Nope - the idea that art exists is an an act of faith and that someone called an artist may actually manifest that which maybe identified as art is no different than the faith that a priest can channel god Chair, Visual Arts and Technologies The Cleveland Institute of Art
> From: Derek Allan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: <[email protected]> > Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 22:31:21 +1000 > To: <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Presence > > 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. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
