So I'm not sure. Is this meant as a put-down of art or admiration and praise?
DA > On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 10:55 PM, Saul Ostrow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> 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
