On Jul 8, 2009, at 12:02 PM, Saul Ostrow wrote:
Given your process does the determination art not art much matter - if the answer is no then why sustain this categorical differentiation - if yes, then what symbolic value does it imbue that object with
This is the second time you've use the term "symbolic value": I'm not sure what you have in mind. I don't think of a work of art "symbolically," either as (a) some coded arrangement where, e.g., yellow symbolizes X or a horse symbolizes Y; or (b) a more general infusing of other feelings or qualities, e.g., a painting symbolizes the aspirations of the human soul for Z.
The determination is NOT "art-not art." The determination is "true - not applicable." Then I can bring any constructs, frames, formulations, etc. about art and aesthetics or about utility to the contemplation of it. You seem to be stuck thinking I am judging "art- not art" first, but that's not what I'm doing.
- that is in surplus to your enjoyment of coming to know it both experientially and exponentially textually
I don't understand what you mean by the last two words. I will say that I don't turn to art, either viewing it or making it, to get enjoyment from doing so. I do, in fact, enjoy both making and looking at art, but I do it for other reasons and motivations, and enjoyment is just a corollary result, a collateral benefit.
Again, to be clear, I enjoy visiting museums and galleries and talking about art or writing about it (as here, on this list). A lot of that enjoyment comes from the social activity. In fact, I may not like specific pieces and so not enjoy seeing them. I derive other pleasures directly from making and doing. Enjoyment comes later, and it is a catch-all term that includes those other pleasures.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Michael Brady [email protected] http://considerthepreposition.blogspot.com/
