RE: 'I have asked you to give reasons for your declarations that such and such is art and such and such is not art, period. So you must have some guide or template in mind. Again, what is it?'
I have no template and never will have - as I just said in my last. But your assumption that I do suggests that you think one can only respond to art - and non-art - if one has one. So I assume you do have 'a template'? What is it? This is my third invitation, I think - not only to you of course but to all those - I think Chris is one - who assume that one must have be able to state clearly why something is art or not. The Louvre thing is a golden opportunity for those of this persuasion. Standards would solve the problem in a twinkling. The professor might be shown up as an ignorant charlatan worthy of the stocks at best - or maybe a wonderful, sensitive art lover to be crowned with laurels and cheered to the rooftops. Much hangs in the balance here. Last chance. Going... going... Re: ';any judgment of a > particular artwork is unique to that work by some > means we've never identified fully but imagine to be > so truthful that we are led to apply it to every work. So now you seem to be saying we are poor deluded fools if we come up with standards? I do wish you had told me that when you and others kept insisting I produce them. If I had produced any, wouldn't I have looked silly? DA ----- Original Message ----- From: William Conger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Junking the Louvre? Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 09:46:01 -0700 (PDT) > Gads, you must have been a Grand Marquis Cardinal in > the Inquisition in some former life. You have twisted > my words and meanings to suit yourself. And now I > stand accused of some unholy heresy and will be drwn > and quartered, my tortured remains burned. > > In mentioning Wollheim I was trying to suggest the > importance of nuance in making judgments, of the sort > that are always entangled in a particular experience > and may not be transferable to another experience, an > other work of art. Wollheim is good at that, that's > all. His book, Painting as an Art is a classic in > that respect. > > I have asked you to give reasons for your declarations > that such and such is art and such and such is not > art, period. So you must have some guide or template > in mind. Again, what is it? > > I'm trying to claim that no such standard exists and > only the most general statements can be made about a > type or class of art, unless we are being hyperbolic > for the fun of it, and that any judgment of a > particular artwork is unique to that work by some > means we've never identified fully but imagine to be > so truthful that we are led to apply it to every work. > I think we delude ourselves in the effort to identify > universal standards. They are, to me, "never before > and never again" even with the same artwork because we > continually change and are thus different > experiencers, even in recollection. > > One of us just doesn't have the usual brain wiring, > Derek. From my perspective you are always playing > scrabble with everyone's words and wiggling away from > direct intellectual confrontation. I suppose you > imagine my poor head to be filled with kapok. We need > an ombudsman here. Maybe Cheerskep will rescue our > faulty use of IS and such like and Frances will bring > in a team of learned folks with healthy humanal > brains and a Kitchen Aid blender to arrive at > tentative, mushy Peircian truth. > > WC
