Posts by Rob Stowell
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Yeah, the statue manages to be both ugly and dull. But if you get the full symbolism- the undead rising from an uneasy sea to battle another host of the undead, both striving mightily to swat that golden ball to their side of the line-out- itself descending into a roiling maul: well, doesn't it just capture the essential futility of sporting glory?
-
The biggest problem with whatever you call this theory, Paul, is that it seems to exclude possibly the vast majority- and certainly a great deal- of what we- 'average speakers of the language'- unquestioningly call art. So it's got a lot of splainin' to do...
That's to say: anything produced before the Renaissance- or the 19th century, it seems we can choose :) - and anything produced outside of this peculiar (in the overall history of art-that-isn't-art -production) western art tradition- is out. Unless it survived and was deemed art by someone within that tradition.
It's kind've nonsensical, and at least mildly paradoxical: 'that Ming plate; those Etruscan panels: they are art now but back in the day they weren't: they were simply fine decorative craft....'
There's no reason to believe the notion of the aesthetic is either especially modern or eurocentric. As chris pointed out- and Davies argues- there are plenty of good reasons to believe otherwise.
As you've pointed out, that group of notions itself- art vs craft, the artist as individual genius, tradition vs inspiration- are a product of 19th century romantics and the 'art-for-art's-sake' movement. Why should we throw ourselves back into that particular bonfire? :0 -
However, they are not part of the Art World, the global network of institutions which defines what is art. Works of these genres would not be found in art museums, because they are not part of the Art World.
Your definition of "The Artworld" (defined by the curators of art museums!?) definitely clashes with Dickie's lowercase artworld(s). Dickie wrote somewhere "“every person who sees himself as a member of the artworld is thereby a member".
Davies explicitly addresses some cross-cultural issues in Non-western Art and Art's Definition
There's a good case to be made that Dickie's definition is too open. But it definitely does not annoint special "High Priests of the Aesthetic" as the sole arbiters of what becomes a "candidate for appreciation".merc
<little voice>hi</littlevoice>
-
it's more a case of the monolithic west coming around again to this idea
Theory often lags practice by a millenium or three :)
-
That William Blake is one scary poet...
~~For the reckord (not because I'm a philosophy of art geek:) Dickie's 'Institutional theory' does not tend generally towards the sort of interpretation Paul describes. Dickie talks of the possibility- and indeed, probability- of many 'artworlds' rather than one monolithic Western entity.
David Novitz goes further down this path, denying there's any way of clearly distinguishing between 'high' and 'low' artforms. -
Half-way through and enjoying Magpie Hall a lot. Just thought I'd mention it :)
-
Paul, you say the definition of art you are describing is not yours. It's not exactly Dickie's either. Where does it come from?
-
My one-time superviser, David Novitz- who would have enjoyed this conversation, but carved it up with a butter-knife- used to tell a story about taking his son to see the Mona Lisa.
It was a long tedious day at the Louvre. Not cheap to get in. Queues and cold weather. They traipsed corridors that seemed endless, but finally they were there: standing quite close to the Mona Lisa itself. David observed with some satisfaction the intent look on his son's face. When they eventually moved on, he noticed his lad was half-skipping and quite excited.
This stirred him deeply. After all, he'd spent a large part of his life engaging intellectually with ideas about art.
"That was pretty good eh" he said. "What do you think?"
"It was just great!" his son gushed. "Now I can tell all my friends I've seen real bullet-proof glass." -
Your wanting it to be art does not make it art.
Maybe not. But Gio's looking at it as art probably would- at least according to a fairly common reading of Dickie.
Art is a social phenomenon and activity, according to the "institutional theory" but it's not especially hierarchical or exclusive- not like a sort of artistic acadamie francais dictated by an elite. No special uniforms or entry fees.
You become a part of 'the artworld' by taking part in it: as observer, helper, viewer, appreciator, or creator. There's no reason for it to exclude anyone.
On the other hand, like most areas of human endeavour, there are people who are just beginning their involvement, and people with a great deal of accumulated knowledge; people who take it very seriously and devote their lives to art, and people who regard it as frivolous; those who regard it as a collection of sacred traditions, and complete iconoclasts... -
there must be a conscious act of declaring an object to be art by its creator
Yeah, I remember that. But I think it also allowed for confering the 'status' (and I don't mean that as high or low!) of art on artifacts later by the art-world (eg: Cheval's castle; or cave-paintings).
And it also 'allows' an art-work that no-one but the creator ever sees to be art: let's say a painting, created conciously as art, but burnt by accident or design.
Dickie is deliberately 'big-tent' in that respect. As well as deliberately being agnostic on any artifact being 'good' or 'bad' art. (Defining art is hard enough: a definition which- as many people want or expect- also confers some notion of quality is way harder :)