I would agree that all art is propositional (if that's what hypothetical means in this instance and if so, propositional is a clearer choice) ) meaning it is offered or argued as possibly art. The decison rests with the audience and/or consensus of the artworld. I would also agree that anything is propositional as non-art and it requires the same audience and artworld consensus. But I think it might be tougher to explain the case for non-art than for art.
WC --- Derek Allan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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
