Cheerskep, For my part, I'm more than willing to grant Mr Allan's point. The problem, as I've said, is what can be done with it.
For, in the first instance, it is not entirely clear to me that, for instance, Egyptian Art, wasn't always part of some collection (whether of an University, a private collector, or a 'museum'). I'm certainly no expert on these matters but, if memory serves, the first 'museum' was the Louvre, which I believe opened in 1793. It was, of course, a justification for the nascent Republic's "reappropriating" private wealth. To my knowledge, the first 'real museum' (in the sense of a public collection, which didn't involve state sponsored theft from privileged citizens) was in Berlin (1820s I bekieve; in fact, some speculate that Hegel's lectures on aesthetics could only take place in virtue of the particular collection there at the time; I've since forgotten the name of the museum). There is also the distinction between museums of (contemporary) art, and museums of (natural) history. This distinction (like the one between Naturwissenschaft and Gesitwissenchaft) has undergone a series of transformations, which allow artefacts (artistic and otherwise) to also be displayed in museums of art. I believe that Mr Allans comments equally identify this transformation of disciplanary boundaries as much as they might identify a transformation of 'equal footing.' But the empirical question remains: does the disciplinary boundary = a conceptual differentiation of art from non-art? Or, even though artefacts were subject to a stronger disciplinary distinction, were they nonetheless considered "artworks," and hence already 'on an equal footing.' Notice that this is not only a historical, empirical question, but it is one that doesn't have much to do with art or aesthetics. Now, to pick up on my previous example, since Egyptology was already a well established field by the 19th Century, and artefacts were definitely shipped back to France and England, It is likely that they were displayed somewhere. Whether they were considered to be mere curiosities or substantive artworks is an empirical question. But this question does not hinge on their being displayed in the Louvre or elsewhere, since art itself had only been on display for about 40 years. Not being on exhibit with 'classics' wouldn't have meant anything yet. In fact, I am tempted to say that one could not have formed a concept of "art" (in the contemporary sense) without Museums. Although Mr Allans point does identify a cultural, and hence historical, sociological transformation in our post-imperialist self-conception, the relationship between this, our current self-conception and a historical conception of art remains undelineated. It remains tied, I believe, to historical factors in which art itself remains incidental. Regardless, as I have said already, I accept Allans assertion. I just don't know what it identifies. Or what it entails. On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 6:40 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In a message dated 7/9/08 10:57:48 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > > "But...but...but" we stutter, "Derek, that's what we > > need, a clue. What is the clue, please?" > > Derek wanders off alone. Looking back, he yells, > > "I'm sick of these personal attacks!". Cheerskep > > moves closer and whispers, "IS?" > > > I think all you guys are fighting Derek on the wrong ground, and he is > winning. Every one of you wields key terms with only the fuzziest notions, > and > then > just condemn Derek from a righteous height. > > Sure, his notion of "equal footing" is also fuzzy, but why not try to find > if > there's anything about it you might agree with if you grappled with his > arguments rather than his person? For example, you all refuse to find any > merit > whatever in his assertion that the aesthetic creations of societies > formerly > excluded by "western societies" from "aesthetic" consideration are now > granted > aesthetic merit in a way they were not in centuries past. I assert there is > something interesting and defendible in his observation. > > As an approach to seeing the other guy's point try this: Suppose all > "African > art" were still excluded from museums and other indicators of esteem by > aesthetic powers that be. Wouldn't it be somewhat reasonable to say that > "African > art" is NOT being given equal consideration? > > Don't make your first response a dismissal of his point because it doesn't > address every single question you might summon up based on your notion of > "equal > footing". First concede there is something of an insight there. That none > of > you will grant Derek's observation an iota of acceptance puts me in the > quite > unaccustomed position of feeling Derek is being more reasonable -- less > personally prejudiced -- than the rest of you. > > Can you honestly say African art was always treated in the west on "equal > footing" with, say, European art? If any listers say they have no idea at > all > what Derek can possibly mean, I won't believe him. I anticipate that some > listers will now say, well, yes, there's some truth to it, but it's > trivial/obvious/unelaborated etc. However that at least will be a step in > the right > direction -- a concession that you agree with some element of what he's > saying. And > therefore a step in the direction of honesty, and not a determination to > condemn everything he's saying solely because you find his stonewalling > irrationality annoying in other arguments. It simply is not the case that > very > single > thing he says is totally without worth, but I sense some of you > closed-mindedly > address him that way. > > > ************** > Get the scoop on last night's hottest > shows and the live music scene in your area - Check out TourTracker.com! > > (http://www.tourtracker.com?NCID=aolmus00050000000112)
