RE: 'The last time I asked Derek to describe the notion behind a word he was using he said that would require him to describe human consciousness, and he could not do that.'
Good grief! Did I really say that? DA On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 4:40 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Derek writes: > > "that raises the very interesting question of how works that were not > created > as 'art' have become 'art'. I refer you to Malraux for the answer. (No > other theorist, amazingly, has even discussed the problem!)" > > I can name one other very minor theorist who's discussed it: Cheerskep. > Many > times, in fact, all in my attempt to throw a ridiculous light on listers' > assumption of an absolute metaphysical status for "Art". > > The current argument between many of the listers about whether or not XXX > "was/IS" "science", and YYY "was/IS" "art" reflects the delusion vividly. > Recall > Frances's robotic repetition that if her chimerical panel of experts > "deem" > something art, that makes it "BE" art. > > Though listers waver a great deal, I'm persuaded they think of their > dispute > as not just about whether or not to CALL something "art" or "science". > They > actually believe there is a metaphysical fact-of-the-matter concerning > whether > xxx "IS" art or yyy "IS" science. It dizzies me to see smart people > believing > that with an inaudible "pop!" a work that "was not" art now "becomes" art > -- > like, say, a new star being created in the heavens. > > And notice, the form of their argument is to summon up what they think of > as > "reasons" for believing that something IS art or science. This implies > there > are somehow mind-independent metaphysical standards somewhere that a work > must > satisfy to BE art or science. For example, some listers feel we have to > know > what the creator thought he was doing when he created the work, what his > motivations were. Some might say that if he was just trying to placate the > gods, the > work could not BE art. Others, if told by a portrait painter that he was > just > trying to make something that looked like the sitting subject so he could > turn a dollar, might say the painting could not then BE art. > > Some listers talk about "bad art", but other listers will claim that a > work > is either art or rubbish, so the notion of "bad art" is ridiculous. > > Some listers would apparently claim that nothing could "be" art until "THE > concept" of artness, or "our current concept", was conceived by someone -- > or > does it take a community of experts to conceive of it? Then, presumably, a > creator would have to have the aim of doing "that thing" to have his work > BE art. > The counter-assertion that there is no "THE" concept of art -- people's > notions > of it vary wildly -- consistently falls on deaf ears. "Everyone knows what > art IS, they just have a tough time putting it into words. In any case, > there > simply is no question that art IS." > > Some years ago, Bruce Attah posted on our forum the nine characteristics > that, he said, when manifest in a work were what made it BE art (very like > Aristotle's muddled claim that a "thing's" "properties" are what "make it > BE what it > IS".) Attah would no doubt claim he was exposing the metaphysical truth > -- > he felt he was discerning factual stuff about the metaphysical > category/quality > of artness. But Attah's "definition" was finally exposed as no more than > his > own personal preference for certain characteristics he wanted in works he > would CALL art. But stipulative decisions have no ontic power. For > example, Attah > insisted that to BE art an object had to be a "thing" -- which he > described as > "a hard object that can be looked at" -- that is "made". When it was > pointed > out to him that Benedetto Croce held that an "act of art" can take place > solely in the mind -- as when an artist imagines a painting in detail, a > composer > imagines a musical work, a poet thinks up a poem without writing it down > -- > Attah was in a bind. Croce was asserting that a notional entity can be art > -- > even though there is no hard "thing" that is "made". > > Attah could say, "I don't call that art!" But that didn't work for him > because he believed he was showing what art IS, not simply what people > variously > CALLED art. Or he could simply insist, "That's NOT art!" and maybe stamp > his foot > for emphasis. Asked "How do you know?" he would have to be circular and > say > because a work has to be a thing made. > > Confronted with someone who claimed the alleged mind-independent quality > of > "artness" and the category of all artworks, and the quasi-Platonic "form" > of > "art" were all chimeras, he would dismiss the adversary out of hand. He'd > say, > "Of course art IS!" -- just like other listers claiming that sin IS, and > science IS. "You could look science up in the dictionary!" You could > also look up > 'angel', 'hell', and 'unicorn'. > > The most dizzying aspect of the current forum debate is seeing smart, > grown > men asserting that art IS this, and science IS that, without ever > describing > what they have in mind with either word. > > Wiliam Conger does take a couple of stabs at describing his notion of > "science", but never his notion of "art". A long look at William's -- or > anyone's > -- notion of "science" might help listers wrap their minds around the idea > that > maybe "art" is indeed solely a notion with no "corresponding" non-notional > entity. > > William is not alone in feeling experimentation is a necessary element of > science: Dream up a hypothesis, then test it with an experiment satisfying > cert > ain demands of "the scientific method". But this would push William into > the > uncomfortable position of asserting that Einstein was not doing "science" > when he > came up with his special theory of relativity -- without ever testing it > himself. Indeed no one did, since the means weren't at hand at the time. > Consider > the wrangle: "Einstein wasn't doing science. That was cosmology." "That > was > science." "Was not." "Was!" "Wasn't!" It's breath-taking to see people > believing > they are talking about an "is-ness" here, and not simply disagreeing about > how they want to use the word. > > This is comparable to Attah's claim that what the painter, composer, poet > does in his mind is not "art" until they set it down in a publicly > examinable > way. "Is!" says Croce. "Is not!" says Attah. "Is!" "Isn't! One wonders > if Attah > would claim a mathematician IS not "doing mathematics" if he doesn't write > down the formulas he devises. > > To argue as they do, listers must feel they see art (and science) for what > it > IS, otherwise how could they ever assert xxx IS or IS NOT art? But if they > have a notion of art that they in some way believe replicates what art IS, > why > not describe that notion? Still, Derek, William et al will not do this. > The > last time I asked Derek to describe the notion behind a word he was using > he said > that would require him to describe human consciousness, and he could not > do > that. > > The sight of educated adults arguing -- "That's art!" "No -- that's NOT
