RE: ' asked that when you pronounce a given work -- X, Y Z etc --to BE art or Not art, you tell us the reason why you, Derek, at that moment, call that work art, or call it not art.'
But that is precisely the point, Cheerskep. How can one make such an argument - even begin to make it - without criteria? DA On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 8:39 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Derek writes: > > "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 oneb&. 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? " > > Derek, you altogether miss -- or sidestep -- the point of the charge > against > you. At no point in my posting did I ask you to "prove" that something > IS a > work of art. Nor did I ask for any LIST of criteria for all artworks. And > I > explicitly conveyed I am not asking for your definition of art. > > I intentionally sculpted my posting to avoid all such "global" demands > because I suspected you would use them as escape hatches to evade > answering. > > I asked that when you pronounce a given work -- X, Y Z etc --to BE art or > Not > art, you tell us the reason why you, Derek, at that moment, call that work > art, or call it not art. > > I want to believe you have a reason for applying the label 'art' or 'not > art' > at that moment. Because if you don't, or even if you say you must have a > reason but you just can't think of it right now, then I'm afraid that > brands > all > such pronouncements of yours as effectively vacuous. > > > > ************** > 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) > > -- Derek Allan http://www.home.netspeed.com.au/derek.allan/default.htm
