RE:'So what is Derek's beef? He himself almost always resorts to totally unsubstantiated "belief" statements when he denounces something as "not worth the effort of proof, or "can't be taken seriously" or "highly dubious", etc. He has quite a lengthy roster of similarly metaphysical phrases,'
Not quite sure why they are 'metaphysical'..They are simply comments on the quality of the argumentation - which, in the case in point, was not good. Not good at all. > Thus: It is perfectly reasonable to say that the > existence of something depends on belief in its > existence. And it is perfectly reasonable to say that > the existence of something depends on evidence > independent of belief. So the existence of little green men on a planet in a galaxy far away is proved if I just believe in said green men? (The second bit I do not follow at all.) DA On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 12:56 AM, William Conger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Saul was consistent and I think correct in responding > to Derek's demands regarding proof of art by saying > it's "speculation." Indeed, any remark given as a > summative judgment of art proof must be speculative, > honorific, a faith or belief proposition, a resort to > something spiritual, infeeable, an aura, and the like. > This is also where Cheerskep is right in his > insistence that art is not "out there" but is > something we proclaim but can't prove in a materialst > way. > > So what is Derek's beef? He himself almost always > resorts to totally unsubstantiated "belief" statements > when he denounces something as "not worth the effort > of proof, or "can't be taken seriously" or "highly > dubious", etc. He has quite a lengthy roster of > similarly metaphysical phrases, not one of which is > less specualtive than Saul's offering that art is > ultimately an expression of faith (in art) in the same > way that god belief is justified by the belief itself > and must remain speculative. Further, Derek has > mentioned here that his "knowing" that such and such > is art cannot be explained even though he is > convinced of the truth of his knowing. The only way > his knowing can be proved is through a metaphysical > form of belief; that is, again, believing makes it so. > Whereas in ordinary epistimological reasoning we want > to prove a thing independently of belief, in > metaphysical "intuition" we admit that belief is the > proof. Saul is simply saying that art belongs to the > latter category and Derek reserves that category for > his denials but then switches lanes and demands > others' propositions and speculations to be proven by > appeal to the former category. I say, "foul!" > > Thus: It is perfectly reasonable to say that the > existence of something depends on belief in its > existence. And it is perfectly reasonable to say that > the existence of something depends on evidence > independent of belief. These two domains do not > require each other's proofs. At least not yet -- > despite some neurologial and philosophical > propositions suggesting that belief is fundamental to > all cognition. > > WC > > > --- Derek Allan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> 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
