When I say art theorist I also mean art philosopher. But I often prefer the phrase 'art theorist' because what I look for essentially is a full blown theory of art - not in the sense of how to go about doing a painting of course but in the sense of what art is.
The phrase philosophy of art sometimes bothers me (1) because it tends to imply that art theory is a branch of philosophy which I would dispute and (2) the philosophy of art often tries to get by without any particular theory of art - ie it is happy to focus on some side issue such as beauty etc. DA PS what a pity no one seems interested in pursuing the music issue. > Kuspit is not an art theorist. He's an art > critic/philosopher/art historian. (Full disclosure: > Kuspit will provide a major catalog essay for my > forthcoming retrospective in early 2009). I've had a > few contacts with him over 25 years. Re his > influence, let's say he's my Malraux. > > My grim view of graduate level M.F.A. study (I exclude > many wonderful undergrad programs but they are being > narrowed as the new breed takes over) is probably a > little overstated. I have in mind the most > influential programs at top art schools and > universities, the places that need stars and lots of > money to stay on top. Yet, although my view as stated > here is too strong to merit attention in academic > terms, it does convey the problem generally. To do it > justice in writing I'd have to tone it down a little > and bring in vast supporting evidence. It's all there > but I don't have time to do the job. > WC > > -- Derek Allan http://www.home.netspeed.com.au/derek.allan/default.htm
