On Sep 10, 2008, at 12:18 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Many listers pay lip-service to this argument -- "Well, of course,
everyone knows that, that's a dead horse" etc -- and in the next
breath use the word 'art' in a way that betrays that they DO believe
each object either IS or ISN'T "art", and either HAS or HAS NOT a
never-defined (chimerical) quality/essence, "artness".
Isn't <g> that just another way of saying, "Can YYY be predicated on
XXX?"
Seriously: I believe that in most statements--including technical,
philosophic, or erudite discourse--when the speaker says, "XXX is
YYY" (e.g., "That is art"), such a statement is <g> exactly equivalent
to "That thing exhibits characteristics that are called 'art.'"
Painting by Jones is art
conforms exactly with
Painting by Jones shows qualities previously
identified (or defined) as artistic
Painting by Jones participates in a dialogue about artistic
qualities or characteristics
Art qualities are predicated on painting by Jones
This form can be mapped onto other utterances:
Yves's Happenings is art
Yves's Happenings shows art qualities
Yves's Happenings participates in art discourse
Art qualities are predicated on Yves's Happenings
At some point, Cheerskep, our discussions must get beyond the
diversion caused by using a copulative versus a predicating verb.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Michael Brady
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
