RE: [-empyre-] Re: Method Manifesto
At 0027 20020924, Jim Andrews wrote:
> My feeling on the matter is that saying 'X is art' is a bit like saying 'This proposition is not
> provable' since one arrives at a contradiction should one say it is false; no contradiction
> seems to arise if one says it is true, yet neither then is it provably true. Nor is it an axiom
> completely independent of the rest of the language system, for if it were, its negation would be
> an acceptable alternative to the proposition itself, but it is not. It is an unprovable
> statement that nonetheless must be accepted as true. Each new piece of art is thus more like an
> axiom than a theorem.
My thinking is maybe close to the above arguemants.
That is one of the reason why I dare to publish "manifesto"
as a manifesto, not a theorem.
Yes, the manifesto includes unprovable axiom, I know.
This argument will be sure to come into contact with the
problem of "art for art sake," and in this meaning, I
consider Kosouth's art is close to "art for art sake,"
rather than "art for life sake," inspite of his own thinking.
Those who want to subscribe for the email bulletin "Method,"
free bimonthly, contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org
This archive was generated by a fusion of
Pipermail 0.09 (Mailman edition) and