Yes, highly speculative... DA
On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 9:42 AM, Saul Ostrow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > A specualtion > Chair, Visual Arts and Technologies > The Cleveland Institute of Art > > > > >> From: Derek Allan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 09:14:49 +1000 >> To: Saul Ostrow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Subject: Re: Presence >> >> 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
