http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/irvinem/visualarts/Institutional-theory-ar
tworld.html
Above is a brief discussion of this topic that includes the part of the
Institutional theory that William left out:
* What makes something an artwork is not an observable property in an
artwork itself.
* The work is a node in a network of forces without which it would be
unrecognizable-- literally invisible.
True? -- false? -- untestable?
It would certainly apply quite well to the recent winners of the Turner Prize
(the intermittent light switch, the cluttered coffee table) -- but not to
everything that's been called art.
For example -- the Egyptian artifacts that traveled from the museum of natural
history to the art museum because --- because they looked so good.
Maybe everyone can't see the difference: the blind, the stupid, the damaged,
or just the insensitive.
But it's there -- oh yes -- I can say it's there with the same certainty that
I notice some posters to this list can carefully turn a phrase -- and some
can't.
____________________________________________________________
Click here to save cash and find low rates on auto loans.
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/Ioyw6ijmyuXXLdDGaAoGwEHjQzJiBn
1bPGTQFKuc9I3CEuayVmG5zW/
