In a message dated 11/2/08 12:33:46 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
"Cheerskep: Perhaps, for the purposes of this discussion: what notions might be associated with the notion "art" in your, or many persons, minds, "what is art?" might be understood as: "what notions might be associated with the notion "art"." When people ask, "What is X?" they are asking one of two different kinds of questions that can loosely be characterized with this phrasing: "What do you personally call X?" and "What is the actual entity that we are referring to when we say 'X'?" At the core of the notion behind the second kind of question is the assumption that the alleged "referent" exists. Often the alleged referent is concrete and directly observable enough to persuade us to accept the question as serviceably reasonable: "What's that bright object in the sky?" "What's that elaborate-looking machine over there in the corner?" "What's this lump under my skin here?" And sometimes both parties are aware the "entity" is notional: "What's your idea of justice?" "What do you have in mind when you say 'aesthetic'?" "What's your notion of a good vacation?" Trouble is, the form of those questions often morphs from "What's your idea of justice?" to "What is justice?" A corollary form is, "Is X in fact a Y?" And the trouble with that form is, it tends to make the mind "reify" -- assume the thing is a "real", non-mental entity. Thus what began as a request for a description of what someone has in mind becomes a hunt for the assumed mind-independent entity: "What is sin, miracles, destiny, good luck, the "sacredness" of "holy" ground, curses, God's grace..." Or: "What is evil, important, graceful, delicious, disgusting, essence, beauty, freedom, the afterlife, heaven, hell, angels, the devil, tree spirits, ghosts, haunted, and more." So, no, I don't think we can assume that when every lister asks, "What is art?" he can be understood as asking: "What notions might be associated with the notion "art"." I have to admit that in all my years on the forum, to this day the liveliest single thread was Bruce Attah's posting of the nine characteristics that, he said, were what made a work BE art (very like Aristotle's muddled claim that its "properties" are what "make something BE what it IS".) Attah would not accept he was merely listing his own personal preference for certain characteristics he wanted in works he would CALL art. He felt he was exposing a metaphysical "truth" -- discerning factual stuff about the metaphysical category/quality of artness. Our formerly active lister Derek Allan also took the position that it wasn't simply that he was honorifically CALLING Mozart's 24th concerto "art" -- it IS art. Derek did not expose himself to the polemic demolition Attah suffered here; Derek would never give any reason whatever for his assertion that a given work IS art. I do agree however, that a survey of what notions various people have in mind when they hear or use the word 'art' might have a mild -- but soon diminishing -- interest. ************** AOL Search: Your one stop for directions, recipes and all other Holiday needs. Search Now. (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1212792382x1200798498/aol?redir=http://searchblog.aol.com/2008/11/04/happy-holidays-from -aol-search/?ncid=emlcntussear00000001)
