RE: 'I'm pretty sure that I don't give much credence to the notion of Genius, of 'divine inspiration,' etc.' And RE ' I would probably respond as follows: by and large most philosophy *is* nothing other than a series of technical skills.'
I think we have developed this suspicion of inspiration (revelation, etc) through, among other things, our generally negative reactions to Romanticism. So these days we think that any question - even something as mysterious as the meaning of life itself - can be answered simply by the meticulous application of reason and 'technical skills'. But what has happened in fact? The problems we examine get smaller and smaller, more and more specialised, and less and less to do with how life is really lived and experienced (analytic philosophy is the classic example). The older I get and more I read etc, the more I think our suspicion of genius, inspiration etc is taking us further and further way from anything worth knowing. DA -----Original Message----- From: Alexei Procyshyn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, 29 March 2008 11:33 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: The Fate of The Image I'm not sure what to say on that score. It's a live question for me, and I haven't made up my mind, one way or another. I'm pretty sure that I don't give much credence to the notion of Genius, of 'divine inspiration,' etc. But that doesn't reduce art to mere technical proficiency. I'm not an artist, so I can't say. If, however you ask me whether I think my 'discipline' (i.e. philosophy) is nothing other than a technical skill set, I would probably respond as follows: by and large most philosophy *is* nothing other than a series of technical skills. Problems and themee are handed down through the tradition and are taken up by each successive generation. Techniques are improved, problem-spaces refined, responses become more mannered or stylized. etc. But this is all taught (yes, one must have a head for it, like one must have an eye, say, for colour. but even much of this can be taught, if one is willing to learn it). It's a matter of technical skill. Philosophy, at least, is by and large a matter of technical skill. Whereas bad philosophy (perhaps like bad art) merely apes a technical vernacular, merely assumes the gestures of those who came before, merely combines willy-nilly what is at hand, unthinkingly follows, however passionately, half thought-out analogies between disparate fields, and takes for granted what's 'there,' while asking no questions -- let alone solving old ones along the way, Good philosophy is the product of finely honed skill. It can dexterously wield the knife of reason, it can produce delicate unities with the twist of a monad-baller, and can select the finest, sweetest meat from a concept. It's a skill set, which operates within pre-established -- traditional -- limits on pre-established material with pre-established tools. Great philosophy, however, somehow changes the subject, asks new or different questions and develops new/different technical capacities for thinking about them. But I wouldn't apply the term 'genius' to folks like Leibniz, Hegel, Kant, Heidegger (especially not Heidegger!), Adorno, etc. they were driven, I think, by something -- an inarticulate, inarticulable problem -- that didn't fit, didn't find a home in the prevalent modes of thinking. They changed the subject, created new techniques, and hence new philosophical potentials. And so they are great philosophers. For better or for worse, I tend to think of artists in the same way as i think of philosophers. Kandinsky is Great. Braque is great. Klimt is good. etc. But I can't simply say that only "great philosophy" is philosophy. bad philosophy is philosophy too. And then there's the middle ground between the great and the bad. What differentiates non-philosophy from philosophy is technical, what distinguishes good philosophy from the bad is technical; what differentiates the great from the good surpasses it. So there you have it, I suppose. But now it occurs to me: what are the limits of 'technique,' or technical skill? >>> "Derek Allan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 03/29/08 7:13 AM >>> Alexei So are you saying that art is nothing but technical skill of some kind? (My particular examples are not important. There are plenty of others.) DA -----Original Message----- From: Alexei Procyshyn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, 29 March 2008 9:38 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: The Fate of The Image Derek, those are examples, not explanations. It's easy to point out examples of what one does not think is art, it's another thing altogether to put forward an argument to demonstrate that point. And anyway, although I'm not overly impressed by the work of either Cabanel or Bourgeureau, I'm not sure why one wouldn't call it art. There's something very Dutch about the images I've seen of their work. Moreover, a couple of not so impressive pieces hardly sanctions the claim that the 'artist as such' (e.g. Bougereau) isn't an artist, because some of his canvases aren't 'excellent'. Is his oeuvre "powerful," "expressive"? No. Is it Heroic, Romantic art? No. But is it art? I think so. So, is there something more than a couple of examples supporting your claim? Or does the obviousness of Ranciere's statement for you hinge on a handful of decontextualized works? May I ask for something more substantial? May I have something more? >>> "Derek Allan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 03/28/08 9:14 PM >>> Well, just that I imagine no one could seriously believe that mere technical skill was enough to make an artist. Eg Cabanel and Bougeureau were obviously technically skilled but for me at least what they produced was not art. Same goes for a skilled crime writer or writer of a pop song. DA -----Original Message----- From: Alexei Procyshyn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, 29 March 2008 12:09 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: The Fate of The Image I guess I'm not sure that Ranciere's point is so obvious, really. I mean, Greenberg thought there was a connection (subtract everything that's inessential to the medium, etc). And his criticism is rather compelling. So I take it that this is in fact a rather unobvious point. But maybe that's just me. Care to explain why you think it's obvious? AP >>> "Derek Allan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 03/28/08 8:55 PM >>> Alexei I'm not sure I follow all this but if, as you say, it reduces to 'Simply put, technical elements do not exhaust the aesthetic concerns', it seems a long way around to establish something fairly obvious, doesn't it? Derek. -----Original Message----- From: Alexei Procyshyn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, 29 March 2008 2:30 AM To: [email protected] Subject: The Fate of The Image Hopefully, all those who are interested in participating in the online
