I think the aesthetic experience might be a byproduct of making things for whatever reason you make them-making sense of the world, describing something or other.
-----Original Message----- From: Cheerskep <[email protected]> To: aesthetics-l <[email protected]> Sent: Sat, Jan 12, 2013 2:21 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
