On Sunday, 20 January 2013 at 1:32 AM, Simon Biggs wrote:
> Nice we are in agreement, but ... > > ... I wonder. For art to be recognised as art (which might not be the same > thing as it being art) it does have to satisfy certain objective criteria > (art world opinion). The argument that art is anything an artist calls art is > only true in so far as the artist is recognised by the art world as an > artist. In that sense it is no different to how you have portrayed the > instrumentalisation of pure science. Perhaps there is scientific research > happening that does so outside the consensual world that is science, just as > there might be art that happens outside the art world's orbit? I would argue > this is the case and that we all know of excellent examples. absolutely and would have thought this has always been the case? > > But then we are simply talking of creative activity and intellectual inquiry, > which anybody can do anytime, if they wish, without having to worry about > what it is. The implication of this train of thought is that art and science > are similar in that they exist as identified domains of human activity only > in so far as they are objectively (socially) recognised to do so. If this is > the case then an anthropological approach to the understanding of their > respective value is likely to be more productive than an epistemological > approach. again, absolutely. What counts here is defined by the players in these games, and putting aside the very legitimate questions about power and ideology and so on for one moment, as any one who plays a game knows, you have to get into the game before you can contest its terms. (I can stand outside of the soccer field and point out how pointless it all seems, but those on the field playing will simply shrug as clearly "he doesn't get it". If I want the soccer players to listen to me as soccer players, I've got to get 'inside' soccer in some manner.) I would have thought then this is where anthropology fits, as it provides ways to explain the nature of the games, their rules (implicit and explicit) and the consequences of these. However, it is these rules that largely define what counts epistemologically. But at the moment for this conversation I'd say it's games all the way down, and yes, anthropology is very useful for this :-) -- an appropriate closing Adrian Miles Program Director Bachelor of Media and Communication (Honours) RMIT University - www.rmit.edu.au http://vogmae.net.au/
_______________________________________________ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre
