Posts by Paul Litterick
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
You mean the paradox that it is not on Wikipedia, unlike the Abilene Paradox?
-
Name some.
-
Subjective falsehoods: you never hear much about them.
-
Should have put that better: general agreement, but with room to disagree on specifics.
Aesthetic conservatives often claim that non-representational works are not art. But what else can they be? Some may dislike them, but as works of art. If they were anything else, the question would not arise.
-
He claims that one of the failures of Dickey's theory is...
(iii) its failure to distinguish good from bad art;
Aye, there's the rub. It is not the business of philosophical aesthetics to make that distinction.
-
Art = Art world.
Circular, as Art appears on both sides of the equation.
Your equation, not mine: Art and the Art World are not the same thing.
The Art world as you put it, has a presumed knowledge of what Art is, where has this come from ?
Art is not a substance, like gin or couscous. It is a term given to artistic practices. The 'first instance' argument mentioned by Lyndon also falls on this part. The practices we regard as art (painting, dancing, acting, etc) existed long before they were recognised as art
Who gets to define; curators, critics, dealers, the interested public ? And does this require community agreement ?
Everyone; it requires consensus, but not agreement.
For example if I decide I am interested and decide I am an Artist does that make what I produce Art ?
If my wife is interested in my drawings does that make them Art ?
No: you need to be accepted, by people more disinterested than your wife.
If the Art world changes does the definition of Art change with it ?
It is all in flux.
Oh, and then there’s this guy
Mine, I think: Vetriano is admired by many but not by the Art World. He is not represented in public musuems. He is an artist - what else could he be? He is just not a very good artist.
-
You may want to try googling 'institutional theory of art circular'.
Why? I am a busy man. Besides, I have heard the circularity argument before, and I am not convinced by it. You tell me why you think it circular and I will tell you why I think it not so.
-
Without a clear definition of the "Art World" I'm not buying this, as the definition is clearly ciircular in the context used here.
Art is identified by the Art World; that is not circular. The Art World is everybody involved in art: curators, critics, dealers, the interested public.
-
Kindergarten, yes; St Kevin's is Roman.
-
Architecture traditionally has been accepted as one of the Arts by the Art World, so it is art in that respect. Whether architecture is expressive is another question; I would say yes. That its primary purpose is not expression but habitation suggests it is not an art form.
Technical competence does not imply artistic expression. One could produce a very realistic imitation of an object - something like a model car, say - without producing a work of art. I think there needs to be some intention of producing art, as well as acceptance of the object as being art by the Art World.
I do not agree with the contention that art is a big tent. I think it quite a small tent.