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
