Sorry Cheerskep, I've been saying it for 50 years. mando On Mar 4, 2009, at 11:45 AM, [email protected] wrote:
> In a message dated 3/4/09 12:55:52 PM, [email protected] > writes: > > >> There is no procedure for testing the existence of good art. >> > Look hard and you'll see most of my effort is aimed against the > indefensibly > foggy notion behind "Good art exists". You can, as Bruce Attah was > unwittingly > doing, putting together (an actually fairly smart!) stipulative > definition of > "good art" -- that is, he was listing the characteristics that, if > found in a > object, would move him to call it "art". (His definition was such > that if it > isn't "good", it isn't "art". His biggest problem was he didn't > realize that > all he could possibly achieve would be to say, "This is what I call > art." > Instead, he took the unwinnable position that he was describing > what art IS. > (Attah: "This definition is unbreakable, and it is only > eighteen words long! I just sewed up and finished off and, worse, > showed to > be mainly misguided, > roughly a century's worth of theorising about the "meaning of art" > in about > a hundred lines of text. You people probably thought you had > another century > of fun to go on that one. Sorry people, but it had to be done. My > deepest > sympathies go to the Weitzians. The bottom has just dropped out of > their > world.") > > Chrsis adds: "Can't we all cease appealing to the "the normal uses of > language?)" > > To which Michael responds: > "Why? Do you have a disagreement with "the normal uses of language"? > > But, Michael, we've now had about a hundred fifteen years of > philosophy of > language prompted by the inherent fogginess of "normal uses of > language". > (Alas, > most of that technical, ABnormal discussion is even more foggy.) > > > > > > > ************** > Worried about job security? Check out the 5 safest jobs in a > recession. > (http://jobs.aol.com/gallery/growing-job-industries? > ncid=emlcntuscare00000002 > )
