The Pragmatics of Art

Mr. Morris, the author of a semantic system, though we may suppose that his interest was originally in the language of scientific discourse, was also clearly destined to offer a fresh analysis of the discourse called art. He was good enough to prepare for this Review a version of his analysis, suitable for the lay reader, and it appeared in the Autumn number under the title, “Science, Art, and Technology.” But he had already prepared a version for publication elsewhere under the title, “Aesthetics and the Theory of Signs,” and I have found it fuller and of greater technical severity. Readers who take their aesthetics seriously should not stop short of acquainting themselves with that essay too; and I shall not now offer any criticism of his aesthetic principles without having consulted it conscientiously.¹

His recent paper in these pages adapted itself generously to continuing an editorial discussion which had appeared in the Spring number. The editorial speculated upon the public status of the arts and of religion as it might be affected by those studies, including his own, now being compiled and published in the formidable locus of the International Encyclopedia of Unified Science. It turned out in his essay that he differed sharply with my editorial. What was even more mortifying, he quoted from it a short summary passage, and disposed of it shortly and summarily; and I felt alarmed to think the passage was going out into the world on his authority without a context, bearing a look of manifesto and a sound of brashness. For he did not really examine the argument behind it. I do not know any reason why he should, but I had coveted a more specific refutation.