My intention here was to raise the question of the art part of the phrase - given that much of the materials in question have been aesthetized and transformed into art by western societies - while the indigenous cultures tend to view this material as part of their religion or daily life - declaring this material art in the western sense of the term is comparable to another culture deciding for us that a cocoa cola bottle is as good as it the West gets given that it represents for them a talisman of our profound religious adherence to materialism Chair, Visual Arts and Technologies The Cleveland Institute of Art
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: <[email protected]> > Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 11:11:20 EDT > To: <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Presence > > Saul suggests: > > " Let us begin with a definition of all "African art"..." > > No, don't do that. I agree that certainly each of us should describe what we > have in mind with any key term with harmfully fuzzy edges. But clarity -- as > with so many of the notions in philosophy of art -- is always a matter of > degree. And there is a gross enough level at which the term 'African art' is > serviceable enough here. Besides, William did a good job of orienting us with > his > locution: "non-western art: Prehistoric, African, Oceanic, Japanese, Chinese, > Indian and related topics". We don't need definitions to take advantage of > William's helpful line. > > 'African art', vague at the edges though it is, struck me as a helluva lot > less vague than Benjamin's ostensible notion of 'aura'. I'm not a Benjamin > scholar so I stayed out of that part of this thread. But then you, Saul, gave > by > far the best description of the notion -- only to have it ignored by every > other > lister. Your description of the "aura" of an "original" was interesting to > me: all the emotive trappings that accumulate almost reverentially, and which > are evoked when we're in the presence of the work. > > I could imagine a useful discussion of the distinction between those > evocations and the feelings one might term purely aesthetic as we contemplate, > say, > the Mona Lisa. (I disagree with the lister -- or Artsy6 citation -- that > claimed > there's no "aura" in this sense when in the presence of the Mona Lisa.) But > as I say your good attempt was ignored on the forum. > > As I predicted, one of our listers -- William -- now dismisses Derek's "equal > footing" remark as "elementary". But even that at least concedes Derek had a > point. > > I think I confessed how, when I was a young smarty-pants in philosophy, my > first motive in reading any new paper was to find something wrong with it in > order to demonstrate that I was sharper than the guy who wrote it. With the > result that I regularly failed to take on board what was right in the paper. > Many listers -- and I admit this includes Derek -- display that "Yeah, but > --!" > impulse -- without the "Yeah" part. > > > > > ************** > 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) > > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by MailScanner, and is > believed to be clean.
