Frances to William with kind regards...
The fact that some persons do call themselves "artists" and do posit some objects of virtually any kind as their "artwork" suggests that they do "continue" to engage in an activity that is somewhat different and unique from other kinds of activities, yet in much the same way as other persons did in the recent and distant past. Just exactly or specifically might be different today in regard to those modern acts called "art" is as yet not fully clear to me. It may be that the very category called "art" in all the humanities and the classification of objects as kinds of "art" could be coming to a close, if indeed it was ever open at all. The search for a philosophic generality that globally covers all of "art" as a universal class of object may possibly not exist, but that some kind of philosophic relativity that accepts several kinds of "artistic" classes may actually be more viable. My thought here turns perhaps to such "artistic" spheres as unart and nonart and antiart and anart. They would certainly still fall under an "aesthetic" umbrella of sorts. This very trouble may have been anticipated by the early pragmatists who posited such collateral theories to "aesthetics" as "callics" and "callaesthetics" and of an "aesthemae" in the broader "kalos" of the vast world. This expanded approach to art would presumably permit the beauty of the unbeautiful or of the bad and ugly and evil, and further that the "artistic" may not even need be "aesthetic" at all. This may of course hint at a formless form for the idea of "art" that is functionally functionless. If any standard rules might emerge for all of "art" it would likely come from the psychical studies of the mental psyche, such as those inquiries found in psychology and neurology and in cognitive science. In any event, it would likely be "art" that must contribute to such science. The drift and shift from the "artistic" product in hand to the "artistic" process in mind as being more important to "art" may also open new doors of research. What the field of "art" may now need is a good dose of logical fallibility, in that what was nice as "art" or "beauty" before may not be so now or even later. The jargon of names and terms now found in the broad field called "art" is admittedly becoming a baroque snarl of twine in need of clarity. Whether to accept the determination of diverse laity and deity and academy and industry and polity as to what may be "art" is an additional thorn for theorists to contend with. The condition of a description for "art" must however entail some exclusion since many processes and products are clearly unsafe and justly unlawful. The determination of "art" is best defined more by its limits and grounds and margins, and not so much by its origins and causes and sources. There is a strong sense of relative context in this approach, but it seems valid. Indeed, the limit of "art" may even be what can be known of the normal human brain itself. In any event, it seems that some "artistic" assurance is desired. If anything is wished intrinsic for "art" it might be its collections and connections and corrections. Either "art" as a group is a bridge that attempts to link some extreme poles such as tech and science, or "art" is a pole aligned with some other pole like science which gap is attempted to be closed by a bridge like tech. In an ideal perfect state it is conceivable that all normal humans would be mature experts fully capable of making good "art" at will. Perhaps this is the greatest goal that many philosophers hark about. (The last posted messages to which this current message of mine replies have been deleted due to some limit of length for emails on this list.)
