Abstract

The general term 'convention' is introduced and analyzed according to a definition proposed by David Lewis. A refined definition is then derived from commentaries critical of Lewis' definition and the new definition is contrasted with one for 'rule.' A working vocabulary is developed in order to discuss conventions and rules apparent in the realm of art and artistic conventions are distinguished from nonartistic conventions. Examples of writing from artists, art historians, art theorists and aestheticians are analyzed in order to show that their lack of precision in discussing conventions and rules precludes their clearly defining the term 'work of art.' A typology of artistic conventions is presented along with theses demonstrating the vital role of conventions in all aspects of the artistic enterprise. The conclusion states that conventions--and not rules--govern the artistic activities of creating, presenting, interpreting and evaluating works of art. Contrary to the claims of most contemporary writers, rules play a very minor role