I think what Chris has in mind is this: If you regularly say the likes of, "X is art, Y is art, Z isn't, P is, Q isn't..." but you will make no attempt to say what you have in mind with the generic word 'artwork' or 'art', it leaves the rest of us with no handle for discussion.
It's rather like listening to very old Uncle Grover saying, "I like steak, and bicycling, and Greta Garbo and a good night's sleep." It doesn't require your "defining" 'art'. But it does somewhat require your saying why you call X "art" and P not. "When do you call something 'art', Derek?" " When it IS art." "And why do you call P not art?" "Because it isn't." In a message dated 4/29/08 1:29:51 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Re: 'But a smug, Derek-like assertion that "we know X is art" is both the > beginning > and the end of discussion. You agree -- or you don't -- and there's nowhere > else to go' > > I have absolutely no idea what prompts you to say this, Chris. If you think > the 'Venus and Adonis' or the 'Witches Sabbath' in question are not art, you > are, as far as I am concerned entirely welcome to your opinion and I > wouldn't make the slightest attempt to change it. > > But I have my own opinions and I intend to go on expressing them. Is that a > problem for you? If so why be on a list like this? > > DA > > > On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 11:05 PM, Chris Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > Notice what happens when the word 'beauty' is introduced into the > > discussion > > of a painting? > > > > There is ever-expanding reference to specific qualities/features -- and a > > need to look a that work again, again, and again. > > > > And so -- Brian's discussion of the Turners at the CMA and the Tate > > compels us > > to hunt for images of those paintings -- and William's discussion of how > > paint > > is handled in a Goya is the beginning, rather than the end, of a close > > examination of those paintings -- and a further interrogation of William. > > > > Their voices are currently quiet on this listserv -- but art theorists > > would > > take the discussion in a very different direction -- diving into the > > history > > of ideas (and ideas of history) rather than the re-examination of a > > particular > > painting. > > > > > > But a smug, Derek-like assertion that "we know X is art" is both the > > beginning > > and the end of discussion. > > > > You agree -- or you don't -- and there's nowhere else to go. > > > > > > ******************** > > > > However, > > > > When Derek asserts that "It's (Beauty) the kind of thing that gives art > > criticism and aesthetics a bad name." --- it does lead me to question why > > an > > intelligent person really would bother with those fields of study "in > > which > > words can be made to mean anything the writer chooses them to mean" > > > > Perhaps art criticism and aesthetics should not be considered proper > > fields of > > study - with their own institutions, vetted experts and specialized > > vocabulary > > - just like astro-physics and nuclear biology. Perhaps their development > > as > > such is an historical anomaly -- like alchemy or astrology -- hopefully to > > be > > eventually corrected. > > ************** Need a new ride? Check out the largest site for U.S. used car listings at AOL Autos. (http://autos.aol.com/used?NCID=aolcmp00300000002851)
