In a message dated 5/1/08 1:09:46 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No
matter how you approach a division of objects into a taxonomy, there will
be
borderline cases that arise.
____________________________________________________
----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Beauty? I think not!
My question here will be hard for me to articulate, because my notion is
so
unfamiliar serviceable words to convey it aren't easy to come by.
.......
You've now conveyed ("the actual content of any a.e. is irrelevant to
whether
something is or is not art.") that you also believe in some sort of
absolute
status as "art". So, again, why do you believe there exists a "kind", that
"is" "art"?
___________________________________________________________
The world is one undivided whole. But, we have evolved to sort parts of the
world into classes. Friend/Foe Food/Poison Predator/Prey. Our ability to
decide quickly whether a movement in the shadows represents danger or a meal
has been essential for our survival. Aristotle stresses the taxonomy. Ram
Dass stresses the unity. What is the world really? The world arises out of
our focus. If we focus on our suffering, the world is a mean place. If we
focus on line, the world is a place of intersections and angles.
I'm not sure I have absolute views of anything. The way I view art, it is
the communicative act arising in the relationship between an artist and a
potential experiencer. This is true regardless of the content of the
communicative act, i.e. the artifact or work of art. My view is that art is
not determined by content, but the relationship between the artist and the
potential experiencer. Content has nothing to do with it. I don't believe
that makes my view a kind of absolutism. In fact I would consider my
approach to be embedded in a relationalist perspective.
Mike Mallory
