>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. --DA
Standards are necessary to talk about distinctions -- but not to make them -- indeed, they only serve as a distraction. Regarding how to determine the value of contemporary art placed into the Louvre -- I would put everything into some huge Paris dumpsters -- along with similar kinds of junk found in the alley -- or in dumpsters outside an art school -- and only keep for the museum those items which the experts agreed was valuable. That's pretty easy -- since I doubt that any set of experts would agree with any other -- and Professor Harouel has already done a find job by finding nothing there that wasn't rubbish. Regarding the "standards" involved in that selection - "anything distinguishable from rubbish" would suffice, and many arguments can be made why a culture, any culture (even a tribe of head-hunters) needs to make that kind of distinction. But... regarding the selection of all the other stuff in the Louvre --- and the standards that might justify them -- that would be a very difficult problem. First -- there's the problem of selecting credible judges -- and since I'm doubting that current museum staff would qualify -- that first step might be impossible to take. We're just left with the choices made by earlier generations of aesthetes -- and we have to hope that current caretakers don't do any more damage until intellectual fashions change, and art and aesthetics are no longer considered separate. _____________________________________________________________ Need cash? Click to get a loan. http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2211/fc/Ioyw6ijlffBPQUGrtt59RQ6k4dBP7V 4xKAqrPOMSHLTsbS5WiZcSPK/
