Well, that's right, individuals not in the artworld are excluded as deciders according to the institutional theory. I didn't invent the theory so don't blame me for its elitism.
When you rely on your experience to say that you don't understand most artists in their descriptions of their own and others work, I'm wondering what number of artists you mean by "most" and I also wonder who they are. Without such references I can only conclude that either you are right to claim an inability to understand what artists say or you are asserting some measure that justifies you to imply that most artists can't make themselves clear. Your saying that the word ineffable is outside of your experience leaves me wondering if you require something inexpressible to also be beyond experience. Some do. No, I don't have an ability to know others on limited information, I just read and comment on the sentences they write. 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, 8:13 PM > 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
