Somewhere in a Gombrich book, Derek's Satan, is recounted a story re Maiori Chief who responds to a Rockefeller looking for tribal art that "We have no art. We make everything as well as we can."
WC --- Saul Ostrow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > My intention here was to raise the question of the > art part of the phrase - > given that much of the materials in question have > been aesthetized and > transformed into art by western societies - while > the indigenous cultures > tend to view this material as part of their religion > or daily life - > declaring this material art in the western sense of > the term is comparable > to another culture deciding for us that a cocoa cola > bottle is as good as it > the West gets given that it represents for them a > talisman of our profound > religious adherence to materialism > Chair, Visual Arts and Technologies > The Cleveland Institute of Art > > > > > > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Reply-To: <[email protected]> > > Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 11:11:20 EDT > > To: <[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: Presence > > > > Saul suggests: > > > > " Let us begin with a definition of all "African > art"..." > > > > No, don't do that. I agree that certainly each of > us should describe what we > > have in mind with any key term with harmfully > fuzzy edges. But clarity -- as > > with so many of the notions in philosophy of art > -- is always a matter of > > degree. And there is a gross enough level at which > the term 'African art' is > > serviceable enough here. Besides, William did a > good job of orienting us with > > his > > locution: "non-western art: Prehistoric, African, > Oceanic, Japanese, Chinese, > > Indian and related topics". We don't need > definitions to take advantage of > > William's helpful line. > > > > 'African art', vague at the edges though it is, > struck me as a helluva lot > > less vague than Benjamin's ostensible notion of > 'aura'. I'm not a Benjamin > > scholar so I stayed out of that part of this > thread. But then you, Saul, gave > > by > > far the best description of the notion -- only to > have it ignored by every > > other > > lister. Your description of the "aura" of an > "original" was interesting to > > me: all the emotive trappings that accumulate > almost reverentially, and which > > are evoked when we're in the presence of the work. > > > > I could imagine a useful discussion of the > distinction between those > > evocations and the feelings one might term purely > aesthetic as we contemplate, > > say, > > the Mona Lisa. (I disagree with the lister -- or > Artsy6 citation -- that > > claimed > > there's no "aura" in this sense when in the > presence of the Mona Lisa.) But > > as I say your good attempt was ignored on the > forum. > > > > As I predicted, one of our listers -- William -- > now dismisses Derek's "equal > > footing" remark as "elementary". But even that at > least concedes Derek had a > > point. > > > > I think I confessed how, when I was a young > smarty-pants in philosophy, my > > first motive in reading any new paper was to find > something wrong with it in > > order to demonstrate that I was sharper than the > guy who wrote it. With the > > result that I regularly failed to take on board > what was right in the paper. > > Many listers -- and I admit this includes Derek -- > display that "Yeah, but > > --!" > > impulse -- without the "Yeah" part. > > > > > > > > > > ************** > > Get the scoop on last night's hottest shows and > the live > > music scene in your area - Check out > TourTracker.com! > > > > > (http://www.tourtracker.com?NCID=aolmus00050000000112) > > > > > > -- > > This message has been scanned for viruses and > > dangerous content by MailScanner, and is > > believed to be clean.
