Is a fish by any other name still a fish?

Stanley Fish’s article, “How to Recognize a Poem When You See One” makes some very interesting points about human perception and art, especially poetry. It is not nearly as important what the artist has in mind (or if it is art at all) as what the audience perceives. This is what makes art (or in Fish’s scenario, poetry). For example, If you are in a contemporary art museum, like the MOMA and you see, say a mop and bucket in a corner with a coat hung over the handle of the mop (or maybe even a urinal). If you sit for a while and observe I bet at least a few people will look for the label with the artists name and the piece’s title. It has to do with context. If you expect a certain thing in a certain setting you find it. In psychology 101 we talked about Gestalt, which is basically the idea that mind will always try to make sense of the world and all the disjointed images by putting them into a cohesive whole. Culturally and socially this happens as well. We come to expect and understand the world in a certain way and we, in our minds magically make it come together as a cohesive whole.

Fish furthers his idea by pointing out that certain behaviors are situational contingent like the example of the student raising his hand in class as a signal to communicate. In America this an accepted and culturally constructed behavior with many understood implications. But Fish says that certain behaviors are only accepted in certain situations. If someone where to raise their hand in, say a grocery store people might think they are stretching or trying reach an item on high shelf. In a church, a raised arm may appear to be a sign of extreme spiritual movement. Again it is about culturally derived construction.

One basic problem I have with Fish’s assertion that “objects are made not found” is that objects are material, have substance and exist, no matter if students are there to interpret it as poetry or art.