So... Rembrandt's 'Night Watch' or the statues at Chartres or Picasso's 'Guernica' are somehow 'acts of faith'? I've never thought of any work of art that way and I cannot see what sense it would make to do so.
Unless you mean that the artist has a kind of faith that his work will arouse a response in others. But calling that an 'act of faith' seems a bit grandiose to me. He hopes it will do so. Maybe he even half-believes it will. But that is a fairly banal point, is it not? DA On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 1:39 PM, Saul Ostrow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Not quite, I suggesting that art is an act of faith and therefore assertion > and takes its place alongside that of the various denominational gods that > exist - it exists only in its practice > Chair, Visual Arts and Technologies > The Cleveland Institute of Art > > > > >> From: Derek Allan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Reply-To: <[email protected]> >> Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 13:25:27 +1000 >> To: <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: Presence >> >> 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. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>
