I don't have the inclination or the time to rummage through old posts to find your many iterations of the issue I mention.
WC --- Derek Allan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Re:'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. ' > > But, precisely, I say no such thing!! As I say, you > see what you want to see. > > DA > > > > On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 11:06 AM, William Conger > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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
