Re"but only why you would believe such things -" Read some art history - instead of art ideology.
DA On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 12:20 PM, Saul Ostrow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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. > > > -- Derek Allan http://www.home.netspeed.com.au/derek.allan/default.htm
