Cheerskep's issue with isness of objects reflects one form of existentialism which asserts that objects have no intrinsic meaning. I agree but at the same time there are other philosophical views that offer some form of subjective-objective relatioinship to meaning. His absolutism regarding the isness question is a matter of (existential) choice.
When I say that all great works of are are accessible at some level I do assume a willingness on the part of the experiencer to subjectively experience a proposed work of art regardless of response. Thus it is ok to say in effect that while I am willing to experience Waiting for Godot as if it were a work of art, my pervious experience in doing that left me with a negative art response and that previous response can be quite different from my judgment that the play does indeed have the high-to extraordinary capacity to be experienced as if it were a great work of art by others or even by me at some other time (production. What I am saying is that a great work of art can be accessed by me at some level --- in this case a judgmental level and a separate negative response level -- without engaging me at the aesthetic level I might prefer. (I think I claim that all experience has some subjective-aesthetic content. WC --- On Mon, 2/23/09, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote: > From: [email protected] <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Definable and measurable truths > To: [email protected] > Date: Monday, February 23, 2009, 5:17 PM > I wrote: "I can't agree with William when he says, > "Good art appeals to all, > I mean it offers something -- some access -- to any viewer. > That has always > been true of the best art."" > > I prefaced the explanation of my disagreement by saying: > > "The assumption, the reification, of an entity or > category that is art, is a > big problem." > > I then cited WAITING FOR GODOT, which some have called the > greatest work of > theater art in the twentieth century. I remarked that it > does not appeal to me > on any level. I then argued in effect that if William means > if a work is > "accessible" then it must have appeal, that seems > to me wrong. GODOT is fully > accessible to me, I said, but I still loathe it. > > Chris responded: > > "I question the example ("Waiting for > Godot") which Cheerskep has offered > as an exception to William's statement." As a > reason for his doubt, Chris > states: > > "Although, like Cheerskep, I loathe that play, I see > no reason to concede > that it is among "the best art" just because > "Some (presumably famous critics) > have called it the greatest work of theater art in the > twentieth century." > > My response to Chris: But I DIDN'T concede > "it's among the best art". Indeed, > my preface was meant to convey it's a flat error to > believe ANY entity is > "art". To say that something "is" > "art" -- as distinguished from our just > CALLING > it "art" -- is to assume there is a > mind-independent metaphysical "category", > "art". Those who think this way believe every > object either IS art or it is > NOT, regardless of what any individual or group calls it. > > Artsy recently posted a column -- Encorebuzz, in the Nashua > Telegraph -- that > said this: "Art is the creative expression of an > artist who tries to paint > his own impressions of something seen visually or > mentally." The correct way > to > counter this is NOT by starting, "No, no -- that's > not what art IS! Art isb&" > and then give another would be description of what > "art" "really is". > > Consider other judgmental words like 'delicious' or > 'disgusting' or > 'impolite'. Wouldn't it seem silly to believe > in some quasi-Platonic > metaphysical > domain wherein there's a set of all the impolite acts, > and another set of all > the > other, non-impolite, acts? > > Picture this category as either the set of all objects that > ARE "works of > art", or picture it as "the quality of > artness" that all and only "works of > art" > are supposed to "have" or, in Plato's term, > "participate in". Pictured either > way, the category is imaginary, an instance of the basic > error of reification > (or, as it is sometimes called when what is reified is an > abstraction, this is > hypostatization). > > At first glance Chris and I would seem to be agreeing, but > we aren't. He is > not saying that NOTHING "is" art. He is not > claiming that 'art' is a > judgmental > word, a reflection only of our individual notional > attitudes toward a given > object or alleged quality. Chris believes there IS a set, > class, category of > "the best art", and GODOT just isn't in > there. > > Do not now growl that here we have Cheerskep just beating > the same old dead > horse. This is Cheerskep responding to an error posted on > this philosophy of > art forum. Stop making this error, and I'll stop > pointing it out. > > > > > ************** > You're invited to Hollywood's biggest party: Get > Oscars > updates, red carpet pics and more at Moviefone. > (http://movies.aol.com/oscars-academy-awards?ncid=emlcntusmovi00000001)
