Something like the impact of photography on the objectives of the painters
of that time..
Geoff C
From: William Conger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Reading Peter Kivy
Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2008 08:28:50 -0800 (PST)
Well, I'm certainly glad to hear that Miller is interested in an historical
approach to modernism. He's never shown any interest before in the
historical underpinnings of modernism.
I'm all for the art philosophers, but few actually know anything about
modernist art and it's not all their fault. In academia, the philosophy
and art history departments are seldom interconnected, they're usually
alienated, and of course art practice departments are usually,
unfortunately, estranged from the other two. What that means is that in
actual practice each discipline has its own methodologies and debates.
Strange that Miller should dengrate Lehrer as a journalist (that he is) and
imply that a philosopher anthologist has done better at something Lehrer
never aimed to do anyway. Every author has his or her audience and
whenever Miller encounters a professional specialized audience he
complains of their elitism; now he complains about when he encounters an
author who aims at a general educated audience.
The real point here is an embarrassing absence of respect the listers have
for one another. I think Lehrer is denounced because I suggested the book,
although it was Michael who suggested an online debate.
I remain unconvinced that some of our wise listers have any awareness of
what is going on in neurology these days and how it impacts art and art
philosophy.
As Galileo learned, some folks just won't look through that telescope for
fear they'll need to admit something they feel they must deny to maintain
their dogma. Lerher offered a quick appreciation of the new science through
the intuitive insights of earlier artists. I've certainly suggested other,
heavier books, on the same topics to stony-cold silence: Barbara Stafford
among them.
WC
