I wasn't quoting you, Derek, (suggesting that you, rather than I, should read more carefully) but the simplistic idea that you so often criticize as if it had currency; to wit, the notion that western aesthetics degrades non-western-Euro centric art by forcing it to be rated by pro western standards. What I said was that none of my teachers ever proposed judging non western art by purely western standards.
In fact, I agree with your basic point but disagree that it has much validity anymore. I think it is a red herring. However, I also think it's partially true that to even say for example "African Art" is to impose a frame of neo-colonialism on non-western art. Yet it is convenient and essentially neutral to examine artworks by geographic units. Further, in African art, for instance, each tribe had quite distinctive formal modes of practice and thus we can safely say that some sort of aesthetic, sympathetic to western ideas about form, was/is identifiable. What is different of course is purpose, however magical we may say it is. Many times I've had cause to remind you that very simple and naive ideas about art history are not being promoted anymore -- given that art history as a subject has grown up a lot in the "post colonial" era and is now deeply enmeshed with Anthropology, culture studies, and other disciplines, not to mention that bugaboo, Theory. I'm not suggesting that you hold those outmoded ideas but that you continually assume that others, your fellow listers, do. This false assumption is a roadblock to discussion. Whatever the value of Malraux's outlook on art, he is not in extreme opposition to current mainstream thinking on the topic, and perhaps never was. His enemy -- never daunting -- has left the field long ago. It would be more useful for our discussions if you, the acknowledged expert of Malrtaux here, would help to integrate his views, and yours, with current mainstream thinking instead of reverting to an unnecessary defense on an abandoned battlefield. WC I think there is --- Derek Allan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Re: ' I don't recall a > single instance of being told that such art should > be > evaluated by western standards" > > Where do you get this from William? It's a silly > distortion of what I said. > > Your continual, unpleasant innuendos about > "scholarly" standards > clashes badly your own apparent inabilty to read > with care. I have > often noticed this in discussions with you. You see > what you want to > see. > > DA > > On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 11:37 PM, William Conger > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm not grappling with Derek but I am discounting > his > > so-called arguments. He does not offer arguments > if > > by that we mean reasoned inductive or deductive > > process, supported by specific evidence, > reference, > > and, yes, informed opinion. Instead we get > summative > > opinion, the appeal to authority, himself. I've > read > > some of his website essays and I think they are > > extremely well written, persuasive, clear. But > even > > there, in his remarks supporting Malraux, there is > an > > absense of specific interpretation backed up by > > Malraux's own words or contested by the reasoning > of > > other writers on the same topics. > > > > As for non-western art and the idea that it is > > misunderstood, I think this outlook has been well > > established for decades. Fifty years ago, in my > > undergraduate college years I had courses in > > non-western art: Prehistoric, African, Oceanic, > > Japanese, Chinese, Indian and related topics in > four > > different American universities. I don't recall a > > single instance of being told that such art should > be > > evaluated by western standards (although as a > learning > > artist I did admire its "design"). Perhaps I was > > especially fortunate in being taught by > enlightened > > people but there was also an abundance of > scholarly > > and even general literature that clarified the > > distinction between the European aesthetic and > the > > purposes of other artforms. A look at the index > and > > publication dates in any good library will justify > my > > comment. So I think Derek is making a big deal of > > something that's actually quite commonly > understood by > > educated people (such as the listers here) and has > > been for quite a long time. Thus Derek stresses > an > > elementary point. And in defending Derek, so > does > > Cheerskep. > > > > WC > > > > > > > > -- > Derek Allan > http://www.home.netspeed.com.au/derek.allan/default.htm
