RE: t's hard to believe Derek can't comprehend the difference between the two following requests, but maybe he can't: ' "Derek, please tell us your own personal reason for CALLING the airport novel "not art"." "Derek, please tell us the reason why the airport novel IS not art."
But I don't see any practical difference. If others think what I call 'airport novels' are art, then I'm not going to try to talk them out of it. How could I? I have no list of criteria. So when I say 'Love beneath the Elms' or some such stuff is not art in my opinion, that's all I mean: It's not art in my opinion. Where is the problem? RE: "Derek believes there "IS" a mind independent "quality" of "artness" that the-fact-of-the-matter is a work either "has" or "has not":" Well, I'm not sure I think that at all. I don't even know what 'mind-independent' really means. I don't believe in some 'art quality' thing floating around in the ether if that is what you mean. RE: 'He admits that he and Malraux are given a difficulty by the fact that there seem to be degrees of "artness" -- i.e. works are more or less close to the perimeter of the circle of art. Nonetheless, Derek sticks to the position that implies that at some degree of closeness to the center, a work must suddenly change from "not art" to "art".'' No this is not what I said. RE: 'I'm glad Derek believes this is important. My answer is the second -- I cherish them "simply because they have a certain effect on me." Aha! So in fact you really agree with me! Re: 'Derek feels that if it gives him his "response to art", it must "BE" "art". If you doubt him, you could look it up in one of Plato's Great Ledgers in the Sky." Again, I don't get the force of 'BE'. I would simply say that if I think something is art, I think it is art. Others may disagree. But so what? I don't expect everyone to agree with my views (though that doesn't stop me from expressing them. After all, they will express theirs!) As for Plato's Ledger, I know nothing about it. If Plato has listed my views thereon, I didn't ask him to. DA. ** --------------------------------------------------------- On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 7:50 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Derek again responds with an irrelevant challenge to something that was > not > asked for.: > "I cannot give you good 'reasons' why Mozart's 20th piano concerto or > anything is a work of art and I don't believe anyone - repeat anyone - > can. If you > know of anyone who has done so > successfully, please let me know who they are. I will guarantee you I > will > drive a horse and cart through the holes in their 'reasons'." > > Derek goes on: > "Cheerskep and Chris don't want a definition of what art does - its human > function and significance. They want 'reasons' - in effect, a list of > boxes to > tick which will justify a claim that item X is or is not art." > > It's hard to believe Derek can't comprehend the difference between the two > following requests, but maybe he can't: > > "Derek, please tell us your own personal reason for CALLING the airport > novel > "not art"." > > "Derek, please tell us the reason why the airport novel IS not art." > > Maybe an example will clarify things a bit. I can sympathize with someone > who > might say: > > "I call a work 'art' when it gives me an aesthetic experience. The Mozart > gives me a big a.e., the airport novel gives me none at all." > > Notice: That's not a definition of 'art'. I've repeatedly told Derek I'm > not > asking for a definition, but he repeatedly makes the accusation. > > And the fact is, that position -- that he calls a work "art" when it gives > him an a.e. -- is what I've felt all along to be Derek's position -- > though he > won't call it an "aesthetic experience"; he calls it "my response to art". > > But Derek will not confine himself to saying he's only CALLING a work > "art" > when he gets a strong, favorable response -- using the word in its > praising, > honorific sense, the way we frequently use the 'great'. "That was a GREAT > kick, Pele!" Derek believes there "IS" a mind independent "quality" of > "artness" > that the-fact-of-the-matter is a work either "has" or "has not": > > "I call Mozart's 20th piano concerto art because that is the only word I > know > to describe music of that quality. I deny the term to airport novels > because they do not have that quality." > > This does sound very like the picture I conveyed yesterday of his way of > thinking. "It doesn't require your "defining" 'art'," I said. But it does > somewhat > require something more than this: "When do you call something 'art', > Derek?" > " When it IS art." "And why do you call P not art?" "Because it isn't." > > He admits that he and Malraux are given a difficulty by the fact that > there > seem to be degrees of "artness" -- i.e. works are more or less close to > the > perimeter of the circle of art. Nonetheless, Derek sticks to the position > that > implies that at some degree of closeness to the center, a work must > suddenly > change from "not art" to "art". > > Derek goes on: > " You yourself believe that some works are what you call > cherishable - which is presumably something like what I call art. What are > your criteria? More importantly do you think you cherish those works > because > you have applied criteria - ticked off boxes - or simply because they have > a > certain effect on you?" > > I'm glad Derek believes this is important. My answer is the second -- I > cherish them "simply because they have a certain effect on me." > > I cherish them because they give me that mysterious murky feeling I've > been > calling an "aesthetic experience", which I've been pleading that the forum > examine. I don't claim that simply because they give me an a.e. they must > "be > art", but Derek does. He sees no difficulty in reconciling this > celebration of his > sensibility over that of other sophisticated people who don't get an a.e. > from some things he does, or over that of those who do get one from works > that > leave him cold -- like jazz. > > Nor has he ever tried to reconcile it with his announced belief in > something > he terms "bad art". > > Derek feels that if it gives him his "response to art", it must "BE" > "art". > If you doubt him, you could look it up in one of Plato's Great Ledgers in > the > Sky. > > > > > ************** > Need a new ride? Check out the largest site for U.S. used car > listings at AOL Autos. > > (http://autos.aol.com/used?NCID=aolcmp00300000002851) > > -- Derek Allan http://www.home.netspeed.com.au/derek.allan/default.htm
