I am not surprised... DA
On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 2:14 PM, Saul Ostrow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > End of conversation > Chair, Visual Arts and Technologies > The Cleveland Institute of Art > > > > >> From: Derek Allan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 10:58:18 +1000 >> To: Saul Ostrow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Subject: Re: Presence >> >> 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 >> presuppostions. 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 >> >> -- >> 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
