Thanks for clarifying more of the process of the valuing of "art" works.
Individuals may arrive at their own opinions, but they are not necessarily
part of the organic process (I assume).
As to suggesting that I mean to impugn artists as thinkers, that is neither
my intention nor belief. However, we do know that the perceiver's
conclusions may be critical in these discussions. What I DID write was that
my experience (which I do claim to be an expert about) was that I
didn't/couldn't understand most artists in their descriptions of their own
and other's works. I'm not in a position to have an opinion on artists as
thinkers.
Regarding the ineffable: perhaps sadly, few things move me to feel I've
encountered the ineffable. However, I could imagine that that is a frequent
experience for artists, and may be related to my inability to get the
message from many artists.
Perhaps you are to be congratulated at your facility in getting to know
others on limited information. I hope some of the jury would still be out on
my motives for reading about and experiencing art.
GC
From: William Conger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: Examining the theory
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 17:57:10 -0700 (PDT)
The subject of my sentence in question is "institutional theory". Therefore
that's what I was referring to.
The institutional theory is simply the assertion that the "artworld" makes
judgments as to what artworks are valued at any given time. The artworld
consists of those who are professionally engaged day to day with artworks
and with ideas about art. They include artists, critics, art philosophers,
curtators, dealers, collectors, and anyone else who has attained some
respect from the artworld. Because this is an organic model, it must be in
continual change and debate. In fact, it operates on the principle that the
"jury is always out" (says Thierry deDuve). To refer to this as a theory
may be an honorific use of the term. It is simply a process with many
participants, although the participants are in and out at various times.
Ultimately it is a matter of loudest opinion among peers. And all cognition
stems from opinion and belief.
As for Crealock's comment that he doesn't understand what artists say, I
respond that he is only giving the usual biased opinion against artists as
thinkers. Further, if he does not reserve a major experience of the
ineffable when considering art, then I claim he is not interested in art
except as a catalog of objects.
WC
--- On Mon, 9/22/08, GEOFF CREALOCK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: GEOFF CREALOCK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: RE: Examining the theory
> To: [email protected]
> Date: Monday, September 22, 2008, 2:23 PM
> I was referring to the following from William Conger:
> "To examine the
> institutional theory in action is to examine the results of
> its process."
> I understood him to be referring to theory primarily,
> rather than art,
> although without some level of agreement regarding both
> terms confusion is
> most likely to follow.
> If you insist that any two individuals will have somewhat
> varying
> interpretations/understandings of either term, I know of no
> way to deny your
> thesis. The next implication in that perspective would seem
> to be the end of
> theorizing/conceptualizing or discussing theory or art as
> no one would be in
> absolute agreement about anything. If we recognize no
> necessary meaning in
> terminology (no "dictionary of meanings") I
> wonder what language is left to
> us to communicate.
> GC
>
>
> >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Reply-To: [email protected]
> >To: [email protected]
> >Subject: "What is XXX?"
> >Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 12:00:05 EDT
> >
> >Geoff Crealock writes:
> >
> >"Re: Examining the theory
> >I don't know about art ..... But, I would submit
> that one aspect of
> >examining a theory might be understanding its products
> or results but that
> >surely leaves the process of arriving at those results
> unexplored/unknown.
> >Who did what under what circumstances, under what
> pressures/expectations
> >which resulted in this result this time?
> >Geoff Crealock"
> >
> >I can't find the thread "Examining the
> Theory", but your posting occasions
> >this thought:
> >
> >Your line "one aspect of examining a theory might
> be understanding ITS
> >products" betrays a circularity. For example, if
> it's a theory about "What
> >is art?"
> >the 'its' seems to assume you've already
> "identified" "art", or you
> >wouldn't
> >be able to cite "its" products.
> >
> >If, however, the "it" you have in mind is the
> THEORY, you have essentially
> >the same problem: "What is art?" -- as with
> any question of the "What is
> >XXX?"
> >form -- probably assumes the assumes the existence oof
> a mind-independent
> >quality/category that "IS" "art" --
> but what if the adversary's position is
> >that
> >there is no such mind-independent entity? If your
> subject is solely your
> >own
> >notion of art, and the 'it' is merely a theory
> of your own personal notion,
> >it's
> >liable to be of limited interest, and it's a fairly
> sure thing it will
> >amount
> >in the end to a unilateral stipulative definition.
> "This is my theory of
> >what my notion of art is." "Oh? Well
> that's not MY idea."
> >
> >
> >**************
> >Looking
> >for simple solutions to your real-life financial
> challenges? Check out
> >WalletPop for the latest news and information, tips and
> calculators.
> >
> >(http://www.walletpop.com/?NCID=emlcntuswall00000001)
