So our understanding of the beliefs of Paleolithic man is that they were 'something equivalent to superstition or better, something used to enhance superstitions'?
DA On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 8:28 AM, William Conger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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
