On Jul 7, 2009, at 11:38 PM, William Conger wrote:
Michael, you're in deep mud. Nothing literal defines art.
Terse, eh?
How is saying that one judges an object in one way or another in order
to continue to speak of it as art or as something else--how is that
significantly different from your four-part scheme or deDuve's "jury
is still out" conclusion?
I say that you cannot begin to describe something as "art" or to say
things about it as "art" until you first determine whether it
qualifies as "art"--even if just for the time being. And I am also
saying that if you determine that it is more important to judge the
denotational (epistemic) truth of the representation, then you are not
viewing it as art but as something else; and conversely, if you
determine it's more important to judge the work as a free creation,
then you are viewing it as art.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Michael Brady
[email protected]
http://considerthepreposition.blogspot.com/
