Not quite, I suggesting that art is an act of faith and therefore assertion and takes its place alongside that of the various denominational gods that exist - it exists only in its practice Chair, Visual Arts and Technologies The Cleveland Institute of Art
> From: Derek Allan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: <[email protected]> > Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 13:25:27 +1000 > To: <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Presence > > I'm not sure I follow your point Saul. Are you arguing a la Cheerskep > that there is no such thing as art because it would be a > 'mind-independent' thing 'out there'? > > DA > > > > On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 11:10 AM, Saul Ostrow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> In using hypothetical, I meant to imply that the category art is itself is >> in question rather than intending to propose that art is a proposition >> concerning whether something may or may not be included in the category or >> whether its inclusion tells us something about the nature of art as a >> category >> >> This choice was provoked by Derek's answer that there is no way of proving >> if something is a work of art or not - I interpreted as implying that art >> may exist either nominally or as a metaphysical category - as such no proof >> may be offered - >> Chair, Visual Arts and Technologies >> The Cleveland Institute of Art >> >> >> >> >>> From: William Conger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> Reply-To: <[email protected]> >>> Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 16:56:37 -0700 (PDT) >>> To: <[email protected]> >>> Subject: Re: Presence >>> >>> I would agree that all art is propositional (if that's >>> what hypothetical means in this instance and if so, >>> propositional is a clearer choice) ) meaning it is >>> offered or argued as possibly art. The decison rests >>> with the audience and/or consensus of the artworld. I >>> would also agree that anything is propositional as >>> non-art and it requires the same audience and artworld >>> consensus. But I think it might be tougher to explain >>> the case for non-art than for art. >>> >>> WC >>> >>> >>> --- Derek Allan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>>> For some reason this never made it to the list. >>>> Maybe I was over my >>>> limit. Anyway here it is again. >>>> DA >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 3:45 PM, Derek Allan >>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >>>> >>>> RE: 'if there is no way to determine what is >>>> authetic art then all >>>> things presented >>>> as art are hypotheticals' >>>> >>>> Ah is that what you meant? An odd use of >>>> 'hypotheticals', don't you >>>> think? But if that is all you mean, who could >>>> disagree? >>>> >>>> RE: 'Now focus: If Benjamin >>>> proposes that art looses its authenticity (aura) >>>> due to mechanical >>>> reproduction - what qualities is it loosing art, >>>> so that its image is not >>>> auth' >>>> >>>> I tried to focus but your sentence is not even >>>> grammatical. Besides, >>>> I think Benjamin's notion of aura is - insofar as >>>> it is clear, which >>>> is not far - bunkum. But I certainly don't think >>>> it means >>>> authenticity as you seem to imply. >>>> >>>> >>>> DA >>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 1:51 PM, Saul Ostrow >>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>>>> -it seems you don't know much and understand less >>>> - so we won't deal with >>>>>> the things that require much thinking like such >>>> as the proposition that if >>>>>> there is no way to determine what is authetic art >>>> then all things presented >>>>>> as art are hypotheticals >>>>>> >>>>>> So we will go back to your original enquiry - Now >>>> focus: If Benjamin >>>>>> proposes that art looses its authenticity (aura) >>>> due to mechanical >>>>>> reproduction - what qualities is it loosing >>>> art, so that its image is not >>>>>> auth >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> will somebody lend this boy a hand , meanwhile >>>> nighty night >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> From: Derek Allan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>>>> Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 12:57:40 +1000 >>>>>>> To: Saul Ostrow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>>>> Subject: Re: Presence >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I have no idea what that statement means. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 12:55 PM, Saul Ostrow >>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>>>>>> Then there is no authentic art - consequently >>>> all art is hypothetical? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> From: Derek Allan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>>>>>> Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 12:24:21 +1000 >>>>>>>>> To: Saul Ostrow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Presence >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If you are talking about proving something is >>>> a work of art, I know of >>>>>>>>> no way of doing that. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Derek Allan >>>>>>> >>>> >>> http://www.home.netspeed.com.au/derek.allan/default.htm >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> This message has been scanned for viruses and >>>>>>> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is >>>>>>> believed to be clean. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Derek Allan >>>>> >>>> >>> http://www.home.netspeed.com.au/derek.allan/default.htm >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>
