I see perfect case for Cheerskep's doctrine in this post by Frances. "Abstract" or "natural" in visual arts was never defined on this forum. Without agreement on terms we can't discus the subject on the acceptable level. "The tern of art would thus be as" the word 'abstract' should be present in all three point given by Frances:" (1) abstract with possible referents; or (2) concrete with actual referents; or (3) discrete with agreeable referents". Boris Shoshensky
---------- Original Message ---------- From: "Frances Kelly" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Worringer: Abstraction and Empathy Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2009 14:02:43 -0400 It occurred to me that the Worringer thesis as a global approach considers only two main kinds of objects as artworks: (1) the abstract; and (2) the natural. If however there were more kinds of objects to consider as artworks, then the thesis might work better. It could also then even be made consistent with the tridential approach of Peircean pragmatism, which as a global approach would hold that there are three main kinds of objects with contents as artworks. The tern of art would thus be as: (1) abstract with possible referents; or (2) concrete with actual referents; or (3) discrete with agreeable referents. Each of these three could be further divided into those that were: (1) a formal icon of similarity; or (2) a causal index of contiguity; or (3) a conventional symbol of arbitrarity. This would yield a matrix of nine building blocks upon which to perhaps determine objects as artworks. All that would remain is to use Peircean "objective relativism" as the support philosophy, rather than "subjective relativism" as Worringer wrongly does. -FCK ____________________________________________________________ Workers Compensation Legal Advice. Click here http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2241/fc/BLSrjpYbk8p9UuAHMeVqaLEaEIqpDH sKN8nhQJJ2DWeFdAIhVk1S6arfJ9e/
