The Rhetorical Triangle HUMA 101: Introduction to Humanities Heartland Community College Author: Sharon Migotsky

In every area of the humanities-- whether it’s literature, painting, sculpture, writing, drama, etc.--there is the concept of the “rhetorical triangle.”

This is also sometimes called the “communication triangle,” since the concept deals with any situation involving communication.

And of course, communication can take many forms--not just face-to-face dialogue.

The message, or text, being communicated can take many different forms, as well.

Art is one form of communication; works of art are messages, or types of text.

Communication involves three different factors: The originator of the message (or artist, for our purposes) The receiver of the message (the audience) The message itself (the work of art) art audience artist

Any study of humanities, or any form of communication (including art), is concerned with the relationships between the three corners of the triangle. art audience artist

Different areas of the humanities, however, have different terms for the three corners of the rhetorical triangle. The different areas of the humanities also emphasize different relationships between the various components of message, originator, and receiver.

In a writing course, the three corners may be called “writer,” “reader,” and “text.” The interaction between the text and the reader is often emphasized in composition. If the reader can’t understand or interact with the text, it’s not as successful as it could be. text reader writer

When writing in a diary, the most important interaction is between “writer” and “text.” A diary isn’t really meant to communicate to a broader audience, but for the author to communicate or put down a certain “message” for herself. text writer reader

Understanding the Rhetorical Triangle... Can help us understand the different theories about defining art.

If I put a garbage can on a pedestal, is it art? Well, that depends... There are many different theories about the purpose of art, and how to decide if something is, in fact, art

To define a particular work as art... Some theories focus on the “artist” corner. Was the work made by an artist? Did the artist intend for it to be art? If the answer to both of these is yet, then it’s art. art audience artist

Some theories focus on the “art” corner. Does it do “arty” things? Does it look or act like other works of art? Does it have a message? If the answer to these is “yes,” it’s art. art audience artist

To define something conceptually Means that it must meet objective, outside standards that have nothing to do with personal opinion. For example, oak trees have trunks, bark, roots, and leaves shaped a certain way. So if an object fits that concept of “oak tree” and has a trunk, bark, roots, and the right kind of leaves, it’s an oak tree.

Conceptual definitions of art... Are those that try to be cut-and-dried by focusing on objective standards: Did an artist make and intend it to be art? Does it do the things that art does? Do experts agree that it’s art? art audience artist

Conceptual theories of art aren’t really open for argument. It’s either X or it’s not X. Does it have all the required oak tree parts, just like all the other oak trees? Then it’s an oak tree. Does it meet all the art requirements? Was it intentionally made as art by an artist? Is it art-like in form? Do experts recognize it as art? Then it’s art.

On the other hand... Some theories focus on the “audience” corner, and on the interaction between audience and art. It’s art if it appears “arty” to the audience, and if the audience interacts with it as if it’s art art audience artist

To define something perceptually In other words, I might perceive it as art; it stirs my senses and perceptions in an art-like way. But maybe you don’t perceive it as art; it doesn’t stir your senses and perceptions that way. Means that it’s subjective, open to interpretation and personal opinion. I might consider something a work of art, while you don’t.

Perceptual definitions of art... Are not cut-and-dried, focusing instead on subjective standards: Regardless of what the artist and experts might say, does it move the individual audience member in an arty way? art audience artist

Perceptual theories of art are open for argument. It’s X for some people, and not X for others. What may be a work of art for some, may not be for others. In fact, each person’s definition of art might change, depending on the circumstances.

So…what’s the best way to define art? Conceptually or Perceptually? Well, like everything in life, both theories have strengths and weaknesses.

A Conceptual Definition of art... Is reassuring in a lot of ways…it gives you something concrete to know for an exam, for example. And some kind of objective standards must exist…otherwise, humans wouldn’t be able to live together in a society, or agree on anything, or even have a conversation.

But... There are problems with a conceptual definition of art. For example, we might agree that art must be made by an artist…but how do we define “artist”? Went to art school? Went to a certain art school? Has sold their artwork? Has sold their artwork for big bucks?

Can’t art experts help us define art conceptually? We do recognize that there are experts in every field--in fact, we generally go to college so that we can be paid for our expertise in a field. But how do we define “art expert”? Although you can get licensed to teach or practice medicine, you can’t really get certified as an art expert.

And experts don’t always agree, anyway.

Then a Perceptual definition of art must be the way to go! After all, it’s common sense that not everyone’s going to agree when it comes to a subject like art, where personal taste is important. And we all agree that everyone has a right to their own opinion, and that all opinions are valid--even if we don’t necessarily agree.

But... A perceptual definition of art has problems, too. Can a definition of art--or a definition of anything--really be conditional? How can something be both art and not art at the same time? How can the same object be art to me now, but not art days, weeks, years from now?

And aren’t there limits? After all, can we really say that anything can be perceived as art? What if I find a used tissue in a wastebasket and announce to the world that I’ve just discovered a great work of art?

Perhaps I’m not expressing a valid opinion. Perhaps I don’t have an accurate or legitimate perception or definition of art.

Perhaps I’m silly, or insane.

And what about those art experts who don’t always agree? Shouldn’t we give some weight to the opinion of an art critic or scholar? After all, while experts may not always agree, they do know a lot about the subject. Two doctors may disagree about how to treat an illness, but either opinion should probably be taken more seriously than an opinion by someone who hasn’t studied medicine.

And there are some things we all agree on, even without being critics or scholars on the subject.

We’d probably all agree that the Sistine Chapel is an amazing and skillful work of art, even if we don’t particularly care for it. And we’d probably all agree that a used tissue from the wastebasket isn’t really a work of art, even if someone among us insists that it’s art to her.

So how should we define art: conceptually or perceptually? I don’t know--and I don’t know if there’s any way to know. What’s important is that you’re aware of all the issues involved in interacting with, defining, and evaluating art. After all--the great thing about art and the humanities is that there are no clear-cut answers. Of course, that’s also the frustrating thing about art and the humanities.

But that’s probably a topic for a different CyberLecture altogether.

The End