From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: "Certainty" AND "ART"
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2008 12:32:57 EST
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)
