I don't think you have read much aesthetics, Imago. If you had, you would know that the arguments I am taking issue with are key assumptions in analytic aesthetics. Indeed I think I make this clear in the article.
As for your comemnts they seem quite bizarre to me...They demonstrate your amazing talent, which I have mentioned before, to turn clearly expressed propositions into convoluted confusion. I would be much more impressed if you stuck to the text and showed precisely what you think the problems are - in simple, clear language - if you argued philosophically in short, rather than flounder around in half-understood philosophical jargon.. You're not one of Saul's students by any chance? DA On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 6:37 PM, imago Asthetik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Just read Derek Allan's Paper, "Art and History: taking the past seriously." > > I must be rather dense, but I'm still completely unsure what problem Mr > Allan is trying to articulate. Most of the arguments he critiques are > easily dismissed (as Mr allan himself does) by showing that they fall to > either a genetic fallacy (i.e. an origin must possess at least one property > found at the end of historical/temporal development), or as involving an > overly robust metaphysical commitment to the reality of the category, 'art' > (notice that most philological arguments, i.e. the genealogy of concepts, > fall prey to this fallacy). > > Indeed, as far as I can see, Mr Allans concern ultimately amounts to a > perspectival claim concerning what he terms "The modern world of art," > rather than "the world of modern art." But wouldn't that perspectival > problem -- ie that the horizons of what we currently call art are larger > than what our predecessors called art -- be precisely a modern problem, > which is independent of art as such (i.e. it manifests itself in science > too, and math, and cooking, and architecture, etc). Phrased as simply as > possible, we are able to "take something as" something in more ways than > previously possible. And such an Apophansis merely bespeaks a more > complicated, nuanced and refined lifeworld/system. So what's the problem > exactly? Surely it can't be an Hamletian call for an anti-philosophy, > "there are more things on heaven and earth than philosophy can imagine." > > -- Derek Allan http://www.home.netspeed.com.au/derek.allan/default.htm
