I've decided to lurk around on the list for awhile to see how things go. I do have a few comments regarding the sort of conversation that a list, any list like this one, can offer.
1. A genuine philosophical discussion, one that binds itself to the professional practice of philosophy in the use of terms, established arguments, questions, and the like, is probably not possible on a list. The reasons are many but ultimately center on two simple facts: One, it takes enormous time to research, write and edit a clear phbilosophical argument. One does not do this in the fast moving nature of a comment-respond type of discussion; two, who would devote the time and energy needed to prepare a carefully composed and nuanced philosophical argument on a free list, thus essentially giving away one's intellectual product to others -- who may take it as their own -- without any return (publishing citations and profits, lecture fees, academic merit, etc.)? 2. It's a loser situation when one writes something conversationally on a list only to have it dissected by the standards that a professional edtor would use for an essay aimed at a professioanl audience. 3. Specifically with respect to art discussions, I think we may say there is an implicit hierarchy of content and attendant modes of discourse: A. At the top of this hierarchy I would place A Philosophy of Art. This requires a comprehensive system of philosophical investigation developed from some thesis or central argument aimed at the problem of aesthetics and artworks. In short, something of the magnitude of a lifetime work. B. Next, A Theory of Art. A theory would not necessarily require a philosophy to contain it but might involve an eclectic selection and looks to actual art practice for establishing past and future validation. It aims at a wholistic methodology for art and aesthetic analysis. C. Next, Art/Aesthetics Criticism. This engages specific artworks and argues at length for or against their claims or reception through reference to art historical examples, eras, and the like. It may rest on Philosophical and Art Theory structures and traditions. The goal of Art Criticism is judgment. D. Art/Aesthetics Journalism. The aim here is to explain the content and judgment of artworks to specific audiences -- from general to specialized as required. C. Art/Aesthetics Conversation. Generalized but purposeful, rigorous talk drawing from all of the above, relying on personal experience, reasoned opinion gained from artworks and recognized sources. The aim is developmental, open ended, insightful, brightened by friendly banter and blurtings, wit and ever demanding inquiry. You'll note that my hierarchical scheme implies a nesting of the types of discourse such that each following type fits within the former, as a subset. I think the proper and most useful type of discussion on a list is at the level of Art Conversation among reasonable, informed, broadly educated participants. I recently wrote a short essay for publication and it took weeks of writing and rewriting. The editor made one or two little changes, too. We can't carry on lively conversations here if they are routinely "edited" as if being submitted for a Philosophy of Art anthology. WC --- On Tue, 10/28/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Trivalities and profundities > To: [email protected] > Date: Tuesday, October 28, 2008, 6:30 PM > I see it as the manifestation of an anxious desire/need to > be published > ("publish or perish"), or simple megalomania. In > both cases the "scholar" wants to > be see as having a unique and important insight. > > > > Geoff wrotes: > > >B It does seem to be a universal tendency in > scholarly > > > circles to invoke that one's perceptions are > the complete and only > > > explanation/interpretation of a phenomenon. It > appears to require too much > > > modesty to submit that "this is how I see > it' > > > > > Kate responds: > > I think this may be not so much self importance, as an > oversimplification > > of the idea that all we actually know about a thing > comes from ourB B > > personal > > perceptions of the thing, from some empiric > knowledge,whether Kantian or > > Husserl's imanent perception or whatever. > > KAte Sullivan
