Why can't contemporary philosophers of art be proscriptive? Why can't they tell us "this kind of art is better" for either personal or cultural development? Why do they have play at being scientists -- of either evolution, or cognition, or language, or sociology - instead of actually becoming serious scientists in those fields?
And Dutton is just playing with evolutionary psychology which is based on so little evidence from the Pleistocene, perhaps that's all that anyone can do. As William Deresiewicz wrote, choosing among the available theories is like "trying to decide which imaginary girlfriend to sleep with" So Dutton chooses the "Peacock's tail" theory that "pits suitors against each other", ignores the rest (including those that pit social groups against each other) and applies it to various issues in art theory (death of the author, forgery, etc) But since he is trying to avoid proscription, his "cluster" definition of art, lacking any necessary or sufficient conditions, is too loose to allow for characterization. He can tease the contemporary artworld by focusing on its acceptance of "Merda d'artista", but he can offer no grounds for serious critique. All he can do is offer an entertaining survey of some relevant ideas and those who have written them, which I do think was very helpful. And, of course, sell some books, become something of a virtuosic performer himself, and presumably increase the opportunities for his own genetic code to be sexually selected. ____________________________________________________________ Weight Loss Program Best Weight Loss Program - Click Here! http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/c?cp=_EtXqka3hU4XCGYfTwr5EgAAJz6c l_zTaptgNR5c8Mer1v9kAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEUgAAAAA=
