what resemblance or expression?

ART UNDERSTOOD AS ‘FAMILY RESEMBLANCE’
Faced with such diversity, some philosophers have argued that there is little point in looking for a common denominator in art, be it resemblance or expression, which will give a comprehensive and catch-all definition. Instead they have used the idea of ‘family resemblance’ (Warburton 2004: 149–50). Whilst members of a family will share some genetic and physical characteristics from one generation to another, these will suggest resemblance rather than exact similarity.

Therefore, the best that we can hope for is that types of art such as paintings, film or installations will have particular qualities in common which will enable us to recognise them all as art. This approach offers the possibility that new and innovative art forms and movements can be incorporated into the existing ‘family’ on the basis of sharing some characteristics. In this sense, art can be understood as an open concept which is subject to development. A major problem with the concept of family resemblance is that it makes no distinction between exhibited and non-exhibited properties. So, whilst we might identify stylistic similarities in
examples of mimetic art, there may be other cases where otherwise diverse and visually different art practices do have an underlying connection which is not apparent to the eye (Warburton 2003: 84). For instance, several examples of art with no evident visual similarities may have non-exhibited but relational aspects in common. The example used by one commentator is that such images may have been undertaken for a similar audience or context, although of course this would not necessarily be an exhibited property (Mandelbaum 1995: 193–210). However, the example cited falls short of providing a definitive relational feature (Neill and Ridley 1995: 193). It was partly this perceived limitation in the concept of resemblance that the next theory we consider attempts to avoid.