Imago You're running ahead of the game again and introducing unnecessary complexities.
I think I might bow out at this point. If you are interested in what I think, have a look at some of the stuff on my website. DA http://www.home.netspeed.com.au/derek.allan/default.htm On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 5:44 PM, imago Asthetik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 > > -- Derek Allan http://www.home.netspeed.com.au/derek.allan/default.htm
