I wrote:
" Derek believes he espies absolute metaphysical
categories: "This work IS art, that other work IS NOT art." I believe such
categories are mythical."

Derek responded:
"I have denied this a million times..."

Alas, Derek, I've found it'd be unreasonable to try to reason with you -- in
this case with the aim of prompting you to concede you do believe in an
"is-ness" to "art" and in absolute categories of art/artworks/artness, so I'll
simply quote you. All of the following are from postings by you. An hour spent
in
the archives would, I'm sure, turn up many, many more.
*****
I don't think a great sports event is in the same category as a great work of
art, and any theory of art that said it was would, for me, be very suspect.

things like Bouguereau's paintings, and e.g. airport novels or pop songs, are
in fact not 'bad art' because they are not
art at all.   They have the same general observable characteristics as art -
e.g. an airport novel is a novel just as 'Crime and Punishment' is - but they
in fact belong to quite different categories of human artefact.


There is a difference in *kind* between jazz (rock or pop) and   Mozart. One
is art the other is not.

I think Malraux hits the nail on the head when he says 'art is defined by its
poles not by its borders.'   b& trying to define the borders is not
applicable
to artb& it is ignoring the nature of the thing it is studying [i.e. art].

'What is art?'   (which is the central problem of the philosophy of art today
I would argue.)

What is the function of art in human life?

I have worked out now what I think the purpose of art is and I think it is a
very important one.

If all reference to art were instantly removed from the planet and the
thought of "art" as we know it was removed from our brains, would we re-invent
art
(assuming we did) for 'entertainment' , to 'express ourselves', to 'decorate
our world'   (all of which have been suggested as reasons by various writers)
or
for some other reason.
I think 'some other reason'.

I do not, as I have said, think one can *prove* why any given work is a work
of art - though I am not against 'analysing' the characteristics of a work to
the extent possible.





**************
Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family
favorites at AOL Food.

(http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?NCID=aolfod00030000000001)

Reply via email to