In using hypothetical, I meant to imply that the category art is itself is in question rather than intending to propose that art is a proposition concerning whether something may or may not be included in the category or whether its inclusion tells us something about the nature of art as a category
This choice was provoked by Derek's answer that there is no way of proving if something is a work of art or not - I interpreted as implying that art may exist either nominally or as a metaphysical category - as such no proof may be offered - Chair, Visual Arts and Technologies The Cleveland Institute of Art > From: William Conger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: <[email protected]> > Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 16:56:37 -0700 (PDT) > To: <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Presence > > 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 > > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by MailScanner, and is > believed to be clean.
