What is the problem with using the word magic? I defined it in an earlier post as something equivalent to superstition or better, something used to enhance superstitions. What, exactly, is the bad part of that word to you? Every culture has used magic for various purposes.
WC --- Derek Allan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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
