Goodman's Languages of Art

Abstract

It is added that most literal portrait and the most prosaic passage are as much symbols, and as 'highly symbolic,' as the most fanciful and figurative (p. xi). Is every painting and every piece of sculpture, whether representational or abstract or nonobjective, a symbol? Is a toy airplane a symbol? Is a mask? What about a doll, or a chess piece, or a lock of hair? I do not know what the answers these questions are supposed be: the author's usage is unclear. Goodman is concerned with systems. (He mentions that the word languages in the title of the book should, strictly, be replaced by 'symbol systems' [p. xii].) A symbol system of a symbol scheme correlated with a field of reference (p. I43). What then is a symbol scheme? Any symbol scheme consists of (p. I3I). And what are characters? Characters are classes of utterances or inscriptions or (p. I3i). The term is used to include utterances, and 'mark' include inscriptions; an inscription is any mark-visual, auditory, etc.-that belongs a character (p. I31). So a symbol scheme consists of characters, where characters are classes of marks. If characters are certain classes of marks, which classes are they? Goodman does not seem say. If someone's boots make marks on a newly waxed floor, do those marks belong a character? They do belong the class of marks made by that person and the presence of such marks could be of significance. Does such a class constitute a character? Or suppose a house decorator is instructed decorate a wall with three