From: William Conger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Reification and "ART"
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 07:54:31 -0800 (PST)
New rule! You can't verify art philosophy by analogies to sporting events
which are, above all, entertainment, and are refereed with that uppermost
in mind. In art philosophy, each and ever word, comma, term, must be fully
explained with respect to the meaning the author wants the reader to
imitate.
WC
--- On Wed, 11/5/08, GEOFF CREALOCK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: GEOFF CREALOCK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Reification and "ART"
> To: [email protected]
> Date: Wednesday, November 5, 2008, 1:01 PM
> Cheerskep: I occasionally watch hockey on tv. It is the
> referee's job to
> keep play within rules. Without the referee, chaos might
> result. On the
> other hand, referees seem to recognize that scrupulous
> calling of every
> possible misdemeanour would drastically slow up the game.
> So, although some
> behaviour is not really within the rules, they let it go
> for the sake of the
> fans watching.
> I suppose that there should be a penalty for reifying.
> However, maybe
> occasionally it could be overlooked (in spite of its being
> 'against the
> rules").
> Geoff C
>
> >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
