This, with all due respect, is just nonsense, William. I give as much support for my arguments as anyone on the list. Often more. Certainly more than you do. And time and again, when I challenge your views, backing up what I say with arguments, you quietly let the matter drop, presumably in the hope I will not notice - which I usually obligingly pretend to do.
I try my best to avoid anything ad hominem on the list, but I am really getting tired of this 'He wants all his opinions to be taken on his own authority' rubbish. If you think an argument is wrong, say why. Play the argument, not the man. In the present case if you think what I have written below is incorrect in some way, say why. DA On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 10:51 AM, William Conger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I don't think it matters at all in a scholarly sense > what Derek says. He wants all his opinions to be > taken on his own authority. No one of influence in > science or literary criticism or in any field at all > (maybe eccentric religions excepted) does that or has > in all of known history. Bunkum or Derek. It's the > same thing. > > WC > > --- Derek Allan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> 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 > > -- Derek Allan http://www.home.netspeed.com.au/derek.allan/default.htm
