I'm not grappling with Derek but I am discounting his so-called arguments. He does not offer arguments if by that we mean reasoned inductive or deductive process, supported by specific evidence, reference, and, yes, informed opinion. Instead we get summative opinion, the appeal to authority, himself. I've read some of his website essays and I think they are extremely well written, persuasive, clear. But even there, in his remarks supporting Malraux, there is an absense of specific interpretation backed up by Malraux's own words or contested by the reasoning of other writers on the same topics.
As for non-western art and the idea that it is misunderstood, I think this outlook has been well established for decades. Fifty years ago, in my undergraduate college years I had courses in non-western art: Prehistoric, African, Oceanic, Japanese, Chinese, Indian and related topics in four different American universities. I don't recall a single instance of being told that such art should be evaluated by western standards (although as a learning artist I did admire its "design"). Perhaps I was especially fortunate in being taught by enlightened people but there was also an abundance of scholarly and even general literature that clarified the distinction between the European aesthetic and the purposes of other artforms. A look at the index and publication dates in any good library will justify my comment. So I think Derek is making a big deal of something that's actually quite commonly understood by educated people (such as the listers here) and has been for quite a long time. Thus Derek stresses an elementary point. And in defending Derek, so does Cheerskep. WC
