The posting below seems to be an attempt to convey a notion of "art", but it does not succeed.
The line, "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).," serves to describe the "activity" of Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, and Bill Gates. Nothing that follows in the posting serves to fix and clarify what the lister is talking about. The allusions to a "history" that "circumscribes" "the nature of the activity' and "informs" the "intentions" of someone whose labors may result in "a variety of qualities" associated with the "things" "indexed to the aforementioned history" -- all this only adds to the opacity of the lister's posting. > 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 collectio > n > 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
