-- "imago Asthetik" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: "... 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 ..."
Common sense always prevails ! Boris Shoshensky >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." ____________________________________________________________ Click to receive information from occupational therapy schools near you. http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2241/fc/Ioyw6i4s2MDllB0FC9kkYvoWCDiL9A XHVzngnIoqUilKiCVYrwODXW/
