The speaker has adopted the view he or she rejects. If I say say what I make is art and you say it's not, then both employ the rule that art is --or is not-- what we say it is. This use of IS will raise Cheerskep's wrath, correctly, although in this context the word refers to theoretical consistency, not to objects as such.
wc ----- Original Message ---- From: joseph berg <[email protected]> To: aesthetics-l <[email protected]> Sent: Wed, August 15, 2012 3:03:11 AM Subject: Re: Can art continue to exist without an aesthetic criteria? - Many before have tried to establish criteria for art, and the only theories that could be called successful have been so vague as to be nearly useless or so complex as to almost defy understanding. The alternative, of course, is to say that art is anything the maker says that it is. I am already on record as being absolutely opposed to this view. http://unnaturallight.com/2012/01/23/a-new-set-of-criteria-for-contemporary-art/ On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 12:32 AM, joseph berg <[email protected]> wrote: > Isn't an aesthetic criteria supposed to help prevent style from overcoming > (obliterating?) substance?: > > - Harrison Ford has taken a swipe at action films that rely too much on > special effects calling them "soulless". > > >http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/8546869/Harrison-Ford-criticises-soulless-action-films.html >l
