The problem with a singular philosophy of art is that, today, it can so easily be challenged by practices that have been excluded. And then -- as attempts are made to allow for them -- the philosophy becomes ever more vanilla, bland, and pointless.
How dare we make any exclusions? The counter-charge of "you are biased" can always be made -- whether it's me deploring the output of contemporary art schools, or William deploring whatever "silly song sells or book sells in the millions" A singular philosophy of art cannot successfully "locate the word importance" --- and so when William asks "importance to whom?" -- the best answer is "important to me and those who share my aesthetic" And as that specific importance is explained, one of the many philosophies of arts is being built. >Setting Kivy aside, what do the rest of you think about the idea suggested by the title of his book? Is it more reasonable to examine the philosophies of various arts rather than search for a singular philosophy of art? Yes. If you mean definitions. But the Philosophy of art does not require a universal definition of art. One thing that's immediately apparent is that the sociology of music, literature, drama, and painting/sculpture is currently so different. >From what? They differ in their types and modes of practice but how much do >they differ in being experienced? Nothing in painting or sculpture ever becomes as popular as Harry Potter -- and nothing in literature is defining each generation the way that styles of popular music have been. That's a really specious comment because it assumes that the sort of generational defining created by popularity is all at the same depth or importance and is also measured by quantity and accessibility. It is quite likely that a particular serious novel, let's say, Grapes of Wrath, had more indirect influence on a generation of Americans and how they perceived their realities than the most popular, and most superficial, tune of the same era. And other than for devoted practitioners (such as dominate this listserv), painting and sculpture is of no greater importance than a nice new sofa. It's a niche concern -- like collecting tropical fish, or to go more upscale, race horse breeding. Pure crap. Again, Miller does not locate the word importance. I ask, importance to whom? I'd bet that even the most casual people can remember a favorite painting or image far longer than a picture of a new sofa. Miller likes to determine a thing's worth by the finding the broadest spread of of its use, which is usually also the most superficial and transient use. So if a silly song sells or book sells in the millions, and is quickly replaced by another of the same sort, then these are the best, the most influential, the most "important". Total and thorough nonsense! And then, even within each media, there are vast differences in purposes and standards. Yes, and why not? Does it make any sense to search for a similarity between the philosophies of Death Metal music and contemporary chamber music? Or between an art that's trying to establish conventions and one that trying to attack them? There are tensions between opposites that need to be examined. If we abandon the search for similarity, we remove the justification for something called an "art museum" or an "art school". Huh? This is a fake logical structure, "if such and such, then such and such. There has to be a reasonable inference in "if" to justify "then" but Miller offers nothing but the irrational conclusion that a universal must flow from a universal. No so. Many particulars can flow from a universal when the middle term is variable. In this case the middle term is "art museums and art schools" and everyone of experience knows that they differ from one another in many ways. Not that such institutions should be closed -- but that perhaps they should be given different names to indicate just what specific philosophy of art is involved. It is quite interesting that Miller has the habit of starting from an imperialist, dictatorial outlook. He writes about museums and art schools as if the option of "closing such institutions" were actually on the table before plays the wise ruler and says "perhaps they should be given different names..." Herein is my most serious allegation against Miller's reasoning. He has an unshakeable bias against the reality of art and art schools, art philosophy, and museums, etc. He plays at intellectual inquiry to make it seem as if he is open-minded and will go where good reason and wide inquiry will take him. But is it a game, a method of masking his bias until the right moment and then, like a smirking barker ripping open the burlesque curtain, he reveals the lumpy dancer as queen of the show. We are shocked, but avert our eyes in disappointment while Miller beams a lusty pride. ____________________________________________________________ Diet Help Cheap Diet Help Tips. Click here. http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/c?cp=5TwuCy6APH6ycNoDIiepswAAJz6c l_zTaptgNR5c8Mer1v9kAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYQAAAAAA=
