RE: [-empyre-] Re: Method Manifesto
In message <NFBBJIJOOLLMOMMACKAFMECGDKAA.email@example.com> "Jim Andrews" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > I wasn't thinking about the ontology of art.
> Um, I apologize, I believe I mis-spoke in using the word "ontology". This morning it seemed like
> "epistemology" is the right word. "Ontology" is about being whereas "epistemology" is about
> knowledge. So that concerning the authority of institutions and historical judgements about art,
> I should question the "epistemological" authority, not the "ontological" authority. Sorry.
I don't think you "mis-spoke" exactly. Epistemology is, of course, always after ontology,
because knowledge presupposes being. We can't have knowledge in the absence of
things to know. "How can we 'know' that this object is art?" is an epistemological
question, I agree, but it rests on an ontology. People automatically look for
something unique to the ontology of art objects to answer that question, which
is where they stumble, perhaps.
I'm not really clarifying much here, but we might be getting into a
philosophical quagmire that we lack the resources to navigate.
This archive was generated by a fusion of
Pipermail 0.09 (Mailman edition) and