Derek, you're grabbing at straws. My comment is clear is suggesting that the retroactive nomination of art includes objects from all societies before the idea of art was invented in the late middle ages. Further, I said "most likely" in limiting the use of magical. And still further, by magical in the reference to art and social practice is understood efforts to influence causality in the absence of proven practical or scientific events or to falsely influence others by some seemingly supernatural intervention. It's just silly of you to keep looking for some little crack in every sentence when the general meaning is clear and quite well understood by sensible people everywhere.
Yes, ho-hum, we all know that the Egyptians and others, etc., etc., did not make art as we think of it. Yes, ho-hum, we have no proof of why any pre-history peoples made images or other objects. But they were our forebears in some way and so our guessing has some merit, probably better than that of my pet cat, if he could speak. WC WC --- Derek Allan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Re: 'So when we > speak of paleolithic art we presume that it's > understood we are stretching the more historic term > of > art (since the Ren.) to include a special group of > artifacts that were most likely made for magical > purposes. ' > > But it's not just Paleolithic art that has been > added to the realm of art in > the last century . It's African, Byzantine, > Romanesque,Oceanic, Egyptian, > Medieval, Sumerian... the list goes on. > > And it's not the Renaissance view of art that's in > question. That view would > never have tolerated these additions (and never did > in fact) . > > As for the purpose of Paleolithic art, we know > absolutely nothing at all > about it - and never will. 'Magical' is simply a > wild guess made by art > historians who felt they had better think of > something. There is nothing > whatsoever to substantiate it. Not a sausage. (And > what would it even mean? > Something like Harry Potter?) It's high time that > 'magic' talk was laid to > rest for good and all. > > DA > > > On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 1:47 AM, William Conger > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > In a popular discourse, yes, but in a more > accurate if > > still general way, our varied and often > contradictory > > notions of what could constitute art have > broadened to > > include anthropological and ethnographic artifacts > as > > well as a host of commonplace products. So when > we > > speak of paleolithic art we presume that it's > > understood we are stretching the more historic > term of > > art (since the Ren.) to include a special group of > > artifacts that were most likely made for magical > > purposes. This is not to say that paleolithic > peoples > > or their forebears did not have "aesthetic" > > sensibilities. That's the basic question but you > > don't like the subject term "aesthetic" I think > that > > man and even many other animals have varying > degrees > > or kinds of aesthetic consciousness/feeling but of > > course no one can say for sure just yet. It's > > something but what? The terms art and aesthetic > are > > equally ghostly. > > > > WC > > > > > > --- Derek Allan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > RE: 'he accuracy of retrofitting human imagery > as > > > art is > > > probably as weak as retrofitting practical > > > observations as science. It doesn't much matter > > > what > > > you say, it's all nostalgia. Both art and > science > > > are > > > recent divisions of the subjective-objective > > > conumbrum, let's say 1500-1700.' > > > > > > So you don't think the Lascaux caves are art in > our > > > current acceptation of > > > the term? > > > > > > DA > > > > > > On Sun, Apr 20, 2008 at 7:31 AM, William Conger > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > See below. Is that really right? Using a > > > scientific > > > > method to infer a general law of nature by > means > > > of a > > > > hypothesis, observation, and measurement of > some > > > event > > > > that can be duplicated by objective repetition > is > > > > fairly new, 17C. Empirical observations and > > > > measurements, "applied science" has a long > > > history, at > > > > least from Aristotle. Magic has a played a > big > > > role > > > > in science. A great book is Wonder and the > Order > > > of > > > > Nature, by Lorraine Dalston and Katherine > Park. > > > It > > > > traces the development of examining nature > from > > > > superstition to science, 1150 to 1750. > Almost > > > any of > > > > Barbara Stafford's books are also good for > > > discussions > > > > of how science emerged from magic and > > > superstition. > > > > > > > > > > > > The accuracy of retrofitting human imagery as > art > > > is > > > > probably as weak as retrofitting practical > > > > observations as science. It doesn't much > matter > > > what > > > > you say, it's all nostalgia. Both art and > science > > > are > > > > recent divisions of the subjective-objective > > > > conumbrum, let's say 1500-1700. > > > > > > > > Of course we don't know what the Chinese were > > > doing > > > > when we weren't looking. > > > > > > > > WC > > > > > > > > After all, a
