It's impossible to talk aout art without being vague because art is always subjective even when it's modified by measurable, objective categories of definition like utility, social ideal, etc.
Money is no measure of art anymore than it's a measure of any subjective measures. Proust tells the story of a woman who is so deeply loved by a rich aristocrat that he is goes broke lavishing 100,000 franc gifts on her and being sick with jealousy and passion even though she is a common whore who can be had for 20 francs by anyone. In her the rich man sees a woman as an angel from God while others see her as a coarse tart. She is what is projected to her. Art. WC ________________________________ From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Sat, January 12, 2013 1:21:42 PM Subject: Re: Can art exist without authority? The vagueness still obtains. "Can art exist without patrons?" can be read as, "Would the activity of "artists" continue -- painting, writing, singing -- if there were no one to pay them for it? (I myself believe it would.) Or it could be read as asking, "Would the (imaginary) ontic quality, "artness" still exist (say, up in Plato's heaven) if there were no contemplators of paintings, poems, etc cheering the creators on and pronouncing, "That is a work of art!" For someone like me, that question is so muddled as to be worthless. For my purposes, I'd rephrase it like this: "If no one were paying for works, and no one were cheering the creators on, would creators continue to create works that would occasion in me what I call an "aesthetic experience"?" Yes, I think they would. But I can imagine another lister, burdened with confused notions of "what IS art", saying my remarks are irrelevant. "The question is, would the works continue to BE "art". " Oy. In a message dated 1/12/13 1:55:12 PM, [email protected] writes: > 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
