Re: "it does somewhat require your saying why you call X "art" and P not."
But that would require me having a list of criteria for what is and what is not art. I know of no such list and have never seen one I mean I have never seen a remotely convincing one, and I have read heaps of aesthetics. If anyone including Chris who keeps bringing up this issue has such a list, please tell me what it is. I am quite happy to discuss the *characteristics* of works I think are genuine art, and was in fact doing so. I think it is reasonable enough to say that works such as the Veronese in question aspire to something one can reasonably if approximately - call an ideal of beauty. I think it is a nonsense to say the same of the Goyas in question. (And I therefore think the traditional aesthetic line that art always=beauty is absurd and misleading). But I cannot *prove* that a work is a work of art and I do not believe anyone repeat anyone - can. So why would I waste my time trying? If people disagree with my choices about what is and what is not art, that is their prerogative. If I disagree with theirs, that is mine. Derek Allan http://www.home.netspeed.com.au/derek.allan/default.htm .On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 4:33 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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) > > -- <http://www.home.netspeed.com.au/derek.allan/default.htm>
