Yes, I think it's important to recognize that the word art is not evoked form alone. Form may be necessary to art but it is certainly not sufficient. Even Fry recognized that when he added "significant" to form. Obviously the word significant is the deep hole in the pond where all sorts of cultural critters lurk. So art is probably determined (ranked and evaluated as symbol) by culture than it is form but I think form is the universal identifying attribute as something made (crafted or named) by humans. Form is to art as liquid is to water. It's the first step. WC --- Saul Ostrow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes that's true the problem is we do not necessarily > react or understanding > this commonness the way the other does - when we > substitute our > understanding of universals on the universals of the > other we discover we > have little in common outside the formal - the > refusal to acknowledge we can > do nothing without engaging to some degree in > cultural bias was the general > criticism of Levy-Strauss's structural anthropology > - this seems to be > weakness as well of derek's argument - he wants to > appreciate the culture of > the other without acknowledging that his > appreciation (down to calling it > art in some cases reflects his cultural bias' > (ideology) and that inclusion > is not enough to give the other representation.
