The topic here -- 'Can art exist without authority' -- is so vague, so ambiguous, that anyone who tries to grapple with it in its unclear formulation is liable to be entrapped into blurry generalities as Saul is (below). The clarification might start with the notion behind the word 'art' there. Are we to think of "art" as an activity? A vast collection of physical works? An (imaginary) ontic quality, "artness", which, when a given work "has" it, makes that work a "work of art"?
In a message dated 1/12/13 10:50:27 AM, [email protected] writes: > art exist within its histories and those histories are sustained by > various > validating structures (institutions) - the primary function of these being > to maintain the notion that such a thing as art exists
