Yes but I'm not sure you read any art history of any kind..
On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 5:32 PM, Saul Ostrow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> All art history is ideological - give me the example of a history or
> historian that isn't
> Chair, Visual Arts and Technologies
> The Cleveland Institute of Art
>
>
>
>
>> From: Derek Allan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 17:21:08 +1000
>> To: Saul Ostrow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Subject: Re: Presence
>>
>> RE: 'but only why you
>> would believe such things -"
>>
>> Read some art history - instead of art ideology.
>>
>> D
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 12:20 PM, Saul Ostrow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Yours are soft arguments - you depend on your perceptions - we wait for
>>> substantiation - a secondary source and you instead ask us to defend our
>>> positions - you believe opinions are arguments - in our world tht may be
>>> true - but I'm not really interested in what you believe - but only why you
>>> would believe such things -
>>> Chair, Visual Arts and Technologies
>>> The Cleveland Institute of Art
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> From: Derek Allan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>> Reply-To: <[email protected]>
>>>> Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 11:58:18 +1000
>>>> To: <[email protected]>
>>>> Subject: Re: Presence
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> 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.
>
>
>
