Are the qualities of art assigned to things themselves or to the network system that circumscribes those qualities? What is a quality in itself or can it only be recognized in relation to a thing? What is a history? Why isn't history itself unstable and merely another mode of qualities, like art?
I like Saul's statement and I think it's a good explanation of the fact that art is a societal construct, and not simply objects with inherent features, but I'm not sure his argument is not circular. WC ________________________________ From: saulostrow <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Tue, January 15, 2013 8:55:36 AM Subject: Re: Art is money The "art" I have in mind encompasses an activity that results in a variety of "qualities" that are best represented by a collection of works (things). The nature of this activity is circumscribed by a history, which then informs in part the intentions of the agent who performs the act that will potentially result in generating a variety of qualities (both previously associated with and on occasion previously not associated with)the collection of works (things) that are indexed to the aforementioned history. I say potentially because there are external conditions that effect the process that may not be determined. These contingencies are a result of the fact that both the activities, qualities and the collection of works is under constant revision and therefore may be considered emergent as both a subject and a form. Those things not included in that collection of objects have yet to be circumscribed by that the aforementioned history are not called art - and therefore are not those things that come to mind when art is signified. Inversely, all aspects of this process may not please all those who make reference to it (art) - but in those cases they are merely stipulating that sub-category which they wish to privilege - Any discussion concerning these sub-categories become a discussion of standards, criteria and value. At this point we are no longer referencing art but merely using certain works as ideological or philosophical examples of what it is that might pleases us in comparison to another example - to discuss taste, a.e., or market value is not the same thing as discussing art. In closing to discuss art is to discuss a systems network and not a thing. > > > -- S a u l O s t r o w *Critical Voices* 21STREETPROJECTS La Table Ronde 162 West 21 Street NYC, NY 10011 [email protected] www.21stprojects.org
