because, to mention that word again,
fuzziness is R-US
mando
On Nov 28, 2009, at 8:18 AM, Chris Miller wrote:
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_zTaptgNR5c8Mer1v9kAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEUgAAAA
A=
