Brady DeHoust -- Art, Symbol, and the Definition of Man

In this post, I’ll be looking at 20th-century rhetorical theorist Kenneth Burke’s concept of what defines and undergirds the human condition and consider a potential interplay between this and the concept of art which is, in part, the focal point of this class.

Burke’s summary of the human condition comes most succinctly in his essay “The Definition of Man,” found in his book Language as Symbolic Action, published in 1966. The first and foremost component of his five-part definition is that man is the “symbol-using animal.” In saying this, he draws the line between us and other animals at our ability to communicate symbolically, i.e. via complex language. In essence, Burke asserts that every human success and, indeed, failure) is built fundamentally on language. For humans, reality itself is comprehended and experienced through language/symbol. Language is naturally substitutional and abbreviative. In this we see a connection with Cassirer’s assertion that language, along with science, abbreviates reality, while art intensifies it. This is where my first question arises: is art more than symbol, and if not, can it be distinguished in role or power from language in the manner Cassirer suggests? Art is not necessarily as abstract as language, but it is similarly a medium which sits between subject and object, observer and reality. This could be the topic of quite an extensive inquiry; I’d love to hear others’ thoughts.

Secondly, Burke calls man the “inventor of the negative.” By this he observes the human ability, and indeed predisposition, to see things in light of what they are not, and especially to see situations in terms of “thou shalt not.” Again, the potential for inquiry is vast here, as it suggests all kinds of questions about art and morality and so on. But the question I wish to raise has more to do with the potential rhetorical power of art, or, more accurately, that which is not depicted artistically. Is it possible that what is not considered art, or what artists do not treat or depict, is as powerful as what is? What informs those decisions? With all the power art seems to hold, it begs the question, do we artistically depict that which is significant (beautiful, sublime, etc.), or does culture in general see such things in this light because they are depicted artistically? What happens when we consider art in terms of what it is not?

Thirdly, man is “separated from his natural condition by instruments of his own making.” This is, of course, Burke’s nod to the idea of man as homo faber and the close connection between tools, technology, and language. Again looking at art laterally, as a medium and thus an “instrument of our own making,” it begs the question: does art really intensify reality, as Cassirer asserts, or obscure it? Is art not a lense through which our view of reality is shaped, for better or for worse? We discussed in class the Romanticist idea that we don’t look at paintings, but with or through them. Thereby I once again challenge the idea of art as more than symbol, and return to that age-old question: does art imitate culture, or culture art?

Fourthly, according to Burke, man is “goaded by a spirit of hierarchy.” This is, in essence, a corollary of man being the inventor of the negative. If we have a concept of “thou shalt not,” then we have an innate concept of right and wrong, necessary to our symbolicity. Thus, we as a species tend to view things hierarchically, which is the very concept of axiology, the beautiful, and this class. This is where Burke’s definition of man and our inquiry into art intersect most clearly; indeed, it is working back from this point that would raise the other questions from this post. It is quite obvious how this definitional component manifests in the world of art. Perhaps one could even argue that from Burke’s definition, art is a natural or even necessary product of our symbolicity. Hence the aforementioned questions about how art and symbol may be related.

Finally, Burke asserts that man is “rotten with perfection.” This follows from the prior component of the definition in that since man has an innate concept of good and bad, he also has an innate concept of the perfect (and, indeed, the perfectly bad). This is once again evident in art, as we see in Michelangelo's David, the paragon of masculine perfection, or Shakespeare’s Othello, whose Iago is called the perfect antagonist. The “rottenness” comes from the idea that humans are naturally inclined to follow the implications of their own symbol systems to their natural conclusions, which is how Burke explains a/the basis for human conflict. The fact that this is evident in art again raises the aforementioned questions.

All of these questions raised by looking at art in light of Burke’s definition of man really lead to one fundamental question: Is art fundamentally rhetorical? That question serves to summarize the point of inquiry into the relationship between art and symbol. To answer this, it seems to me, could be a life’s work. Or perhaps it’s merely a matter of definition. Either way, this question will remain in the back of my mind for the remainder of the class, no doubt.