By the way a machine is a simile (it is meant to imply that the work of art consist of parts that act in concert) and while the reference to thing was intended to address those who believe that the work of art is an inert, singularity in the form of an object
You may also think of the work of art as an information storage device Saul Ostrow Visual Arts and Technologies The Cleveland Institute of Art > From: Derek Allan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2008 16:43:56 +1000 > To: 'saul ostrow' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[email protected]>, > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: 'Alexei Procyshyn' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: RE: The Fate of The Image > > RE: 'but then again I foolishly think that art is a machine that is driven > by a complex network of discourse and not a thing - and images are one of > its many components and it might be useful to understand something about how > they exist and work (that is the job they do) rather than indulge the usual > set of nonsensical default positions that make up much of the exchange on > this list.' > > Isn't a machine a thing? > > (Actually I have never thought of a work of art as a machine. Though I don't > see any problem with calling it a thing. What else can it be?) > > > DA > > > -----Original Message----- > From: saul ostrow [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, 30 March 2008 3:45 PM > To: [email protected]; Derek Allan; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: Alexei Procyshyn > Subject: Re: The Fate of The Image > > I don't think it takes much to understand why I think that Harry Potter and > Agatha Christie don't rise above the conventional and mundane, though enjoy > both. They are both fairly low- to middle brow and offer no real challenge > formally or intellectually and do not give rise to insight. Inversely > raising above the mundane and conventional is not a simple task to achieve - > seemingly it takes awareness, knowledge and skill on the part of the > producer as well as the audience -consequently a not just a clever plot and > lackluster writing just doesn't cut for me - but then again I foolishly > think that art is a machine that is driven by a complex network of > discourse and not a thing - and images are one of its many components and it > might be useful to understand something about how they exist and work (that > is the job they do) rather than indulge the usual set of nonsensical > default positions that make up much of the exchange on this list. > > Alexei -I'll have my copy of the future of the image back on Monday, I > loaned it to someone and they swore they would finish it this weekend. > What I'm most interested in is his initial attempt to dismantle the > dialectics of Formalism (structuralism) while arguing for a specificity that > arises from the medium - I remember thinking that there is something very > late Frankfurt School (Adorno) about this approach. > > Saul Ostrow > Visual Arts and Technologies > The Cleveland Institute of Art > > > > >> From: Derek Allan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Reply-To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >> Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2008 15:15:11 +1000 >> To: <[email protected]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Subject: RE: The Fate of The Image >> >> If you don't think so, you could say why... >> >> DA >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: saul ostrow [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: Sunday, 30 March 2008 11:53 AM >> To: [email protected]; Derek Allan; [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Subject: Re: The Fate of The Image >> >> If you think so then it must be true >> Saul Ostrow >> Visual Arts and Technologies >> The Cleveland Institute of Art >> >> >> >> >>> From: Derek Allan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> Reply-To: <[email protected]> >>> Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2008 11:32:34 +1000 >>> To: <[email protected]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> Subject: RE: The Fate of The Image >>> >>> But art is not simply that which 'rises above the conventional >>> and mundane'. >>> >>> Agatha Christie and Harry Potter do that. >>> >>> DA >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: saul ostrow [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> Sent: Sunday, 30 March 2008 10:57 AM >>> To: [email protected]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> Subject: Re: The Fate of The Image >>> >>> As you have pointed out many writers and demonstrated yourself, many >>> writers have the technical skills to write a sentence - what they don't >> have >>> is the skill to write a novel or a play that rises above the > conventional >>> and mundane >>> Saul Ostrow >>> Visual Arts and Technologies >>> The Cleveland Institute of Art >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>> Reply-To: <[email protected]> >>>> Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2008 20:43:08 EDT >>>> To: <[email protected]> >>>> Subject: Re: The Fate of The Image >>>> >>>> In a message dated 3/29/08 8:18:45 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >>>> >>>> >>>>> "Skill is knowing how to do >>>>> what you want to do." Who claims otherwise? >>>>> >>>>> I might, depending on what you have in mind. >>>> >>>> I myself think I see a tenable distinction between knowing how to do >>>> something and being able to do it. To say that someone has the skill to >> do >>>> something >>>> but can't do it feels silly, no? But that is implied by the assertion >> that >>> the >>>> knowledge of how to is the skill. I myself would say that after multiple >>>> sclerosis made Jacqueline Du Pre incapable of playing the cello, she > knew >>> how >>>> to >>>> play but no longer physically had the skill required to do it. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ************** >>>> Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL >>>> Home. >>>> >> (http://home.aol.com/diy/home-improvement-eric-stromer?video=15& >>>> ncid=aolhom00030000000001) >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> This message has been scanned for viruses and >>>> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is >>>> believed to be clean. >>> >>> No virus found in this incoming message. >>> Checked by AVG.
