The second thing that Capon’s The Supper of the Lamb: A Culinary Reflection has caused me to think on is the instinctual need for an authoritative source. (look here for the previous thought on this subject)
Capons use of scripture to support his thoughts imply that he believe the Bible to have some authority. If the Bible says a thing is good then there must be something good about that thing. (I should clarify that this book is not written in an argumentative tone but rather, as the title suggests, in a reflective manner. Capon’s goal is to make the readers think for themselves not to supply them with a lot of readymade answers.)
Humans have a natural desire to base their thinking on something that they believe they can trust.
Aestheticians are constantly battling about the definition of the word art. Here’s a quick list of some positions that people take related to defining art. There are of course many other schools of thought but these are some that are still being supported. (Thanks to folks on Aesthetics-L for their informative debate on this topic.)
1. Institutional: institutions define what works should be called art.
2. Elitist: an elite group decides which works should be called art.
3. Populist: art is defined by what is popularly called art.
4. Lexical: the word art can be defined by common usage.
5. Idealist: There is an ideal art object (probably not physical) by which other works of art may be judged. The more they conform to the ideal the more worthy they are to be called art.
6. Objectivist: This is a broad category that includes many of the others. It just says that art should be judged based on objective attributes. Objective attributes can be experienced by one or more senses like color, line, or pitch.
7. Subjectivist: Another broad category that defines art based on subjective attributes. One definition of the word subjective is ‘taking place within the mind and modified by individual bias; "a subjective judgment"’ (www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn).
8. Naturalist: art is a reflection of nature and the closer it mirrors nature the better the art will be.
It’s not hard to see that none of these definitions seem to account for art as we know it today. The thing that interests me most is how each thought school relies on some source for authority.
John Dewey in Art as Experience bases his definition of art on evolution. Basically he says that art is a process which helps people adapt to their environment so just about anything can be called art. Dewey spends almost a whole chapter saying that we shouldn’t eliminate everyday occurrences such as supper from the category called art. The most authoritative source that Dewey trusted in was science. Whatever science said he believed and science said that all things—from maggots to men—are the product of chance and random processes.
The result is that Dewey spends a lot of time backpedaling from his false start. If evolution is the evaluative principle of art then there is no value difference between any two works that fall into his art category. It doesn’t matter how well a work was made, if it helps people to adapt to their environment it can be called art. Dewey realized that this wasn’t a tenable of useful definition so he spends the rest of his book putting additional requirements on art so that he can eliminate a bunch of stuff that no one wants to call art from the art category.
Other definitions like the institutional and elitist (often two heads of the same dragon) struggle with dependability. If you believe that an elite group of people define what is classified as art then you have to figure out which people get allowed into the inner sanctum of the elite.
If you think institutions define art, which institutions should be allowed to do so? Do all museums have the right to say what art is? What about governments, or a board of artistic governors?
Of further interest is the assertion that art cannot be defined. If you listen long enough to a person who asserts this their argument usually runs something like this. “As I look at the group of works that impress me as art I am unable to find an attribute common to all of them so there must not be a way to define what is art.” At its bottom this definition relies on the authority of the individual asserting it.
Everyone wants to believe that their definition of art is based on the most authoritative source possible. Whether it’s based on nature or logic, a definition is only as valuable as the authority that asserts it. Whatever the definition, figuring out what authority it depends on is the first step in evaluating the definition. When you formulate your own definition of art, consider what you have chosen as its central authority. No doubt that authority is defining more for you than art.