RE: ' I also find it interesting you again want to change the subject and pursue a line of inquiry that moves us away from your unsubstantiated assertions concerning Harry potter'
Saul, I am quite happy to keep talking about the subject as long as you like (though Alexei tells me it is not relevant to Ranciere). As I've said probably a billion times on this list, I do not think it possible to prove that any given work is, or is not, a work of art. I have never seen anyone do it - not just on this list but in anything I've ever read - and I've read an awful lot of criticism in my time. (I don't think it would be difficult to 'prove' that Macbeth is an awful play written by a clumsy amateur or that J K Rowling is the new Homer...) But *in my view* neither Harry Potter not the other 'best seller' writers I mentioned ever created a work of art. If you think the contrary, please feel free to say why. DA -----Original Message----- From: saul ostrow [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, 30 March 2008 10:44 PM To: Derek Allan; [email protected]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Alexei Procyshyn Subject: Re: The Fate of The Image I also find it interesting you again want to change the subject and pursue a line of inquiry that moves us away from your unsubstantiated assertions concerning Harry potter 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
