I guess I missed that paragraph where Miller deigns to instruct me (and Mando) on proper way to examine art (see below). Stunningly insulting and arrogant. And laughable. But I'm a practitioner in a meritocracy and Miller is not.
Let's remember that Miller has zero credentials in art and art history, some experience as an amateur sculptor, runs a music record shop, and has fledging writing (art critic!) experience for a give-away neighborhood newspaper. None of that qualifies him to instruct. In the meritocracy, he ranks at the bottom. Among the many dubious blessings of the Internet and its leveling of discourse to the lowest common level, is the perverse benefit of destroying the meritocracy, which is the purpose of democratic equality of opportunity (as in the use of the word "pursuit"). I think Miller is quite happy about that. And that's a topic worth discussing. Does the Internet presume an equality of condition among people or does it assume an equality of opportunity? It seems to prefer the former and Miller practices it by insisting, through his wanton habit of preemptively judging others -- whether high or low -- when he so clearly lacks credentials that would earn him the right to do so in a meritocracy. The equality of condition with respect to intellectual discourse make all discourse equal; that is to say, unranked, and even meaningless (ha ha ha and therefore fit only for possible works of art) or at best, purely pragmatic, to be proved after the fact. It's curious that Miller thus espouses the the equality of condition in art discourse that he otherwise detests in art itself (the equality of all art). If he wants to destroy meritocracy, why won't he accept all art as equally art? If he wants a hierarchical merit in art, then why doesn't he want it in art discourse, especially his own? Interestingly, neo-conceptual video artists have explored the new Babel and the erasure of discursive merit. wc ----- Original Message ---- From: armando baeza <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Cc: armando baeza <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 3:00:26 PM Subject: Re: Reading Kivy: Chapter 4 "On the Unity of Form and Content" - A. C . Bradley On Oct 20, 2009, at 6:46 AM, Chris Miller wrote: > But for them to engage in the philosophy of art, they need to question why > works, other than their own, should be considered profound, important, unique, > or ineffable enough to be considered fine art. > Chris I'm very broad in my idea of what fine art should be ( since fine art,to me has no "should be" Real Identity). Profound, Important, Ineffable and even unique(though I favor unique) are words that take you on a subjective alley, where philosophers meet to figure out how give identity to subjectivism. mando
