Re: 'All fetishes have their object" So....? (Actually fetishes usually *are* objects.)
RE: 'as long as it remains moot - it remains potentially true' It is moot whether little green men live on a planet in another galaxy far away, but I wouldn't want to waste my time debating it. RE: '> So disprove it - its not enough for you to say that would require an awful > lot of argumentation before I would even begin to treat it seriously.' Yes it is. If I point out - as I did - that there is a number of very questionable presuppositions involved, I have effectively sidelined it as a serious argument, at least until you can deal with the presuppositions. Why would I bother trying to 'disprove' anything that is, on the face of it, so very dubious anyway? Theories of art have to be more than mere wild speculation. DA On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 9:46 AM, Saul Ostrow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > All fetishes have their object > As to whether you accept the hypothesis or not depends if you prove > something to the contrary - as long as it remains moot - it remains > potentially true > > So disprove it - its not enough for you to say that would require an awful > lot of argumentation before I would even begin to treat it seriously. > > Chair, Visual Arts and Technologies > The Cleveland Institute of Art > > > > >> From: Derek Allan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Reply-To: <[email protected]> >> Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 09:39:58 +1000 >> To: <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: Presence >> >> RE: "Benjamin in art in the age of its mechanical reproduction - identifies >> art >> with the cultish - that is it is a religious object ( non secular- but >> residually an object of veneration) - it looses its power/ authority by >> being transformed into a mere image by mass reproduction - and in the >> process art is revealed to be a fetish -" >> >> First, I am by no means sure this is what Benjamin actually means. I >> have read various accounts (and his own text) and there seems to be >> considerable disagreement. He was just not a very clear writer >> (thinker?) >> >> Re: 'I'm just proposing that the >>> possibility that art exists is a comparable proposition that god exists - >>> the fact that we have things such as artists and priest do not make that >>> which they serve any realer than an act of faith" >> >> So, assuming that your account of Benjamin is correct, you are (1) >> simply asking us to accept his proposition as true (personally I think >> it highly dubious) and then (2) accept on that basis that because art >> is "revealed as a fetish" (I assume you mean our responses to art - >> the "Night Watch" obviously exists), its existence is no "realer" than >> what we (moderns) understand - probably misunderstand - as the >> experience of a worshipper towards his fetish. >> >> Sorry, that would require an awful lot of argumentation before I would >> even begin to treat it seriously. >> >> DA >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 11:21 PM, Saul Ostrow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Remember this whole thread arose from a reference to Benjamin - >>> Benjamin in art in the age of its mechanical reproduction - identifies art >>> with the cultish - that is it is a religious object ( non secular- but >>> residually an object of veneration) - it looses its power/ authority by >>> being transformed into a mere image by mass reproduction - and in the >>> process art is revealed to be a fetish - I'm just proposing that the >>> possibility that art exists is a comparable proposition that god exists - >>> the fact that we have things such as artists and priest do not make that >>> which they serve any realer than an act of faith >>> Chair, Visual Arts and Technologies >>> The Cleveland Institute of Art >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> From: Michael Brady <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>> Reply-To: <[email protected]> >>>> Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 08:58:11 -0400 >>>> To: <[email protected]> >>>> Subject: Re: Presence >>>> >>>> On Jun 27, 2008, at 8:55 AM, Saul Ostrow 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> I don't grasp this. Can you exapnd? >>>> >>>> >>>> | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | >>>> Michael Brady >>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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 >> >> >> -- >> 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
