I continue to maintain it is a fundamental error, however romantic and self-aggrandizing for all of us, to maintain that "art" (artness, work of art) has a mind-independent ontic status.
On Sep 24, 2012, at 8:37 PM, William Conger wrote: > Picasso was right, of course. And Duchamp simply excluded the 'showing' part and > claimed it was art if he said so. > wc > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Michael Brady <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Mon, September 24, 2012 7:28:43 PM > Subject: Re: "The creation of Aboriginal art for an international market is > poignantly paradigmatic of the modernist commodification of (fine) art in a > very specific sense: as the abstraction and extraction--the reification--of > particular visual or optical proper > > On Sep 24, 2012, at 6:48 PM, William Conger <[email protected]> wrote: > >> That is an OK example of International Art English. What it says in > everyday >> speech is that Aboriginal art looks like some modernist abstraction and can > be >> appreciated as such, aside from whatever symbolic function it had for it > makers. >> Fits my universal rule: Everything looks like something else. > > Picasso said of African masks that they weren't art until they were taken to > Paris and shown there. > > > > | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | > Michael Brady
