Yours are soft arguments - you depend on your perceptions - we wait for substantiation - a secondary source and you instead ask us to defend our positions - you believe opinions are arguments - in our world tht may be true - but I'm not really interested in what you believe - but only why you would believe such things - Chair, Visual Arts and Technologies The Cleveland Institute of Art
> From: Derek Allan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: <[email protected]> > Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 11:58:18 +1000 > To: <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Presence > > This, with all due respect, is just nonsense, William. I give as much > support for my arguments as anyone on the list. Often more. Certainly > more than you do. And time and again, when I challenge your views, > backing up what I say with arguments, you quietly let the matter drop, > presumably in the hope I will not notice - which I usually obligingly > pretend to do. > > I try my best to avoid anything ad hominem on the list, but I am > really getting tired of this 'He wants all his opinions to be taken on > his own authority' rubbish. If you think an argument is wrong, say > why. Play the argument, not the man. > > In the present case if you think what I have written below is > incorrect in some way, say why. > > DA > > On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 10:51 AM, William Conger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: >> I don't think it matters at all in a scholarly sense >> what Derek says. He wants all his opinions to be >> taken on his own authority. No one of influence in >> science or literary criticism or in any field at all >> (maybe eccentric religions excepted) does that or has >> in all of known history. Bunkum or Derek. It's the >> same thing. >> >> WC >> >> --- Derek Allan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> Imago, >>> >>> I think you and Saul are getting bit ahead of the >>> game here. Recall: >>> my comments were in response to your query about how >>> it could be >>> possible that all cultres could be on the same >>> footing. It was not a >>> theory of art - or as Saul seems to think - a social >>> theory. >>> >>> But it was - and this is the crucial point for the >>> moment - an >>> observation about the way we view art today (and >>> have done for about a >>> century now). We do not see a hierarchy of cultres >>> - or their art. We >>> do not think that Titian (eg) is art and that an >>> African mask or a >>> Buddhist sculpture (eg) is not - or that it is only >>> a kind of >>> semi-art. >>> >>> This is an enormous change that has taken place over >>> the last century >>> - which differentiates our notion of art sharply >>> from that which >>> obtained for the previous four centuries. >>> >>> In this sense, it is not a 'thin' idea at all. It >>> identifies a major >>> feature of the modern notion of art. Of course there >>> is much more to >>> say about that notion, but this feature is >>> nonetheless crucial. For us >>> today, art is no longer just Western art - we live >>> in a self-evidently >>> universal world of art. >>> >>> The explanation for *why* that is so is of course >>> another matter... >>> (But is interesting - and I think significant - that >>> Benjamin has >>> nothing at all to say about the question - unless it >>> is in a corner of >>> his work that I have not read.) >>> >>> DA >>> >>> On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 2:30 AM, imago Asthetik >>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> Mr Allan, >>>> >>>> Your notion of equal footing is 'thin' in the >>> sense that it doesn't imply >>>> much or license us to draw many inferences. It >>> doesn't tell us much. At >>>> most, it identifies a curatorial tendency (a >>> function), but doesn't specify >>>> the conditions under which this tendency can >>> arise, nor does it elucidate >>>> what 'being included in an exhibition' signifies. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Derek Allan >>> >> http://www.home.netspeed.com.au/derek.allan/default.htm >> >> > > > > -- > 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.
