Aesthetics is a branch of philosophy and philosophy concerns knowledge that has been critically scrutinized - the philosopher unlike the poseur likewise is self critical -- both these positions require those who know little to do research - in this case Derek it would require you to know something of the history of the history of art as well as an understanding of your own ideological stance in relation to world culture, material culture and the practices of art - seemingly in all of these years all you have done is wrap yourself in your cloak of ignorance concerning those fields you seem most passionately concerned with - this seems to have lead to you taking up a defensive position premised on an inductive logic. As Imago has pointed out many of your concerns have been taken up by others (much to your chagrin by those on the left throughout the 150 year history of Modernist thought.) Chair, Visual Arts and Technologies The Cleveland Institute of Art
> From: Derek Allan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: <[email protected]> > Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 19:44:23 +1000 > To: <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Art and History > > 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 > > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by MailScanner, and is > believed to be clean.
