I accept (and did accept in the previous posting) your point re the
difference between terms verifiable by sense information (data) versus terms
expressing completely or primarily expressions of opinion.
My experience, so far, with the writings by artists about art, so far, is
that, most often, I don't/can't understand points they are making about
their own art in particular and re art in general. Critics and historians,
perhaps because they are writing from a helpful distance are more
intelligible to me. (I didn't write "right" - just more clear to my mind.)
GC
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Examining the theory
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 17:30:09 EDT
In a message dated 9/22/08 3:23:28 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> If you insist that any two individuals will have somewhat varying
> interpretations/understandings of either term, I know of no way to deny
your
> thesis. The next implication in that perspective would seem to be the
end of
> theorizing/conceptualizing or discussing theory or art as no one would
be in
> absolute agreement about anything. If we recognize no necessary meaning
in
> terminology (no "dictionary of meanings") I wonder what language is left
to
> us to communicate.
>
Oh, the majority of our language elements are very serviceable the vast
majority of the time. In my recent response to Michael Brady, I tried to
make the
point that words that can be easily "defined" in terms of "sense data" can
be
sufficiently described so there's little confusion. It's when one is using
words where there are no potential justifying sense data one can cite to
convey
what one thinks the word "refers to" that we get in trouble. 'Art' is
such a
word.
**************
Looking for simple solutions to your real-life financial
challenges? Check out WalletPop for the latest news and information, tips
and
calculators.
(http://www.walletpop.com/?NCID=emlcntuswall00000001)
