I am fully aware, Mr Allan, that your comment isn't a theory of art or society. It's only an assertion after all. But it is still very thin, regardless of the importance of what you take it to identify, since it doesn't really say anything about how or why or to what limit 'being part of the same exhibition' creates some common ground among cultures. It doesn't even specify the meaning or limits of 'equal footing' among cultures (is this a formal conception of equality, for instance, or a substantive one, does it employ an overarching criteria that is applicable to all cultures, or one for each culture, etc). Nor, as I said earlier, does it license us to make any inferences from it. For instance, I'm not sure how what you identify as common footing is any different from Danto's "Post-Historical art" Or Hegel's End of History.
Despite the importance of the observation, its present formulation doesn't allow us to do anything with it. It remains thin, rather than thick, inferentially barren, rather than inferentially fecund, vague and undelineated, rather than something useful. It's not enough to say, "African Art can find its place in the museum along side Modernist art, ergo they have an equal footing." For although this certainly points to something, the 'something' is left so unspecified as to be altogether uninformative. I'm willing to accept your claim and move on though, since nothing can really be supported by it anyway. On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 1:25 AM, 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
