Frances to William and Joseph and others... To deal with this question of how the existence of art in society might be determined, it could be helpful to consider how this same question is put to the existence of truth in science. In using pragmatism as the guide to getting answers for this question, it posits that there are at least three bad ways that tend to dominate society in seeking the truth of science, but only one good way. The three bad ways are by stubborn tenacity, and by threatening ferocity, and by ruling authority. The one good way is to start by empirical inquiry, and to then temper the results with common sense and expert agreement. Now, the thorn is how to apply empirical inquiry to finding out how the beauty of form in art might be determined, and how the existence of art in society might be determined. Empiricism is a process of experiention and experimentation. The experiention entails observation. The experimentation entails investigation and examination or operation. The range of scientific research under pragmatism actually entails curiosity and inquiry and discovery, but inquiry is central and pivotal to research. The range of scientific method under pragmatism actually entails aesthetics and ethics and logics. Empiricism falls under logics. These methods are held by pragmatism to be normative sciences of what reasonably ought to be wisely known as good. The proof provided by empiricism must however be taken tentatively, because pragmatism holds truth to be fallible. On the surface of it this seems to be a reasonable approach to art, but then there may be problems with it that are not yet fully appreciated.
-----Original Message----- From: William Conger [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, 16 November, 2010 9:58 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Can art exist without authority? Go as far back as you wish and no-one can say what good and bad are in universal terms. The ancients settled on "making man better" but that is simply passing the buck since no one can say what makes anyone "good" except case by case, each with its own precepts. We make up the rules of the good-bad game and go with them until the fans are bored and all the players have changed sides too often. Then someone starts a new game down the road in an old sandlot and the fans stray to it. wc ----- Original Message ---- From: joseph berg <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Tue, November 16, 2010 12:20:39 AM Subject: Re: Can art exist without authority? Isn't part of what aesthetics is supposed to be about knowing the difference between good and bad art? On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 7:20 PM, Saul Ostrow <[email protected]> wrote: > How would one know the difference at that point > > > On 11/16/10 12:16 AM, "joseph berg" <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 2:08 PM, joseph berg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > - *Good art weathers* the ages because once in so often a man of > > intelligence commands the mass to adore it. > > > > *Ezra* Pound > > > Without authority, won't the bad eventually push out the good?
