'

Peggy Goldstein's review of my book in Leonardo 7, 85 (1974) raises a question that I can easily answer and makes a criticism that I feel should be countered.

In general, I agree that certain recommendations could have been more fully qualified, e.g. 'neat thixo- tropic paste or resin-inadvisable to use as a filler', because there is always a tendency to over fill a defective surface and, unless the filler is less dense and less resistant to abrasion than the parent material, there is always a chance that the surrounding area will be unnecessarily affected in cleaning off.

The criticism refers to the section on direct sculpture. It has, as Goldstein mentions, only two pages and would seem to be grossly disproportionate, however it was far from an afterthought. The reality of the situation is that as a sculptor I am fully aware of the critical rela- tionships between technique/concept/form. Techniques

from an afterthought. The reality of the situation is that as a sculptor I am fully aware of the critical rela- tionships between technique/concept/form. Techniques

from an afterthought. The reality of the situation is that as a sculptor I am fully aware of the critical rela- tionships between technique/concept/form. Techniques

from an afterthought. The reality of the situation is that as a sculptor I am fully aware of the critical rela- tionships between technique/concept/form. Techniques

191 191 191 191

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.45 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 08:09:01 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions