I would agree with William. We may reach rarified heights from time tp time but we can't reasonably to get there all the time. KAte Sullivan In a message dated 10/29/08 11:26:31 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> 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. > > ************** Plan your next getaway with AOL Travel. Check out Today's Hot 5 Travel Deals! (http://travel.aol.com/discount-travel?ncid=emlcntustrav00000001)
