And you would rather bury the embarrassing fact that you have thoroughly distorted my point...
DA On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 1:36 PM, William Conger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I don't have the inclination or the time to rummage > through old posts to find your many iterations of the > issue I mention. > > WC > > > --- Derek Allan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Re:'I wasn't quoting you, Derek, (suggesting that >> you, >> rather than I, should read more carefully) but the >> simplistic idea that you so often criticize as if it >> had currency; to wit, the notion that western >> aesthetics degrades non-western-Euro centric art by >> forcing it to be rated by pro western standards. ' >> >> But, precisely, I say no such thing!! As I say, you >> see what you want to see. >> >> DA >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 11:06 AM, William Conger >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > I wasn't quoting you, Derek, (suggesting that you, >> > rather than I, should read more carefully) but the >> > simplistic idea that you so often criticize as if >> it >> > had currency; to wit, the notion that western >> > aesthetics degrades non-western-Euro centric art >> by >> > forcing it to be rated by pro western standards. >> What >> > I said was that none of my teachers ever proposed >> > judging non western art by purely western >> standards. >> > >> > In fact, I agree with your basic point but >> disagree >> > that it has much validity anymore. I think it is >> a >> > red herring. >> > >> > However, I also think it's partially true that to >> even >> > say for example "African Art" is to impose a frame >> of >> > neo-colonialism on non-western art. Yet it is >> > convenient and essentially neutral to examine >> artworks >> > by geographic units. Further, in African art, for >> > instance, each tribe had quite distinctive formal >> > modes of practice and thus we can safely say that >> some >> > sort of aesthetic, sympathetic to western ideas >> about >> > form, was/is identifiable. What is different of >> > course is purpose, however magical we may say it >> is. >> > >> > Many times I've had cause to remind you that very >> > simple and naive ideas about art history are not >> being >> > promoted anymore -- given that art history as a >> > subject has grown up a lot in the "post colonial" >> era >> > and is now deeply enmeshed with Anthropology, >> culture >> > studies, and other disciplines, not to mention >> that >> > bugaboo, Theory. I'm not suggesting that you hold >> > those outmoded ideas but that you continually >> assume >> > that others, your fellow listers, do. This false >> > assumption is a roadblock to discussion. >> > >> > Whatever the value of Malraux's outlook on art, he >> is >> > not in extreme opposition to current mainstream >> > thinking on the topic, and perhaps never was. >> His >> > enemy -- never daunting -- has left the field long >> > ago. It would be more useful for our discussions >> if >> > you, the acknowledged expert of Malrtaux here, >> would >> > help to integrate his views, and yours, with >> current >> > mainstream thinking instead of reverting to an >> > unnecessary defense on an abandoned battlefield. >> > >> > WC >> > >> > >> > I think there is >> > --- Derek Allan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > >> >> Re: ' I don't recall a >> >> single instance of being told that such art >> should >> >> be >> >> evaluated by western standards" >> >> >> >> Where do you get this from William? It's a silly >> >> distortion of what I said. >> >> >> >> Your continual, unpleasant innuendos about >> >> "scholarly" standards >> >> clashes badly your own apparent inabilty to read >> >> with care. I have >> >> often noticed this in discussions with you. You >> see >> >> what you want to >> >> see. >> >> >> >> DA >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 11:37 PM, William Conger >> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> > 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
