I wouldn't say there's any "should" or "shouldn't" for Joseph; I for one really quite enjoy considering his ill-defined problems. One of the things that really got driven home to me (doing applied math, among other things) is that once a problem becomes well defined, it becomes boring and might as well just get handed over to the techs. Cheers; Chris
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 1:46 PM, Tom McCormack <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 7:32 PM, joseph berg <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> If you mean that there is a lack of consensus, then I agree. >>> >>> But I have to ask as I did before?: >>> >>> - Can art exist without a consensus? > > On Oct 19, 2012, at 11:51 AM, caldwell-brobeck wrote: > >> The consensus doesn't have to be universal to even support art as a >> profession; from a financial POV it only takes a few hundred people of >> average income, spending a tiny fraction (say 1%) of their money on >> art, to support an artist. >> >> Cheers; >> Chris >> > The phrasing of the question by Joseph is so ambiguous as to occasion all > kinds of responses from others. For example, Chris (not unreasonably) takes it > to be asking about "art" as a practice or profession. I, at first glance, > figured Joseph might be asking about, let's call it, the "ontic status" of > "art" (i.e. an "artwork" as distinguished from the creative action). That is, > "Can any work ever BE a 'work of art' if there is no consensus?" -- as if a > public poll determined its "ontic status". William has cited another possible > notion behind this palaver: The "institutional theory" of art. Until Joseph > should usefully describe what notion of "art" (and of "consensus") he has in > mind, his question cannot be coped with reasonably.
