A few things can be said about the ideas put forth by J.O. Urmson in his
essay, "Literature" (or "philosophy", if you mustn't) as a "Performing Art".
Some believe that Urmson is mistaken in a
major fundamental idea he proposes and uses as a base to answer his questions
and that he has inconsistencies with his theory.
The paper “Literature as a
Performing Art” by J.O. Urmson is a suggestion of two answers to the
question of the “ontological status of a literary work”- what kind of thing is a novel, a poem, etc.
and to the question of whether or not literature is analogous to another major art form.
question of the “ontological status of a literary work”- what kind of thing is a novel, a poem, etc.
and to the question of whether or not literature is analogous to another major art form.
Urmson tries to answer the question of the ontological
status of a literary work by first organizing the major works of art
(excluding literature) into two categories.
A) The first category includes things such as painting and sculpture, where the object is both
conceived and made by its creator. It is physical and can be stolen, defaced or locked away.
B) The second category includes things such as music, theatre, opera, ballet, etc., where
there is a need for an intermediary, or executant artist. An executant artist, in plain English, is a
performer. The audience does not witness the creation of the work of art of this second category
and instead the audience witnesses a performance.
According to Urmson, a symphony or a ballet cannot be simply identified with a
manuscript, such as a score, or with any event, such as a specific performance.
Instead, Urmson
says, the creative artist provides a set of instructions for the executant artist. For example,
Beethoven composing the 5th Symphony is really Beethoven writing a set of instructions for an
orchestra. And in the same way, a choreographer creates a set of instructions for ballet dancers.
Urmson brings up that the idea of creating a set of instructions and having individual
instances of it may sound like the type-token theory. The type-token theory is a theory that states
a creative artist creates a type, or class, of a musical work, a ballet, an opera, etc. and any
instance, or performance, of that type is a token. For example, Beethoven creates the type of 5th
Symphony by composing it and the New York Philharmonic Orchestra creates a token by
performing it at Carnegie Hall. Urmson, however, rejects this idea by pointing out that should
there an unperformed work, it’d be hard to see how there can be a type before tokens.
Now that Urmson has categorized the major works of art, he then turns to literature.
Urmson makes two distinctions in literature, literature that is intended for oral performance, such
as poems and plays, and literature intended for private reading (usually silent). It is clear in the
kind of literature intended for oral performance that there is a separate audience, creative artist
and an executant artist; it is indeed a performance. The second kind of literature, intended for
private reading, is where there is a problem.
Urmson then goes back to music and brings up silent score reading. There are people
who, after extensive training and experience, can read musical scores silently and know what it
would sound like, as there are experienced cooks who can read a recipe and know what it would
taste like. Urmson suggests that learning to read an ordinary language is like learning to read a
score silently to oneself… though reading an ordinary language is easier and more of us have
mastery of it.
From this, Urmson draws an analogy between literature primarily intended for private
reading and a set of musical scores intended for score reading than for performance. According
to Urmson, reading Hamlet and War and Peace is not unlike each other but whereas the text of
Hamlet was primarily a score, or set of instructions, for actors, the text of War and Peace is for
the score reader. Reading the text of Hamlet is not a performance but it is not unlike reading the
text of War and Peace.
Urmson states that we read to find out how the performance will go and are then content.
He believes that this is confirmed by some of the critical remarks about literary style. Even with
works that are not meant to be read aloud, it is commonplace to speak of assonance, dissonance,
sonority, rhythm, etc. Literature is criticized in terms of how it would sound, as if it were spoken.
Urmson admits that not all literature can be covered under this theory, certain works such
as the poems of e. e. cummings or Lewis Carroll’s Mouse’s Tale that should be printed in the
shape of a mouse’s tail. Such works cannot be understood totally without the certain way it’s
printed. He admits to not being able to account for these cases, but he does not think they need to
disturb him.
He concludes by stating that he resolves the problem of the ontological status of a literary
work by saying that for a literary work to exist it is a necessary and sufficient condition that a set
of instructions should exist such that any oral performance which complies with that set of
instructions is a performance of the work in question. He resolves the problem of analogy by
saying that it is analogous to reading a musical score.
A few have three major problems with Urmson’s paper.
The first major problem is with his
categorization of major art forms. While I don’t disagree with Urmson categorizing art forms
into two categories, I disagree with the two categories he sorts them into. Urmson has the first
category, where the creative artist conceives and makes the work, such as painting and sculpture
and the second category, where the creative artist only creates a set of instructions and is not, at
the same time, the performer.
In the case of the first category, it is true that the painter conceives and creates a work,
namely a painting, but he would also plan the painting, by drawing the outline or figuring out
what kind of brushstroke to use, thereby creating a set of instructions. Though the instructions
would be for himself, the bottom line is that he creates a set of instructions. Though it would be
in the first category, this would push it closer to the second category and blur the lines between
the categories a bit.
In the case of the second category, while it is true that the creative artist, for example a
composer, creates a set of instructions, he is also an executant artist, the performer, in that as he
is done composing the piece, he will play the entire piece from beginning to end to make sure it
sounds the way he wants to sound. Just because the creative artist is also the audience and
performer doesn’t detract from the fact that he creates a set of instructions. So then this is still in
the second category but moves it toward the first category as well, blurring the lines even more.
Another example of how the categories blur into each other is the invention of the Paint
By Number kits. In a Paint By Number kit, the actual painting of the work is done by an
executant artist (the purchaser of the kit) by following the instructions that are drawn onto the
canvas by the creative artist (the manufacturer). However, there is still a physical work resulting
which can be stolen, defaced or locked away.
The second problem with Urmson is his inconsistency with his own rejections. He rejects
the type-token theory in the fifth paragraph of his paper. However, in the next paragraph, he goes
to say “In my view, to create the pecan pie is to provide a recipe which, if followed by the
executant cook, will result in a pecan pie.” This seems to be in direct compliance with the typetoken
theory, which states that a creative artist creates a type of something and each instance or
performance is a token. So, to perform the 5th Symphony by Beethoven is to perform a 5th
Symphony by Beethoven. Urmson is very inconsistent here.
The third and final major problem I have with Urmson is the invalid logic he utilizes in
his conclusion. According to Urmson, “for a literary work to exist it is a necessary and sufficient
condition that a set of instructions should exist such that any oral performance which complies
with that set of instructions is a performance of the work in question.” This seems paradoxical
when taken into account his admittance of not every literary work being covered under his
theory, such as e. e. cummings’ poems. e. e. cummings’ poems does not meet the condition “that
any oral performance which complies with that set of instructions is a performance of the work
in question.” but surely it exists! This seems to me a counterexample of his biconditional
statement. Another counterexample is a literary work whose oral performance would not be a
performance of the work in question. The book, “How to Read a Book” by Mortimer J. Adler
and Charles Van Doren instructs the reader on how to read properly. But an oral performance of
this text would not be a performance of the work, as the book instructs the reader to read.
Urmson tries to give an ontological account of literature and a relation to another art
form.
Although his attempt is ambitious, it is abound with flaws, inconsistencies and even an
illogical statement.
A) The first category includes things such as painting and sculpture, where the object is both
conceived and made by its creator. It is physical and can be stolen, defaced or locked away.
B) The second category includes things such as music, theatre, opera, ballet, etc., where
there is a need for an intermediary, or executant artist. An executant artist, in plain English, is a
performer. The audience does not witness the creation of the work of art of this second category
and instead the audience witnesses a performance.
According to Urmson, a symphony or a ballet cannot be simply identified with a
manuscript, such as a score, or with any event, such as a specific performance.
Instead, Urmson
says, the creative artist provides a set of instructions for the executant artist. For example,
Beethoven composing the 5th Symphony is really Beethoven writing a set of instructions for an
orchestra. And in the same way, a choreographer creates a set of instructions for ballet dancers.
Urmson brings up that the idea of creating a set of instructions and having individual
instances of it may sound like the type-token theory. The type-token theory is a theory that states
a creative artist creates a type, or class, of a musical work, a ballet, an opera, etc. and any
instance, or performance, of that type is a token. For example, Beethoven creates the type of 5th
Symphony by composing it and the New York Philharmonic Orchestra creates a token by
performing it at Carnegie Hall. Urmson, however, rejects this idea by pointing out that should
there an unperformed work, it’d be hard to see how there can be a type before tokens.
Now that Urmson has categorized the major works of art, he then turns to literature.
Urmson makes two distinctions in literature, literature that is intended for oral performance, such
as poems and plays, and literature intended for private reading (usually silent). It is clear in the
kind of literature intended for oral performance that there is a separate audience, creative artist
and an executant artist; it is indeed a performance. The second kind of literature, intended for
private reading, is where there is a problem.
Urmson then goes back to music and brings up silent score reading. There are people
who, after extensive training and experience, can read musical scores silently and know what it
would sound like, as there are experienced cooks who can read a recipe and know what it would
taste like. Urmson suggests that learning to read an ordinary language is like learning to read a
score silently to oneself… though reading an ordinary language is easier and more of us have
mastery of it.
From this, Urmson draws an analogy between literature primarily intended for private
reading and a set of musical scores intended for score reading than for performance. According
to Urmson, reading Hamlet and War and Peace is not unlike each other but whereas the text of
Hamlet was primarily a score, or set of instructions, for actors, the text of War and Peace is for
the score reader. Reading the text of Hamlet is not a performance but it is not unlike reading the
text of War and Peace.
Urmson states that we read to find out how the performance will go and are then content.
He believes that this is confirmed by some of the critical remarks about literary style. Even with
works that are not meant to be read aloud, it is commonplace to speak of assonance, dissonance,
sonority, rhythm, etc. Literature is criticized in terms of how it would sound, as if it were spoken.
Urmson admits that not all literature can be covered under this theory, certain works such
as the poems of e. e. cummings or Lewis Carroll’s Mouse’s Tale that should be printed in the
shape of a mouse’s tail. Such works cannot be understood totally without the certain way it’s
printed. He admits to not being able to account for these cases, but he does not think they need to
disturb him.
He concludes by stating that he resolves the problem of the ontological status of a literary
work by saying that for a literary work to exist it is a necessary and sufficient condition that a set
of instructions should exist such that any oral performance which complies with that set of
instructions is a performance of the work in question. He resolves the problem of analogy by
saying that it is analogous to reading a musical score.
A few have three major problems with Urmson’s paper.
The first major problem is with his
categorization of major art forms. While I don’t disagree with Urmson categorizing art forms
into two categories, I disagree with the two categories he sorts them into. Urmson has the first
category, where the creative artist conceives and makes the work, such as painting and sculpture
and the second category, where the creative artist only creates a set of instructions and is not, at
the same time, the performer.
In the case of the first category, it is true that the painter conceives and creates a work,
namely a painting, but he would also plan the painting, by drawing the outline or figuring out
what kind of brushstroke to use, thereby creating a set of instructions. Though the instructions
would be for himself, the bottom line is that he creates a set of instructions. Though it would be
in the first category, this would push it closer to the second category and blur the lines between
the categories a bit.
In the case of the second category, while it is true that the creative artist, for example a
composer, creates a set of instructions, he is also an executant artist, the performer, in that as he
is done composing the piece, he will play the entire piece from beginning to end to make sure it
sounds the way he wants to sound. Just because the creative artist is also the audience and
performer doesn’t detract from the fact that he creates a set of instructions. So then this is still in
the second category but moves it toward the first category as well, blurring the lines even more.
Another example of how the categories blur into each other is the invention of the Paint
By Number kits. In a Paint By Number kit, the actual painting of the work is done by an
executant artist (the purchaser of the kit) by following the instructions that are drawn onto the
canvas by the creative artist (the manufacturer). However, there is still a physical work resulting
which can be stolen, defaced or locked away.
The second problem with Urmson is his inconsistency with his own rejections. He rejects
the type-token theory in the fifth paragraph of his paper. However, in the next paragraph, he goes
to say “In my view, to create the pecan pie is to provide a recipe which, if followed by the
executant cook, will result in a pecan pie.” This seems to be in direct compliance with the typetoken
theory, which states that a creative artist creates a type of something and each instance or
performance is a token. So, to perform the 5th Symphony by Beethoven is to perform a 5th
Symphony by Beethoven. Urmson is very inconsistent here.
The third and final major problem I have with Urmson is the invalid logic he utilizes in
his conclusion. According to Urmson, “for a literary work to exist it is a necessary and sufficient
condition that a set of instructions should exist such that any oral performance which complies
with that set of instructions is a performance of the work in question.” This seems paradoxical
when taken into account his admittance of not every literary work being covered under his
theory, such as e. e. cummings’ poems. e. e. cummings’ poems does not meet the condition “that
any oral performance which complies with that set of instructions is a performance of the work
in question.” but surely it exists! This seems to me a counterexample of his biconditional
statement. Another counterexample is a literary work whose oral performance would not be a
performance of the work in question. The book, “How to Read a Book” by Mortimer J. Adler
and Charles Van Doren instructs the reader on how to read properly. But an oral performance of
this text would not be a performance of the work, as the book instructs the reader to read.
Urmson tries to give an ontological account of literature and a relation to another art
form.
Although his attempt is ambitious, it is abound with flaws, inconsistencies and even an
illogical statement.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment