Alack, Cheerskep, thou doth produce the evidence that would see me damned! But, hold, do you really?
Have I not said a miilion times - often in response to Chris, I think - that all my statements on this matter are *in my opinion*. That is, I am not appealing to some set of criteria that would - in theory - ratify my views. I am simply saying what I think is the case. Where is the problem? Moreover, let me turn the tables a little and say, 'What exactly is this 'is-nees' of which you speak, Cheerskep - always putting it, I note, in scare quotes? Let's bring it out of that protective cocoon and ask what 'is-ness' is (I assume 'is-ness' is something - even by exception to a general rule?) In other words, of what exactly do I stand accused? The condemned man has at least the right to know as he walks to the scaffold... DA ------------------------------------------------------ On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 5:29 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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) > > -- Derek Allan http://www.home.netspeed.com.au/derek.allan/default.htm
