Hi Chris: If it didn't get lost, I missed it somehow.
It seems like sullying the sublime process of art to marry it with
sociology. However, if it's defined by human beings (doh!) then there is a
relationship which can be studied and assessed. And mourned possibly, when
the philistines don't recognize "good" art.
Geoff
From: "Chris Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Institutionalized Definition
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 15:25:37 GMT
Did my last communique get lost in cyberspace?
The point was that William's statement of the "Institutional Theory" is
incomplete --(and Geoff Crealock noticed the same as he remarked that "If
you
insist that any two individuals will have somewhat
varying interpretations/understandings of either term [theory and art], I
know
of no way to deny your thesis.")
The Institutional theory, as summarized by Dr. Irvine, is not just that
art
is identified by "a situation defined by many voices and many interests
all
vying for power."--- it's also that art is un-identifiable outside that
situation.
That's the non-obvious, controversial claim that divorces Art from
Aesthetics,
and then re-marries it to Sociology.
____________________________________________________________
Click here to find a massage therapy school near you.
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/Ioyw6ijlUZt7cWAsIO2oMK23Xp2o75
wxpRYDXm6nB6I0ro6ztBBVkw/
