The topic seems to have changed to "can art exist without patrons?" Clarification of "art" might be the thing which is wanted by patrons to the point where they will give other useful things for the thing. Kate Sullivan
-----Original Message----- From: Cheerskep <[email protected]> To: aesthetics-l <[email protected]> Sent: Sat, Jan 12, 2013 11:42 am Subject: Re: Can art exist without authority? 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
