Imago, I think you and Saul are getting bit ahead of the game here. Recall: my comments were in response to your query about how it could be possible that all cultres could be on the same footing. It was not a theory of art - or as Saul seems to think - a social theory.
But it was - and this is the crucial point for the moment - an observation about the way we view art today (and have done for about a century now). We do not see a hierarchy of cultres - or their art. We do not think that Titian (eg) is art and that an African mask or a Buddhist sculpture (eg) is not - or that it is only a kind of semi-art. This is an enormous change that has taken place over the last century - which differentiates our notion of art sharply from that which obtained for the previous four centuries. In this sense, it is not a 'thin' idea at all. It identifies a major feature of the modern notion of art. Of course there is much more to say about that notion, but this feature is nonetheless crucial. For us today, art is no longer just Western art - we live in a self-evidently universal world of art. The explanation for *why* that is so is of course another matter... (But is interesting - and I think significant - that Benjamin has nothing at all to say about the question - unless it is in a corner of his work that I have not read.) DA On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 2:30 AM, imago Asthetik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Mr Allan, > > Your notion of equal footing is 'thin' in the sense that it doesn't imply > much or license us to draw many inferences. It doesn't tell us much. At > most, it identifies a curatorial tendency (a function), but doesn't specify > the conditions under which this tendency can arise, nor does it elucidate > what 'being included in an exhibition' signifies. > > -- Derek Allan http://www.home.netspeed.com.au/derek.allan/default.htm
