Since I'm so silly Derek, I beg you to say again what your point is. The best my weary old brain can do is to recall that you really never have presented a clear point of view, added a positive thought to any conversation here, or done much of anything except to dismiss almost every idea that has come up, almost every author you didn't choose, almost every artist who is in the slightest way like the worst of the salon academics, or any lister who asks for more than your usual unsupported subjectivity.
Please explicate how I have thoroughly distorted your point. WC --- Derek Allan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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
