RE:' I don't have a problem with the art historians, or what they say (is there a universal art historian position?). I think it's dumb to castigate a field of scholars instead of just seeking truth wherever it is or who knows it.'
That's not the issue at all. I'm very happy to seek the truth as you put it. I also think it is important to question entrenched ideas when they are quite clearly very doubtful. That's part of seeking the truth - a very important part. This 'magic' idea has been repeated over and over again by various writers - eg art historians and aestheticians - as if it were a kind of established truth. It's nothing of the kind and that should be said loudly and clearly. DA On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 6:50 AM, William Conger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm not arguing with you because I agree with the > obvious fact that we don't know what the paleos > thought about anything. But we do know that they > lived and a bit about how they lived and from that we > can make reasoned inferences. That's all. It's > guesswork but with a gloss. As for the Egyptians, > etc., we do know quite a lot about their magical > interests but, agreed, it's not a full picture. For > that matter, we don't know much about the deep beliefs > of many contemporary cultures. > > I never thought artists' intentions were crucial to > art experiencing. I've said that an artist's > intentions may be necessary to his or her impulses or > expressive interests but they are not sufficient to > art or how it's experienced. At the same time I'm not > at all sure that form, separate from projected meaning > or intentionality, can be the totality of art either. > So we begin with form and inject it with > intentionality. In the case of the paleos, we create > an intention for them in order to experience their > markings and carvings as "art". Maybe. > > > I don't have a problem with the art historians, or > what they say (is there a universal art historian > position?). I think it's dumb to castigate a field of > scholars instead of just seeking truth wherever it is > or who knows it. > > WC > > > --- Derek Allan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > RE:' 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. ' > > > > But we don't even know this. We know absolutely > > nothing about how > > Paleolithic man thought. We know very little even > > about how the Egyptians > > thought - and they had writing and only lived a few > > millennia ago - instead > > of some 20 to 40. > > > > > > RE: 'and so our > > guessing has some merit, probably better than that > > of > > my pet cat, if he could speak.' > > > > The problem is that art historians do not put these > > forward as sheer > > guesses. They put them forward, as you did, as > > probabilities. The issue is > > important if only because it shows that we can > > respond to art when we know > > absolutely nothing about the beliefs and > > 'intentions' of those who made it. > > As you no doubt know, there is a school of thought > > that argues that we need > > to know the artist's intentions. Not surprisingly > > they seldom look back as > > far as Paleolithic art... > > > > DA > > > > > > n Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 5:56 AM, William Conger > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > > 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.
