1. Art Theory and Criticism
Course Syllabus, spring 2010
CRN: 17676 A/17675 D
Instructor: Dr. Onoyom Ukpong
Session: Mondays & Wednesdays, 5.00 - 6.15pm, Room 2016
Office Hours: Tuesdays & Thursdays, 1.30 - 3.30 p.m., Room 2001
___________________________________________________________________
2. Georgia Southern University College of liberal Arts and Social Sciences
Ukpong. Art Theory and Criticism. Spring 2010 Page 2 of 5
Introduction
In a sense, cultural theory and art go together for all to whom they are meaningful, and for what
they may be worth in the discursive field. But the very concept of “art” has recently been
captured, held captive, tried, and acquitted by philosophical powers and aestheticians who
redefined art meaning in the 1850s and 1950s, at the beginning of the ages of reason and of
postmodernism (marked by stylistic pluralism) which ushered into the circle of art discourse
analytic modes of artistic judgment, with philosophers of the first rank propounding art theories
consistent with time and dictates by events in the immediate environments. Thenceforth, the
former notion of singular “truth” which had been founded on God or on the Church as the sole
source of knowledge for art creation in premodern societies, began to disappear simultaneously
with the emergence of “pseudo-libertarian” pluralistic sources of knowledge and new art
meanings, albeit considerable pre-1850s cultural fundaments still are loosely woven into the
fabrics of artistic consciousness in some developing civilizations.
However, what has cultural theory to do with art? What have we as proof of the symbiosis of the
two and of the dependency of one on another? What might art have been before without art
theory? And what becomes of art after theory will have vamoosed, the basis of its legitimacy?
Might we take art theory, as the Essentialists have, to be the sole determinant of the properties art
must and must not have? If so, how then are we sure that legitimizing a work of art solely on the
basis of it possessing specific “essential properties” will not, as Stephen Davies and Morris
Weitz contend will, stifle creativity—in the wake of the much celebrated pluralistic sources of
knowledge typifying postmodernism? Are there cogent reasons for us not to accept alternatives
which empiricist Merleau-Ponty and those in his company have advanced, on the merits of the
reducibility of scientific thought [resonating from these alternatives] to matters of sensual
necessity, which have recently been adumbrated by a handful of multicultural aestheticians, like
Stephen Ross, Mudimbe, Minh-ha?
Providing answers to such questions about the implication of theory and the arts will require us
analyzing specific historical conjunctures that would lead to theoretical debates about the
legitimacy of foundations on which cultural theory has been built, demolished, and rebuilt: the
notion of the “truth” about premodern art, the authenticity of the logic that typified art and its
interpretation during modernism, and the shift from these concepts to stylistic “pluralism” that
could be claimed to cohere in postmodernism. It will require us reassessing such conservative
claim that art was born a Greek, raised an Italian but now has no nationality whatsoever—insofar
as we are continually challenged by the present century turning on the question of art identity:
representation versus reason and stylistic pluralism. This issue in art identity had not been
resolved until recently when it was settled with the intervening phrases like interpretation,
context, concept, value, taste, difference, uniqueness, and so on. On this account, now that
postmodern philosophers Davies and Weitz, and their supporters have thwarted the dismissal of
imagery from everyday “nonartistic” sources as “noneart,” the rule of engagement in art creation,
validation, reasoning, and systematic thought has changed: much if not all of the arguments on
what properties art should or should not have nowadays is resolved, as a scholar has argued, “in
breaking rather than applying the norm.” Here, the “truth” [of art, theory and interpretation] is
acknowledged to be a matter of subjective conviction of precision of judgment.
3. Georgia Southern University College of liberal Arts and Social Sciences
Ukpong. Art Theory and Criticism. Spring 2010 Page 3 of 5
Format
This seminar will be conducted—as all my previous ones have been—as a strategic reading
group whose emphasis will be on the close analysis of specific texts aimed at stimulating the
academic mind to address some unfolding arguments, from session to session. In the first five
minute of each twice-weekly session I will lead discussion on scheduled topics; set the tone of
the forum to query art and cultural theory as imbricate coefficients, and map out grounds of
further discussion on related scholarships and documented controversies. Following these
preambles will be a series of scheduled ten-minute presentations, at least two per session, during
which presenters and participants shall aim to raise questions about the reading rather than
support the locating thesis; read the texts with intense scrutiny dissecting the parts and
reassemble them in order to understand the composite nature of the whole texts and be
conversant with the logic and politics underlying theory formulations. This means that
summarizing the texts will not be accepted but analyzing them will. And so when reading you
should be guided by the assumption that art-philosophical literature is, by its very nature and
intent, full of fallacies, biases and allegations often leading to the indictment of the familiar
suspect (the alien art) more than the innocent (the indigenous art).
Even if overstated, please be mindful of the foregoing guiding factors when reading the texts and
compiling your notes. Do this also when presenting your one-page, single-space research paper
on the agreed topic, bearing in mind that at the time of your presentation you will be required to
circulate copies of your paper to fellow participants. But even if the paper is not ready, session
participation is required. Begin the introductory paragraph of your research paper with a
powerful thesis—stating the centrality of the reading, i.e., the main idea in the chapter; comment
on the authorial claim [including biases, fallacies, and cliché] and the supporting argument;
assess the argument critically analyzing this in relation to arguments advanced in similar
scholarships; weigh the strength and weakness of the arguments; state the position you take and
why. In essence, pay attention to: authorial question, claim, argument, ambiguity, encoded
meaning, lucidity of literary presentation, logic, and so on.
Seminar Assignments
Participants are to read all of the scheduled twice-weekly readings but must select one topic from
the list of chapter readings that follows this paragraph. The topic must be agreed on by the
parties and recorded for future reference. A one-page analytic paper on the selected topic is due
for circulation and presentation on the scheduled day and time of your seminar presentation. At
each end of the twice-weekly session, names and topics of subsequent presenters will be
announced and instructions given, some of which will from time to time be posted on
GeorgiaView, as the need arises. Be prepared to revise your paper into a five-page document due
for final presentation and submission by Wednesday May 5, 2010, the final day of the seminar
conference, which will be open to anyone you may choose to invite. Late submission of the
paper will not be accepted without prior agreement and appropriate documentation.
4. Georgia Southern University College of liberal Arts and Social Sciences
Ukpong. Art Theory and Criticism. Spring 2010 Page 4 of 5
Reading
Required Ross, Stephen D [ed.]. Art and Its Significance. 3rd
ed. Albany: State
University of New York Press, 1994.
Additional course website resource; Excerpts from:
• Lamarque, P., and Stein Olse. Aesthetics and the Philosophy of Art: The
Analytic Tradition. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2004.
• Solomon, F. Critique of Modern Art. New Hampshire: Nathaniel Hawthorn
College Press, 1970.
Chapter selections/scheduled presentations
Plato, Aristotle Jan. 20
Hume, Kant Jan 25, 27
Hegel Feb 01, 03
Nietzsche, Tolstoy Feb 08, 10
Bell, Dewey, Pepper Feb 15, 17
Collingwood, Langer, Goodman, Ross Feb 22, 24
Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty, Gadamer, Ricoeur Mar 01, 03
Derrida Mar 08, 10
Frankfurt School Mar 15, 17
Frederick Solomon (chpts. 1-5, available on G/View) Mar 22, 24
Critical Issues in Aesthetics (Feminist and Multicultural Theories)
Trinh Minh-ha. “Woman, Native, Other” Mar 29, 31
Morris Weitz. “The Role of Theory in Aesthetics” Apr 05, 07
Monroe Beardsley. “An Aesthetic Definition of Art” Apr 12, 14
Stephen Davies. “Weitz’s Anti-Essentialism” Apr 19, 21
R. Hepburn. “Contemporary Aesthetics ….” Apr 26, 28
V. Y. Mudimbe. “The Invention of Africa” May 03
Final presentation/paper due May 05
Grading
Attendance and participation [20 pts., each]: 40 points
Scheduled paper presentation/circulation: 30 points
Final paper presentation/submission: 30 points
5. Georgia Southern University College of liberal Arts and Social Sciences
Ukpong. Art Theory and Criticism. Spring 2010 Page 5 of 5
Conduct
Cellular phone use, text messaging Ipods and use of other electronic devices interfere with
seminar proceedings which assault seminar tranquility, thus are prohibited during sessions.
These devices must be turned off and stored properly. Late arrivals and early departures will not
be condoned, as these activities disrupt smooth deliberation and may be recorded as absences.
Visits to the bathroom and concession stand must be conducted quietly. These fundamentals
should be strictly observed to ensure a conference environment conducive for maximization of
learning. I should point out that plagiarism is prohibited. Please refer to the student handbook,
page 19, for stipulations on this and the penalty for violating this code of conduct.
Civility Statement
Participants are expected to be polite when raising questions about peer presentations and when
providing answers to them during sessions. Confrontational approach to all aspects of seminar-
related matters: comments and inquiries including accepting and rejecting grounds of dispute are
unacceptable. This means that conversations and interactions between participants should show
interpersonal respect. Failure on the part of participants to maintain an atmosphere reflecting the
foregoing fundamentals shall constitute sufficient ground upon which the participants in violation
may be rusticated from participating in the active and subsequent sessions, consistent with
procedures set forth in the Student Conduct Code to address such and similar circumstances.
![Georgia Southern University College of liberal Arts and Social Sciences
Ukpong. Art Theory and Criticism. Spring 2010 Page 2 of 5
Introduction
In a sense, cultural theory and art go together for all to whom they are meaningful, and for what
they may be worth in the discursive field. But the very concept of “art” has recently been
captured, held captive, tried, and acquitted by philosophical powers and aestheticians who
redefined art meaning in the 1850s and 1950s, at the beginning of the ages of reason and of
postmodernism (marked by stylistic pluralism) which ushered into the circle of art discourse
analytic modes of artistic judgment, with philosophers of the first rank propounding art theories
consistent with time and dictates by events in the immediate environments. Thenceforth, the
former notion of singular “truth” which had been founded on God or on the Church as the sole
source of knowledge for art creation in premodern societies, began to disappear simultaneously
with the emergence of “pseudo-libertarian” pluralistic sources of knowledge and new art
meanings, albeit considerable pre-1850s cultural fundaments still are loosely woven into the
fabrics of artistic consciousness in some developing civilizations.
However, what has cultural theory to do with art? What have we as proof of the symbiosis of the
two and of the dependency of one on another? What might art have been before without art
theory? And what becomes of art after theory will have vamoosed, the basis of its legitimacy?
Might we take art theory, as the Essentialists have, to be the sole determinant of the properties art
must and must not have? If so, how then are we sure that legitimizing a work of art solely on the
basis of it possessing specific “essential properties” will not, as Stephen Davies and Morris
Weitz contend will, stifle creativity—in the wake of the much celebrated pluralistic sources of
knowledge typifying postmodernism? Are there cogent reasons for us not to accept alternatives
which empiricist Merleau-Ponty and those in his company have advanced, on the merits of the
reducibility of scientific thought [resonating from these alternatives] to matters of sensual
necessity, which have recently been adumbrated by a handful of multicultural aestheticians, like
Stephen Ross, Mudimbe, Minh-ha?
Providing answers to such questions about the implication of theory and the arts will require us
analyzing specific historical conjunctures that would lead to theoretical debates about the
legitimacy of foundations on which cultural theory has been built, demolished, and rebuilt: the
notion of the “truth” about premodern art, the authenticity of the logic that typified art and its
interpretation during modernism, and the shift from these concepts to stylistic “pluralism” that
could be claimed to cohere in postmodernism. It will require us reassessing such conservative
claim that art was born a Greek, raised an Italian but now has no nationality whatsoever—insofar
as we are continually challenged by the present century turning on the question of art identity:
representation versus reason and stylistic pluralism. This issue in art identity had not been
resolved until recently when it was settled with the intervening phrases like interpretation,
context, concept, value, taste, difference, uniqueness, and so on. On this account, now that
postmodern philosophers Davies and Weitz, and their supporters have thwarted the dismissal of
imagery from everyday “nonartistic” sources as “noneart,” the rule of engagement in art creation,
validation, reasoning, and systematic thought has changed: much if not all of the arguments on
what properties art should or should not have nowadays is resolved, as a scholar has argued, “in
breaking rather than applying the norm.” Here, the “truth” [of art, theory and interpretation] is
acknowledged to be a matter of subjective conviction of precision of judgment.]()