I'm not sure I follow your point Saul. Are you arguing a la Cheerskep that there is no such thing as art because it would be a 'mind-independent' thing 'out there'?
DA On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 11:10 AM, Saul Ostrow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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. > >
