seemingly the term (word) art is an empty signifier in that its signified is always emergent and as such no such category of physical objects as art works actually exists apriori to its application - there are, those things designated as such by convention and those that aspire to in some manner be included in its definition - As such art exists (is) as a nominal abstraction (a concept) - a representation (in the Kantian sense) which means it is an intuited construct based on a wide variety of sensory experiences , which over time is objectified - Within the present context we may see the history of art, aesthetics, and various theories as being the means to substantiate, differentiate, and validate the metaphysical construction of "art" as corresponding to some "thing(s)" in the world rather than the wide range of experience that succeeding generations in the west have sought to give logical and rational form to
On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 11:42 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > -- S a u l O s t r o w *Critical Voices* 21STREETPROJECTS La Table Ronde 162 West 21 Street NYC, NY 10011 [email protected] www.21stprojects.org
