hy7po7thet7i7cal or 1. art exists as an unproven idea, theory, or possibility 2. art is assumed to be something proposed for further investigation
> From: Derek Allan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: <[email protected]> > Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 09:17:00 +1000 > To: <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Presence > > For some reason this never made it to the list. Maybe I was over my > limit. Anyway here it is again. > DA > > On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 3:45 PM, Derek Allan <[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > RE: 'if there is no way to determine what is authetic art then all > things presented > as art are hypotheticals' > > Ah is that what you meant? An odd use of 'hypotheticals', don't you > think? But if that is all you mean, who could disagree? > > RE: 'Now focus: If Benjamin > proposes that art looses its authenticity (aura) due to mechanical > reproduction - what qualities is it loosing art, so that its image is not > auth' > > I tried to focus but your sentence is not even grammatical. Besides, > I think Benjamin's notion of aura is - insofar as it is clear, which > is not far - bunkum. But I certainly don't think it means > authenticity as you seem to imply. > > > DA > >> >> On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 1:51 PM, Saul Ostrow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> -it seems you don't know much and understand less - so we won't deal with >>> the things that require much thinking like such as the proposition that if >>> there is no way to determine what is authetic art then all things presented >>> as art are hypotheticals >>> >>> So we will go back to your original enquiry - Now focus: If Benjamin >>> proposes that art looses its authenticity (aura) due to mechanical >>> reproduction - what qualities is it loosing art, so that its image is not >>> auth >>> >>> >>> will somebody lend this boy a hand , meanwhile nighty night >>> >>> >>>> From: Derek Allan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>> Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 12:57:40 +1000 >>>> To: Saul Ostrow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>> Subject: Re: Presence >>>> >>>> I have no idea what that statement means. >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 12:55 PM, Saul Ostrow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>>> Then there is no authentic art - consequently all art is hypothetical? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> From: Derek Allan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>>> Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 12:24:21 +1000 >>>>>> To: Saul Ostrow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>>> Subject: Re: Presence >>>>>> >>>>>> If you are talking about proving something is a work of art, I know of >>>>>> no way of doing that. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Derek Allan >>>> http://www.home.netspeed.com.au/derek.allan/default.htm >>>> >>>> -- >>>> This message has been scanned for viruses and >>>> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is >>>> believed to be clean. >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Derek Allan >> http://www.home.netspeed.com.au/derek.allan/default.htm >> > > > > -- > Derek Allan > http://www.home.netspeed.com.au/derek.allan/default.htm > > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by MailScanner, and is > believed to be clean.
