a new way of looking at...     philosophy >> wittgenstein and the open concept of art - 1

- info -
comments
contact

- navigation -
philosophy
home
feedback

The idea that in order to get clear about the meaning of a general term one had to find the common element in all its applications has shackled philosophical investigation. - Ludwig Wittgenstein¹

The foregoing quote shows the main problem with philosophical investigation to the present day. Philosophers have been concerned with finding the essence of things, a set of necessary and sufficient conditions in defining the terms we use in everyday life. Good, bad, beauty, truth, virtue, etc… have all been hopelessly pursued within the confines of our language to discover the common elements of a term in order to properly dispense in using it. Wittgenstein is best known for challenging this particular desire, moving past finding the commonalities between uses of a concept, and moving forward into a new way of looking at concepts in our lives - as family resemblances. The influence of this concept is seen in all aspects of philosophy, from the philosophy of language, it's obvious correlation to postmodernism, and the focus of this paper: aesthetics.

Morris Weitz, a prominent aesthetic philosopher, utilized this concept of family resemblances in his work "The Role of Theory in Aesthetics" to create the open concept of art. This open concept of art led to quite a stir in aesthetic theory from which it seemed that no recovery was possible. Maurice Mandelbaum, an opponent to the open concept of art, formed a defense against the open concept in his work "Family Resemblances and Generalization Concerning the Arts", in which he strikes at the nature of Wittgenstein's development of family resemblances to show that something is missing. Weitz formed a counter-criticism against Mandelbaum in his work The Opening Mind to show that family resemblances does succeed, and that this open concept of art moves forward past a reliance on family resemblances.

The goal of this paper is to show that the concept of family resemblances ultimately succeeds as an adequate representation of art in lieu of Mandelbaum's criticism of Weitz's theory. It will start by defining the nature of family resemblances, move on the Weitz's open concept of art, and end with a critique of Mandelbaum's criticism from Weitz's standpoint and my own. It will further go to show that while art remains an open concept, there is hope for art evaluation and art criticism, and that aesthetics can pursue into many different areas.

Wittgenstein's Doctrine of Family Resemblances
The first mention of family resemblances appears in The Blue and Brown Books after a discussion on the concept of language-games. A language-game is the use of simple concepts that have diverse meanings in the highly complex language that we use.² For instance, those that believe in some higher deity attribute the term, and therefore concept, of God. The use of the word God is multi-faceted in our language. We can refer to God as the head of any of the three major monotheistic faiths (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam). We can use it to refer to a mythological deity, such as Apollo, a god. We can use it as a qualifier for things that appear super-human, such as the god-like strength of someone. All of these meanings for the concept of God are summed up in a single word: God. The usage of that term by every individual is assumed to be common to everyone else, though in reality the concept that we have formed in our minds as to what God is varies from person to person. Yet, we still persist in using the simple term, God. This is an example of a language-game.