The word theory so frequently collocates with the scientific disciplines that some take it to be a scientific term. Conceived as a different order of intellectual productivity than the sciences, use of theory with respect to art therefore strikes some as inappropriate. But if organized knowledge about art is possible, and genuine knowledge about it distinguishable from non-genuine, it must be
... [Show full abstract] because theory is at work in this study. Theory as a general statement about something is in fact implicated in the production, consumption, and study of art. The rather insignificant role some critics associate with it in the study may be owing to use of habitual knowledge to the extent of forgetfulness of the need to reexamine and reassess the founding principles. An academic discipline must be wary if the founding principles have become part of everyday discourse and are transmitted as traditional and socially and culturally useful knowledge – if, in other words, the student of this discipline receives his/her basic notions from the social space. This paper examines the theory function in art studies from concern over the undue influence of everyday utilitarian notions of art on the academic study of art in Nigeria. Introduction Of the different ways of regarding art, one appears to be most peripheral. This is the one that regards it as embellishment or a way of doing something – anything at all. In The Republic of Plato, some of these things are mentioned: the art of making money, the art of the vine-dresser, the art of medicine, the art of theft, the art of horsemanship, and so on. But it is understood that in all these, the focus is on the activity itself, which may be performed in one way or another – with finesse, indifferently, passably, poorly, and so on. So art in this sense is not what is meant by that word in the title of this paper. Yet it is taken seriously in one academic activity called 'stylistics'. Wimsatt and Beardsley, therefore, comment about this academic activity that 'it is the least theoretical in detail, has the least content, and makes the least demand on critical intelligence, so it is in the most concrete instances not a theory but a fiction or a fact – of no critical significance' (1972: 351). Stylistics may indeed celebrate the beauties of a Hopkins sonnet, a well-written newspaper column, or a well-rendered sermon, but there can be no coherent and consistent procedure for discovering these beauties, because the 'art' of doing something is obviously peripheral to that thing itself and peripheral to art also. The problem of the nature of art does not arise with stylistics or the art of doing anything. Art is also seen in terms of fulfilling a function, but whether it is a function and what does function mean with respect to art, or whether it is an object for itself and is self-justifying for this, these are not peripheral issues. The aim of this paper is to investigate art as an area of study in which theory must play a necessary part. Function, an Ambiguous Sign in Art Studies Theory as a general statement about a class of phenomena is strictly neutral as to the field of application as long as knowledge is in question. There are approaches to art in which knowledge is not directly in question. One such current runs in 'the Great Tradition' of British literary history, and is articulated as follows by Wordsworth writing about the literary artist: that 'He is the rock of defence of human nature; an upholder and preserver, carrying every where with him relationship and love' ('Preface to the Lyrical Ballads' 658). The Great Tradition is concerned with the question, what we can do with art, or what art can do for us, which is the question that Plato is concerned with in the dialogue between Socrates and Adeimantus: And what shall be [the heroes'] education? Can we find a better than the traditional sort?— and this has two divisions, gymnastic for the body, and music for the soul.