>Re. "William is not alone in feeling experimentation is a necessary element of science: Dream up a hypothesis, then test it with an experiment satisfying certain demands of "the scientific method". But this would push William into the uncomfortable position of asserting that Einstein was not doing "science" when he came up with his special theory of relativity -- without ever testing it himself. Indeed no one did, since the means weren't at hand at the time. Consider the wrangle: "Einstein wasn't doing science. That was cosmology." "That was science." "Was not." "Was!" "Wasn't!" It's breath-taking to see people believing they are talking about an "is-ness" here, and not simply disagreeing about >how they want to use the word". ////////
Where Einstein got all that info he manipulated in his head? He abstracted information from outside - experimentations and abstractions of other men before him, who got it from sensing nature and experimenting with the information which IS coming to our little brains regardless we want it or not, which is 'experimentation' itself. Boris Shoshensky >>-- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Derek writes: "that raises the very interesting question of how works that were not created as 'art' have become 'art'. I refer you to Malraux for the answer. (No other theorist, amazingly, has even discussed the problem!)" I can name one other very minor theorist who's discussed it: Cheerskep. Many times, in fact, all in my attempt to throw a ridiculous light on listers' assumption of an absolute metaphysical status for "Art". The current argument between many of the listers about whether or not XXX "was/IS" "science", and YYY "was/IS" "art" reflects the delusion vividly. Recall Frances's robotic repetition that if her chimerical panel of experts "deem" something art, that makes it "BE" art. Though listers waver a great deal, I'm persuaded they think of their dispute as not just about whether or not to CALL something "art" or "science". They actually believe there is a metaphysical fact-of-the-matter concerning whether xxx "IS" art or yyy "IS" science. It dizzies me to see smart people believing that with an inaudible "pop!" a work that "was not" art now "becomes" art -- like, say, a new star being created in the heavens. And notice, the form of their argument is to summon up what they think of as "reasons" for believing that something IS art or science. This implies there are somehow mind-independent metaphysical standards somewhere that a work must satisfy to BE art or science. For example, some listers feel we have to know what the creator thought he was doing when he created the work, what his motivations were. Some might say that if he was just trying to placate the gods, the work could not BE art. Others, if told by a portrait painter that he was just trying to make something that looked like the sitting subject so he could turn a dollar, might say the painting could not then BE art. Some listers talk about "bad art", but other listers will claim that a work is either art or rubbish, so the notion of "bad art" is ridiculous. Some listers would apparently claim that nothing could "be" art until "THE concept" of artness, or "our current concept", was conceived by someone -- or does it take a community of experts to conceive of it? Then, presumably, a creator would have to have the aim of doing "that thing" to have his work BE art. The counter-assertion that there is no "THE" concept of art -- people's notions of it vary wildly -- consistently falls on deaf ears. "Everyone knows what art IS, they just have a tough time putting it into words. In any case, there simply is no question that art IS." Some years ago, Bruce Attah posted on our forum the nine characteristics that, he said, when manifest in a work were what made it BE art (very like Aristotle's muddled claim that a "thing's" "properties" are what "make it BE what it IS".) Attah would no doubt claim he was exposing the metaphysical truth -- he felt he was discerning factual stuff about the metaphysical category/quality of artness. But Attah's "definition" was finally exposed as no more than his own personal preference for certain characteristics he wanted in works he would CALL art. But stipulative decisions have no ontic power. For example, Attah insisted that to BE art an object had to be a "thing" -- which he described as "a hard object that can be looked at" -- that is "made". When it was pointed out to him that Benedetto Croce held that an "act of art" can take place solely in the mind -- as when an artist imagines a painting in detail, a composer imagines a musical work, a poet thinks up a poem without writing it down -- Attah was in a bind. Croce was asserting that a notional entity can be art -- even though there is no hard "thing" that is "made". Attah could say, "I don't call that art!" But that didn't work for him because he believed he was showing what art IS, not simply what people variously CALLED art. Or he could simply insist, "That's NOT art!" and maybe stamp his foot for emphasis. Asked "How do you know?" he would have to be circular and say because a work has to be a thing made. Confronted with someone who claimed the alleged mind-independent quality of "artness" and the category of all artworks, and the quasi-Platonic "form" of "art" were all chimeras, he would dismiss the adversary out of hand. He'd say, "Of course art IS!" -- just like other listers claiming that sin IS, and science IS. "You could look science up in the dictionary!" You could also look up 'angel', 'hell', and 'unicorn'. The most dizzying aspect of the current forum debate is seeing smart, grown men asserting that art IS this, and science IS that, without ever describing what they have in mind with either word. Wiliam Conger does take a couple of stabs at describing his notion of "science", but never his notion of "art". A long look at William's -- or anyone's -- notion of "science" might help listers wrap their minds around the idea that maybe "art" is indeed solely a notion with no "corresponding" non-notional entity. William is not alone in feeling experimentation is a necessary element of science: Dream up a hypothesis, then test it with an experiment satisfying cert ain demands of "the scientific method". But this would push William into the uncomfortable position of asserting that Einstein was not doing "science" when he came up with his special theory of relativity -- without ever testing it himself. Indeed no one did, since the means weren't at hand at the time. Consider the wrangle: "Einstein wasn't doing science. That was cosmology." "That was science." "Was not." "Was!" "Wasn't!" It's breath-taking to see people believing they are talking about an "is-ness" here, and not simply disagreeing about how they want to use the word. This is comparable to Attah's claim that what the painter, composer, poet does in his mind is not "art" until they set it down in a publicly examinable way. "Is!" says Croce. "Is not!" says Attah. "Is!" "Isn't! One wonders if Attah would claim a mathematician IS not "doing mathematics" if he doesn't write down the formulas he devises. To argue as they do, listers must feel they see art (and science) for what it IS, otherwise how could they ever assert xxx IS or IS NOT art? But if they have a notion of art that they in some way believe replicates what art IS, why not describe that notion? Still, Derek, William et al will not do this. The last time I asked Derek to describe the notion behind a word he was using he said that would require him to describe human consciousness, and he could not do that. The sight of educated adults arguing -- "That's art!" "No -- that's NOT art!" and "That's science!" "No that's NOT science!" -- and thinking they are talking about metaphysical facts-of-the-matter makes a fellow despair. It betrays a conviction they will deny: a belief in metaphysical "essences", not unlike Plato's celestial "forms" and Aristotle's "properties". However no one who uses the word 'art' this way will describe that "essence". Given I maintain such an "essence" of anything, including art, does not exist, I'd settle for their describing their notion -- but that won't happen either. Maybe I can trick them into revealing some of their notion. Writers talk about the art of politics, war, conversation, etc. I wonder what grounds certain
