7/30/2019 Dazevedo_definition of Art

1/13

A Structural Approach to Esthetics: Toward a Definitionof Art in Anthropology1

WARREN L. DAZEVEDOUniversity of California, Berkeley

HE general recognit ion of a r t as a prima ry me ans b y which indiv idual an dT ocial valu es are expressed is odd ly incom patib le with t he ne glect of th esubject in anthropological theory. Psychological stud ies of a r t hav e revealedth e int imate connect ion between individual s tyle an d personal i ty an d, to someextent , have shown a connection between style and the individuals mode ofsocial integrat ion. Historical studies have at te m pte d t o de mo nstra te a close re-lat ion between epochs of social developm ent an d the charac ter of their a rts.T h e styles of whole cul tures have been de al t with b y anthro pologists interm s of broad construc ts such as ethos, orientat ions, or configurat ionwhich are intende d to present comprehensive s tatem ents of the world-view ofgiven societies. Bu t a r t itself d oes not em erge as a distinc t sy stem of social rela-t ions an d cognit ion con tributing in specific ways to the integrat ion, reinforce-men t , or change of society an d its values; nor d oes i t em erge expl ici tly in theorya s an imp ortan t vehicle fo r the expression of these values. Sh apiro (1953:311)writes:

We have interesting studies on a multitude of-problems concerning the relationshipof particu lar styles and conten ts of a rt to institutions and historical situations. In thesestudies ideas, traits, and values arising from the conditions of economic, political, andcivil life are matched with the new characteristics of an art. Yet, with all this experi-ence, the general principles applied in explanation an d the connection of types of a r twith types of social struc ture have not been investigated in a systematic way. By t h emany scholars who adduce piecemeal po litical or economic facts in order to account forsingle traits of style or subject matter, little has been done to construct an adequatecomprehensive theory.T he close associat ion of an thropolog y and archeology in the pa st ten ded tofocus attention on collections of items of material cul ture from ant iqui ty orfrom exotic contemporary societies. It was the classification and analysis of

such collections-frequently with out ad eq ua te know ledge of the peoples fromwhom the materials were derived-that condit ioned th e early appro ach towha t has come to be known a s primi t ive a r t . Tales , musical samples, de-script ions of dance a n d dra ma tic presen tat ions likewise were bro ugh t bac k b ytravelers an d ethnologists and accum ulated und er categories which dist in-guished media, technique, and form . In a real sense these materials w ere d eal twith as art i facts. As neither cul ture i tself nor esthet ic values are inherent inart ifacts , ar t in the role of art i fact could not be un derstood in i t s own terms.T h e mo st intensive descript ion, classification, a n d an alysis of ele m en ts of form

702

7/30/2019 Dazevedo_definition of Art

2/13

[D ZEVEDO] A n Approach to Esthetics 703alone will fail to disclose the data necessary to a delineation of art from non-art,except in the crudest sense.Though the approaches to art in the literature of anthropology are manyand diverse, they reveal a common tendency which has been appropriatelytermed the museum approach to art. The processes of a rt are obscured byemphasis upon its formal products and their value as a source of informationabout other things. Even more recent functional and structural approachestend to work backward from the product of a rt to its functional placement inan on-going sociocultural system. This has severely restricted a dynamic viewof the arts. They are attributed significance as by-products or instruments ofother categories of social phenomena which appear to be more amenable toanalysis and structuring-political) economic, and religious activities, for ex-ample. When the artist himself emerges-which he rarely does-he is over-shadowed by his product and its nonesthetic affinities.

It is commonly held that economic activi ty is a necessity, but tha t a rt is aluxury,) writes Firth (1951: 155-162), yet we can assert empirically the uni-versality of ar t in mans social history. He proposes that there are universalstandards of resthetic quality, just as there are universal standards of technicalefficiency. The difficulty is, however, t ha t the writer is asserting the universal-ity of something about which we have formulated no adequate concept andwhich we have not dealt with systematically in theory. His cogent summary ofthe scope of the problem a t hand brings us more directly to the point.

The first problem is the effects on a society of producing and using the art objects.The second problem is the nature of the values which are expressed by the formalcharacteristics of the art objects. , . .These problems may be put in another way-what does art do in a primitive society? The social correlates of art have two aspects.On the one hand, the creation-the actual making, and use of objects of art affects thesystem of social relations. On the other hand, the system of representations conveyedby the objects of art, in particular the system of symbols, corresponds to some systemof social relations.Insofar as art is composed in a social setting and has-a cultural content, thiscontent can only be understood in specific cultural terms a t given periods oftime. It is this element of cultural content in ar t that has admitted the anthro-pologist to the field. In the collection of objects of primitive art as cultural ma-terial, Firth suggests that the anthropologist has performed an importantsub-aesthetic function, and it is on his shoulders that the task of interpretingthe meaning of these things has largely fallen. Though these remarks antici-pate a theory of art in anthropology, they also demonstrate implicitly theenigma which confronts any att empt to define ar t in social and cultural terms.In order to know what a r t does, we must have a working concept of what ar t is.There are many ways in which an anthropologist may study objects pre-sumed to be art without bothering himself with a definition of art. As a cul-tural product, the object can be studied in terms of technology. Systems ofsymbolic representation inferred from the elements of an object can be studiedin relation to their sociocultural matrix. Also, the many nonesthetic functions

7/30/2019 Dazevedo_definition of Art

3/13

704 American Anthropologist [60, 1958of objects within a given society m ay be dealt w ith. Im po rta nt a s such studiesare t o our eventual un derstanding of artistic ac tivit y and it s products in societyand culture, the y contribute only indirectly t o th e formulation of th e kin d ofconstru cts required for a th eo ry of a rt . Where is th e locus of a rt : is it in ob jects,in the social or pri va te uses of objects, in the production of objects? W ha t arethe str uctu ral components of a rt from a sociocultural sta ndp oin t: are th ey de-ducible from the formal elements of objects, or must we delineate a class ofsocial activities before we can id en tif y th em ?Th e obstacles to the form ulation of a sufficiently analytica l concept of a r tin anthropology arise no t only from th e stan da rd orienta tions of th e disciplinebut from the natu re of a r t itself. W riting of th e role of tho se norm s of ta st ewhich are comm only associated with th e phenomenon of ar t, P arso ns(1937: 78-679) reminds the reader t ha t he has deal t with these norms only intheir relation to oth er m ore easily str uc tu rab le categories of social action. T hi sfac t lends them a n unavoidable residual character which always arouses thesuspicion th a t essential distinctions are being covered up. I n proposing aStructure of integration and expression in his scheme, Levy (1952: 504)stresses tha t it m ust remain in essence a residual category u ntil a g reat er de-gree of clar ity an d explicitness ob ta in s in our concept of affects. Th e diffusionthroug hout all social behavior of th e affectual ph en om en a- tha t we find pecu-liarly manifested in th e creative a nd expressive functions of ar t ar e as ye t onlycrudely susceptible to analysis on the social level. Deweys panaestheticconcept holds tha t a ny experience is esthetic to the exte nt it is an experience,and Cassirer maintains that the esthetic emerges from correspondences be-tween th e objective forms of symbolic process an d subje ctive sta te s of con-sciousness thro ugh in tuition. T he implication of consciousness, specificity ofstimuli, and heightened affect as fea tu res of th e esthetic experience is prov oca-tive in regard t o th e problem a t hand , bu t it is har dly a guide to observable oc-curences in social relations. Insofar as the human imagination is engaged inceaseless elabora tion of experience in to conscious forms, some en tir ely subjec-tive in correspondence an d some w ith an o bjective reference, th e estheticwould seem to be largely beyond our grasp except through intensive study ofthe individual. However, it is reasonable to assum e t h at there is an aspect ofthe task for which the anthropologist is specially equipped an d for w hich heneed not awa it a unified theory of perception f ro m psychology o r a codificationof principles from th e newer disciplines of ae sthe tics an d sem iotics.Psychological or philosophical approaches to art and esthetics contribute toour purposes only to the ext ent to which our own premises are kep t clearly inmind.This pap er is addressed to the initia l problem of fo rm ulating a definition ofa rt releva nt t o the sociocultural fram e of reference, an d derived from ma terialswithin range of observ ation b y anthropolog ists. A definition of thi s ki nd m us tnot be construed a s an epitome of a new theo ry of art , but rath er as a trialstatem ent intended t o bring th is subject m atte r into our search for uniformityin terminology a nd research perspectives. T he problem is essentially th e differ-

7/30/2019 Dazevedo_definition of Art

4/13

DAZEVEDO] A n Approach to Esthetics 705entiation of a phen omeno n w hich we comm only refer to as art, from ph enom-ena which are not ar t, an d t o discover, if possible, a more dyna m ic placementof the concepts ar t and esthetics in our general theory.

THE ESTHETICT he rudim ents of a definition of a r t in anthro polog y are suggested b y Boas(1955: 12-13) when prop osing a distinction between t he esthetic and th e artis-tic. Sometimes esthetic pleasure is released by natural forms, he writes.T he song of a bird m ay be be au tif ul ; we m ay experience pleasure in viewingthe form of a landscape o r in viewing the movem ents of an a nim al; we m ay en-joy a natural taste or a smell, or a pleasant feeling; ...all these have es theticvalues bu t they a re not a rt. O n the other hand, a m elody, a carving, a painting,a dance, a pantomime are esthetic productions, because the y ha ve been createdby o ur own activities. . .Form , an d creation by our own activities are essen-

tial features of art. H e makes a furth er useful distinction between two sourcesof artistic effect, th e one based on form alone, the ot he r on ideas associatedwith form. T h e neglect of either would result in a one-sided the ory of ar t.It is no t admissible, he poin ts out, to base all discussions of th e manife sta-tions of the a r t impulse upon th e assumption th at the expression of emotionalsta tes by significant forms mu st be th e beginning of ar t, or t ha t, like language,ar t is a form of exp ress ion . . . [for] significance of ar ti st ic form is neitheruniversal nor can i t be shown t ha t it is necessarily older th an form.Though Boas does not pursue th e theoretical lead offered by these distinc-tions, his brief a rg um en t implies a n analytic al separatio n of form from i tsmanifold effects in hu m an perception. T he concepts of cr eative activ ity ,form, an d effects provide a clearly ma rked po int of de pa rtu re for a definitionof a r t in social terms. A field observ ation m ay serve to illustrate our discussion.I n W estern Liberia I once received a gift of four papayas from the head-wife of a G ola P ar am ou nt Chief, presented to me by her sister. I n making th epresentation, t he sister informed me th at t he fru it had been selected t h at da yfrom a large number gathered in a dist ant village, th at the y were the largest,most flawless an d beautiful of th e lot, a nd th at the chiefs headwife ha d se ntthem t o me as a token of regard for m y family. It was indicated also tha t thegift signified th at no d ay should pass without some such token passing betweenthe chiefs household an d m ine. After eulogizing our mu tu al qualifications forgr ea t an d lasting friendship (replete w ith prover bs an d niceties of Gola syn-tax), she placed her h ands on the p apaya s and brought the proceeding to aclose with a leng thy and gracefully executed blessing. She accepted m y some-what clumsy speech of gra titud e as though it ha d pleased her m ore tha n any -thing else in th e world, bowed low to touch my feet, and backed from t he roomwith all th e intentionally seduc tive hum ility of a prou d G ola wom an.

A group of young men informants were present in the room. When thewoman had gone, their remarks indicated that I had received a fine gift in amost proper fashion. T h e wom an ha d spoken well-in fact, she was widelyknown for her gre at ability, and w as no d ou bt chosen for this task from among

7/30/2019 Dazevedo_definition of Art

5/13

706 American Anthropologist [60, 1958th e m embers of th e chiefs household. T he pa pa ya s were indeed excellent, alluniform in color, size, and contour. T he y were passed arou nd and handled dur -ing this discussion. M y interp rete r pointed o ut w ith mixed satisfaction a ndirony th at their worth far exceeded an y price they might bring in the m ark etbecause the gift ha d been blessed by good training. Another of t he men-a.highly accomplished w oodcarver-placed two of th e pap aya s on the table an dto the am usement of all present began to elaborate upon the correspondencesbetween th e texture, size, shape , an d ripeness of th e fruit a nd the breasts of thechiefs headwife, who was considered t o be a n exceptionally attr ac tiv e w omanfor her age. It was suggested that she had given her best part as a gift andthat the chief had been willing to sacrifice much for friendship. The entireepisode was permeated by rat he r more excitement, pleasure, and a tte nti on todetail than was evident in the behavior of the group immediately before theinterrup tion or after we had returne d to work.

Th e exchange of gifts am ong th e G ola is ordinarily a very m atter-of-fa ctan d business-like procedure. T he f orm can be carried out with litt le more spe-cial concern tha n is required by our exchange of g reeting cards over th e year.For example, the chief and I regularly exchanged small gifts as a conven-tional function of m y position a s a stranger-guest in his area, an d also as autilitarian functio n of t he m ut ua l ad va nta ge to be gained politically, eco-nomically, an d otherwise from o ur association. I n th e case of the four pa payas,i t was he who ha d ordered his headwife to send this relatively minor gift, an dperhaps it was he who had suggested the gift be carried by her sister to en-hance its otherwise negligible value by an effective presentation. As I mighthav e expected, the gift was followed by a request late r in the da y for th e use ofm y typew riter. These facts only serve to emphasize the special qua lit y of thi sincident within its situational context. T he parti cipa nts seemed t o pause dur-ing their performance of many other tasks to linger over the essence of amom ent. An elem ent of en hance me nt or particula r enjo ym ent of experiencewas observed in the reaction to the womans speech, the gift itself, and thecomments of th e youn g men. H a d th e chief se nt me a sack of new rice with t heusual cursory presen tation, he mig ht have achieved his ends-though no t sogracefully or inexpensively. To achieve his ends as he wished, he brought tobear other means and created conditions in which values other than eco-nomic m ight function. It is the qualitative feature of th e event involving theenhan cem ent of experience an d the present enjoy me nt of th e intrinsic qu alitiesof things th a t will be take n as th e esthetic in this discussion.The speech of the chiefs sister-in-law, t he four pa payas , and th e w it ty by-play of the woodcarver were in tu rn referents in the appreciative behavior ofth e participan ts. I n thi s sense we m ay speak of th em a s (objects of estheticpercep tion. Such objects ar e capable of being perceived a s significant form-th a t is, they a re capable of evo king significance throu gh esth etic evaluatio n towhich m ay be ascribed an affective aspect of e nhan cem ent or enjoym ent, a nd arational aspect of ideation. I n effect, the elements and qualities of a n es the tic

7/30/2019 Dazevedo_definition of Art

6/13

DAZEVEDO] A n Approach t o Esthetics 707object con stitu te raw form-for example, th e formal arrangement of th eintrinsic eleme nts of language, voice, gesture , a n d conce ptual c ontent of th ewom ans speech , or of t he elem ents of m ass, color, an d texture of t he pa pa ya s.Th e esthetic forms of these objects were the intrinsic elem ents perceived inrelation to corresponding elements an d qualities brought to bear upon th eobjects from t he experience of th e perceiver. Es the tic values are no t intrinsicto the objects, bu t ap pe ar in th e perception of esthetic form. T h e significanceof a n y object-its form-can be asce rtain ed only with reference to th eesthetic values of the members of a given sociocultural system for whom itfunctions esthetically. Furthermore, it must be viewed in the context ofspecific action-situ ations which reveal its m eaning an d fu nction for th e indi-vidual members of a society.

If we were to a tt em pt to str uct ure thi s episode as a un it of esthetic activ ity,we would have to ad m it th at a m eans-ends relationship is more symbolic tha nintrinsic to the action. T h e residual character which Par son s (1937~678-679)ascribes to th e norm s of tas te associated with esthe tics is eviden t here, for inpractically all concrete acts, whether their principal context is predominantlyutilitarian or ritual, there is to be found an element of embellishment in re-spects referable to stan da rd s of taste. How ever, the episode described abovewas selected because of its predom inantly esthetic cha racter which was mani-fested in observable activ ity. I n th is regard we m ay assume th at we are dealingwith a special category of sociocultural phenomena to which Parsons has re-fered as a whole class of concrete acts t h at are spok en of normally as art ist iccreation and ap preciation, on th e one han d, an d recreation on t he other, wherethe taste element becomes predominant.T h e characte rization of a un it of social action a s predom inantly esthetic isderived primarily from inferences having to do with the qu ality of th e action.A feature of e nhan cem ent a nd prese nt enjoym ent of experience was observedin relation to specific objects a s poin ts of reference. T h e placement of th eesthetic object a s a referent of esthetic acti vity a nd esthetic form a s the locusof meaning and value, spares us much of the confusion att en da nt upon con-cepts of intuition formulated entirely with reference to experience within ourown culture. T h e tenden cy to m ake a spontan eous identification of fa miliarobjects was interprete d by Dewey (1916: 17) as a manifestation of a n intu itiv eprocess which causes me anings to become intr insic q ualifications of ob-jects. T he y are as much qualities of th e objects in the si tua tion as are red andblack, hard an d soft, square an d round. Such a view is incompatible w ith th eseparation made in the above discussion between the elements and qualitiesof the esthetic object, an d the meanings which emerge th rough the cognitiveprocesses of perception. The terms enhancement and enjoyment havebeen used in a c on text which implies some awareness of specific source s ofpleasure expressed in social relations. Th e immediacy of fulfillment in es the ticactiv ity is suggested by the ter m present enjoym ent. This use of the termsexcludes from consideration those more subje ctive sta te s of euph oria for which

7/30/2019 Dazevedo_definition of Art

7/13

708 A merican A nthropologist [60, 1958there is no conscious referent or clearly discernible articulation in behavior.Furthermore, th e concept of bea uty has been scrupulously avoided becauseit is so overlain b y th e philosophical and litera ry pa ti na of our own civilizationa s to be all but useless in a cross-cultural context. I n the present discussion th equality of esthetic activit y has been ascribed bo th a n affectual and a rationalaspects. A special unity of emotional an d cognitive elements ob tai ns in th eapprec iation of experience for its own sake. T h e esth etic effect is more preciselyidentified a s the especially meaningful, th e new insig ht, th e conscious un ity offeeling, or t he shock of recognition em erging from t he correspondences per-ceived between t he qualities of a n esthetic object an d their affinities in th esubjective experience of t he individual.Our necessary emphasis upon t h at pa rt of esthetic activ ity which is mani-fested in observable social situ atio ns provides a t least som e m inimum basis forstructuring such action in theory. Th e actors in situa tions of this kind m ay beassigned roles as apprec iators. Th ey ar e appreciators of objects which functionas unique conditional factors in the esthetic process by virtu e of par ticu lararra ngem ents of elem ents an d qualities of intrinsic form capab le of providingstimuli to esthetic perception. Other co nditions involve norms of tas te an dspecific social values which co ns tit ute a predisposing base or set for estheticactivity in general. Variation in the personality of participan ts is a n im po rt an tconditional factor, as is the mood or subjective effect held over from pre-cursive events which to some extent condition the individuals readiness tomake t he perceptive relationships essential to esthetic response. T he m eans ofesthetic activity m ay be stated a s a faculty of cognition by which values areselected, organized, and reinforced from the general experience of the individ-ual in correspondence with th e sym bolic values evoked by th e intrinsic ele-ments an d qualities of an object. It is th is process of tran slatio n of raw form(th e object) in to symbo lic or esthetic form w hich defines th e mean s of estheticactivity. T he ends of this acti vit y would be th e achievement of a degree ofaffective and rational fulfillment which constitutes a n enhancemen t a ndpresent enjoym ent of experience for its own sake.Though our discussion seems to im ply an aspec t of conscious int en tio n andmanipulation in th e processes of esthetic perception, it would not b e possibleto ascribe this to esthetic activit y in general. T h e m eans-ends relationship hasbeen inferred from t he analysis of a n actor-actio n situ ati on which is only oneof the levels of manifestation of esth etic behavior. T h a t which is observable insocial relations suggests analogy w ith th e emergent crest of icebergs. W e are no tprepared to deal with the essentially psychological problems involving thesources an d charac ter of th e esthetic impulse. One of these problem s is wh etheror not chronological primacy can be att rib ut ed to esthetic perception, or to aneed or other precondition for achievement of esthetic ends. T he inst an tan e-it y of esthetic effect in relation t o a largely internal mode of articulation indi-cates th e diffuse an d residual charac ter of th e behavior w hich we haveattem pted t o isolate in the observation of concrete acts.

7/30/2019 Dazevedo_definition of Art

8/13

DAZEVEDO] A n Approach t o Esthelics 709THE ARTISTIC

I n the episode which we have described as predominantly esthetic in char-acter, there w as evidence of anoth er kind of b ehavior em bedd ed in the generalqualitative contex t of actio n, b u t separable because of c ertain uniqu e featureswhich identify i t. T he speech of th e chiefs sister-in-law an d t he hu mo rouscomm ents of th e woodcarver were notab le in this regard. These perform anceswere objects of es thetic appreciatio n pa rt ly by vir tu e of t he intention of the irproducers; the pap aya s became esthetic objects by virt ue of th e new meaningsassociated with th em during t he course of th e event.Artistic enjoyment, wrote Boas, 5s . . . based essentially upon the re-action of our min ds t o form. Th e same kind of enjoy me nt m ay be released byimpressions received from form s th at are not t he handiwork of man, b ut the ymay not be considered as art, although the esthetic reaction is not differentfrom the one we received from th e con tem pla tion or hearing of a work of a rt (1955: 49). A rt is distinguished by a n additional dimension-the creativemanipulation of elements of form toward the production of esthetic objects.These products, it follows, are always public or objective presentations. Todistinguish the m from a class of esthetic objects in general, they will be referredto as artistic objecls. Boas use of t he te rm artistic enjoyment to de note aspecific effect of a r t is consistent with his view t h at th e app reciation of a r tprodu cts involves the recognition of h um an workm anship, of st yle or typica lform, an d of a deg ree of excellence. This suggests a fu rth er distinction be-tween esthetic perception and artis tic perception: the former involves recogni-tion of th e potentials of a given object for the enhanc em ent or present enjoy-me nt of experience, while the la tt er involves recognition of th e poten tials ofgiven techniques and esthetic forms as means toward the production of newobjects, which m ay in tu rn be perceived esthetically an d artistically. Bo th th eproducer of a r t and t he knowledgeable beholder engage in arti stic perception.The chiefs sister-in-law, for example, was well-known for her fine speeches,and t he woodcarver was admired for his spontaneous wit. Whenever t he y spokethere was an expectatio n am ong the ir fellows of a certain degree of excellencean d regularity of form an ticipated f rom pa st performances. Following theevent described above, the womans speech and the woodcarvers commentwere repeate d as anecd otes ab ou t the village-always in context of t he accu-mulative and typical successes em ana ting from the recognized talent of eachperformer. It is noteworthy th at some weeks later the woodcarver produced afigurine which everyon e took to be th e chiefs headwife because of cert ainproportions which had by that time become widely publicized. This figurinerepresents the on ly inciden t within m y knowledge of the expression of h um oror satirical caricature in Gola woodcarving.T he w omans speech and t he w oodcarvers com m ent were each p roduc ts ofspecific acts which we will define as artis tic activity. T he actors in th e inclusiveuni t of esthetic action w ere appreciators; bu t in the un its of arti stic action theactors are producers an d their role m ay be designated as artist. Th e artistic

7/30/2019 Dazevedo_definition of Art

9/13

710 American Anthropologist [60, 1958objects ha d two contexts-that of their apprec iation an d th at of their produc-tion. I n the first context th ey functioned as means to an end of esthetic activ-it y; in the second context they are the result and function as ends of a crea-tive activity. T he papayas m ay be distinguished functionally by t he fact t h atthe y remained conditional and instrumental in both contexts.T he em phasis upon skills of execution an d conscious reference to es theticprocesses directed to intended ends clearly delineates artistic from generalesthetic activity . Technical skill an d esthetic perception constitute th e essentialmeans of artistic activity, and it is the peculiar relationship between thesemeans which provides us a theoretical separation between artistic creativityan d othe r creativ e activities involving th e applica tion of specialized techniq uesto the solution of problems. Th e concept of c rea tiv ity refers to a dy na m icrelationship obtaining between technology and certain subjective processes ofcognition. There are m any h um an activities which are creative in thi s sense,an d one may find similar techniques an d symb olic processes directed t o m an ysorts of creative tasks. How ever, arti sti c creativity is to be distinguished bythe predominance of esthetic processes in relation to skills of execution, andby the conscious intent to produce objective forms which are capable ofbeing appreciated esthetically and artistically. This suggests that the con-tent of artistic activity is especially qualitative, but that art is to be iden-tified among a class of similar activities by its unique ends and products.Though no attempt has been made in this paper to define the qualitative,the writer is in fundam ental agreement with the view of a r t as controlledqualitative experience p u t fo rth in a n excellent recent discussion of th e sub-ject (Mills 1957). Ar t is state d to be th e creation, b y m anipulating a medium,of public objects or even ts which serve as deliberately o rganized sets of condi-tions for experience in the qu alita tive mode.Th e same relationship o bta ins between artisti c value an d the a rtisti c objectas we have suggested for esthetic value and the esthetic object. These valuesare abstractio ns which arise from the perception of art ist ic form-that is, inthe evaluation of th e elements an d qualities of th e ar tis tic object in correspond-ence with th e experience of a n individua l and his recognition of th e problem s ofproduction. Artistic form emerges from perception of th e potential of a givenmedium for expressing a formal intention: the artistic object is the result ofan a tte m pt to externalize this formal perception. I n th is sense, the object is th epurely descriptive aspect of form-that en tit y which is susceptible to sensoryperception an d which can be described in term s of a particular a rran gem ent ofintrinsic elements. Artistic form, however, refers to perception in a cognitivemode. Th e artistic object detached from th e producer or from th e socioculturalma trix of i ts production is, in a real sense, an a rti fa ct. There seems to be nogood reason w hy t he anthropologist should limit himself b y choice t o wh atthe archeologist is limited to by necessity.

A sufficiently analytical theory of a r t requires a definition of a r t which isanalytical in its construction. Placem ent of th e artisti c object as a result of

7/30/2019 Dazevedo_definition of Art

10/13

DAZEVEDO] A n Afiproach l o Esthetics 711art ist ic action is useful in th e delineation of a r t from non-art, an d also suggeststhe str uctu rab ility of a r t in social theory. T he above discussion has focusedupon th e actor in the role of a rt is t making use of a rti stic means in the pursuitof artis tic ends. The conditions of a r t in a given society m ay be sta ted a s therepertoire of technologies of th a t society, it s available a nd prescribed m edia,an d th e particular system s of v alue which orient selection and organization ofthe qu alitative aspects of experience. Reference mus t also be m ade to a tradi-tion of conventional specifications, uses, incentives, and evaluations relatingto the produ cts of artis tic acti vity .T he m eans of a rt are technical skills applied to m edia an d referable tocognitive systems in which esthetic and artistic perception, as defined, pre-dominate. Artistic means are selective, synthesizing, and qualitative. T he endsof a r t are essentially the organization of elements of media in to objectiveforms which represent a subjectiv e intention of the artist. T he stress on inten-tion in this formulation is not m ean t to imply the precedence of meaningover form in t he creative process. T he form may no t be fully significant tothe ar tis t until he has objectified it successfully. I t m ay be m odified drasticallyby lim itations of technique a nd med ia, or by new perceptions occurring allalong the line of production. Though th e intentio n of th e arti st is to some ex-ten t built in to his product, insofar as certain elements of style an d formm ay identify it intrinsically as a product of hu m an w orkmanship, these ele-ments do not insure th a t it will be perceived a s intended. Th e arti st perceiveshis object as arti stic form, ju st as an y sensitive or knowledgeable beholder inhis society may perceive it. B u t the general response t o the p rod uct m ay hav elittle or no connection with t he artists intention or with the artis tic process.Th e conditions of its social presen tation m ay be such a s to minimize these fac-tors in favor of n onesth etic or nonartistic affinities brought to bear on the ob-ject-perhaps to th e point of i ts losing all identity as a n artistic object.2Furthermore, it mu st be pointed ou t t ha t esthetic and artistic perceptionmay function as means in a wide range of creative activities other th an a rt ,just a s nonesthetic and nonartistic factors commonly function in th e artisticprocess. Tools and skills are borrowed directly from oth er productive activities.Bodies of know ledge an d system s of value derived from th e en tir e range of theartists social experience might be dra wn up on. T he end s of art ist ic ac tiv ityare seldom restricted t o w hat we have designated as essential ends. Rewardsin the form of economic gain, improved self-evaluation, social approval, oridentification with supernatural powers might function as auxiliary ends ofartis tic activ ity. Th e artis t m ay hope to furth er some highly valued goal of hissociety with his work, or he may strenuously support a minority viewpoint.Few or many ends of t his kind m ay at ta ch themselves to artistic action w ith-ou t obscuring th e essential ends of ar t.Th e artistic object is the unique achievemen t of art, and without its pro-duction there is no ar t. As a result of artis tic acti vity , it in t ur n becomes acondition of esthetic activ ity. B u t the pro du ct of ar t is not in itself art. It is

7/30/2019 Dazevedo_definition of Art

11/13

71 2 A merican A nthropologist [60, 1958both an end and a precipitate of artistic action identifiable only by virtue ofthe processes which produced it. Art is a process manifested in human be-havior, and its results are no more the locus of art than edifices are the locusof architecture, or a formula the locus of mathematics.

CONCLUSIONSThe concept of art proposed in this paper is clearly tentative and heuristic.No attempt will be made to reduce it to a compact, definitive statement. It hasbeen presented as a set of trial formulations which anticipate a theoreticalplacement of matters of esthetics and a rt in social science research. The discus-sion has been guided by a conviction tha t cross-cultural investigations of artare essential to a theory of art , and require constructs which are sufficientlyflexible to release the observer from dependence upon his private tastes aswell as from those elaborate systems of formal evaluation and classification

derived from a heritage of scholarly studies.A definition of art is implicit in the following summary of considerationsabstracted from this discussion:1. A distinction between the qualitative experiences diffused throughouthuman behavior which we have defined as appreciative and esthetic, and thosewhich are manifested in concrete activities which we have defined as creativeand artistic.2. The theoretical separation of the artistic object from the forms ofits perception and from the activities involved in either i ts production or con-

sumption. The term object was used in its inclusive definition. The estheticobject is taken to be any referent of esthetic activity whether in the mind ofman or external to it. The artistic object is taken t o be any formal end-productof artistic activity whether it be a performance in sound or movement, anycombination of visual, auditory, tactile, olfactory, or other sense impressionsconveyed through a permanent or impermanent medium. In the continuumof artistic and appreciative action i t stands midway: artistic production-re-sult-social response. Esthetic and artistic form emerge from specific processesof perception which relate the effects of objects to the social and cultural ex-perience of individuals.3. Art viewed as activity and process manifested in social relations withits locus in the producers of art . The problem of the delineation of a rt fromnon-art is thus made referable to the creative acts and processes of art ratherthan to the uses and functions of its products.4. Art tentatively considered as a structure of social action involving actorsin the role of artist employing essentially unique means in the pursuit of uniqueends within a given sociocultural setting. Art as a system within and amongsystems of society and culture must be approached through social situations ifits meanings, functions, and uses are to be discovered or understood. The iden-

tification of art as especially qualitative and integrating in its processes indi-cates its dynamic relation to other structures of society.

7/30/2019 Dazevedo_definition of Art

12/13

D AZEVEDO] A n App roac h to Esthetics 7135 . Finally, the implicit assumption was maintained throughout this dicus-sion th at ar t must be considered in it s manifold expressions in an y society.Herskovits (1951 348) has stated that our difficulty in reaching a satis-factory explanation of why religious and artis tic phenomena are universal hasits counterpart in the difficulty we experience in defining them. It might beadded th a t ar t in particular-by vi rtu e of its consciously creative mode-rep-resents mans most persistent effort to control the elements of his experienceand to give new meanings to his priv ate an d social life. I n th e light of issuesraised b y a purely ex plorato ry discussion, the problem of c om parative a r t be-comes a va st challenge to research in ou r discipline. Th is challenge addressesitself first of all to our preconceptions abo ut a r t an d to ou r reluctance to drawit from the shallows into the m ainstream of in terest.

N O T E SAn abridged version of this paper was read a t the Annual Meeting of the American Anthro-

pological Association, December, 1957. Research and writing were facilitated by grants from theProgram of African Studies a t Northwestern University, and this aid is gratefully acknowledged.I wish to thank Roy Sieber of the State University of Iowa, and Robert Merrill of the Universityof Chicago for many stimulating discussions while this paper was in preparation. I am alsograteful to Ruth Marcus of Roosevelt University for reading the final draft and making a numberof helpful suggestions. These adtnowledgments are not meant to imply any especial endorsementof the formulations presented in the paper.

An object, for example, which derives primary values from its function as token, souvenir,emblem, or holotype may or may not be a product of art. Problems of this kind, involving ana-logue and iconography, are a t least as complex in cross-cultural research as they are in ar t criti-cism within Euro-American cultures, and any theory of art must eventually address itself tothem. Though questions having to do with the authenticity of a rt, or a possible taxonomyof art are not made explicit in this paper, they were necessary considerations in the initial framingof concepts. Sorokin (1939: 669) concluded that the entire terminology--pure and impureart, art for arts sake, art for the sake of something else-is very unsatisfactory, and pro-posed that these poor shibboleths be replaced by more analytic constructs. His approach tothe comparison of art styles in terms of the values of particular societies, the role of artists withinthe social structure, and the kind of integration characteristic of the societies in which artistsand their products function is a penetrating one, and despite its large-scale historical generaliza-tions indicates the possibility at least of relating types of ar t to types of societies. Cassirersmimetic, analogical and symbolic stages of art-considered apart from the suggestion of de-velopmental sequenceal so provides useful leads in this regard (see Gilbert 1949:607-620; andCassirer 1944:Chapt. IX , passim).

R E F E R E N C E S C I T E DBOAS, RANZ

1955 Primitive art (unabridged republication of 1927 edition). New York, Dover Pub-lications, Inc.CASSIRER,RNST

1944 An essay on man. New Haven, Yale University Press.DEWEY,o m1916 Essays in experimental logic. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.FIRTH,AYMOND1951 Elements of social organization. London, Watts and Co.

7/30/2019 Dazevedo_definition of Art

13/13

714 American Anthropologist [60, 19581GILBERT,KATHERINE

1949 Casirers placement of ar t . Zrt The philosophy of Ernst Cassirer , Paul ArthurSchilpp ed. Evanston, Th e Library of Living Philosophers, Inc .1951 Man and his works. New York, Alfred A . Knopff.1952 The structure of society. New Jersey, Princeton University Press.1957 Art: an introduction to qualitative anthropology. Journal of Aesthetics and ArtCriticism 16 :1-17.

PARSONS,ALCOTT1937 The structure of social action , New York and London, M cGraw Hill.SCHAPIRO, EYER1953 Style. 1%Anthropology today, A. L . Kroeher and others , eds. Chicago, University ofChicago Press.

Social an d cultural dy namics, vol. I. New York, American Book Company.

HERSKOVITS, ELVILLE .LEVY,MARIONJ., JR.MILLS, GEOR GE

SOROKIN,ITIRIM .1937