I suppose this ostensive surrogate accounts for all the stories from viewers about how their aunt lived on that street or how their grandfather liked trains. Kate Sullivan
-----Original Message----- From: William Conger <[email protected]> To: aesthetics-l <[email protected]> Sent: Sun, Jun 10, 2012 6:14 pm Subject: Re: Defining art by ostension, i.e. pointing. I don't think it's crucial to tell the audience "what to look for". It is helpful to ask them what they find. My view of this issue is that an artwork entices the viewer to establish a coherence for it which is the ostensive surrogate of the viewer, transformed. wc ----- Original Message ---- From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Sun, June 10, 2012 5:01:30 PM Subject: Defining art by ostension, i.e. pointing. I wrote: [Many people who think of themselves as "aestheticians"] "pursue their subject at length with no attempt to make clear what they have in mind when they use the word 'art'. This clarification cannot be achieved by ostensive definition." To which William responded: "... Philosophy does not require one to begin with a definition of concept and then find what fits it. It can begin with seemingly disparate traits or events (contexts) and then seek what they have in common" That's true enough -- but it only supports the argument that you can't convey what you have in mind with the word 'art' by mere ostension -- the citing of examples. You need to accompany the citing with explanations of what you want your audience to look for, and why you call it "art" -- which obviously makes for a circular argument. Look again: at no time did I use the word 'definition' in what I wrote.
