[-empyre-] Indiscernibles

Thu Jan 14 10:01:06 EST 2010

If you haven't alrready, check out Arthur Danto's theory of indiscernibilia in his Philosophical Disenfranchisment of Art--it's kind of a neat way of approaching this ontological quagmire, and really speaks to the emergence of the concept as aesthetic buoy.  MAT  

*******************************************
Michael Angelo Tata, PhD  347.776.1931-USA
http://www.MichaelAngeloTata.com/

> From: gcoulter at ubishops.ca
> To: empyre at gamera.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 15:56:20 -0500
> Subject: Re: [-empyre-] self and others
> 
> 
> re "What is art?"
> 
> For some time anything and everything can be art -- as such, nothing per se, is art.
> 
> Each person will have to arrive at his/her own definition of what art is -- for me illusion is central to art -- otherwise it simply mirrors the real -- which we have little contact with in any case as it hides behind appearances.
> 
> best
> 
> g
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________________
> From: empyre-bounces at gamera.cofa.unsw.edu.au [empyre-bounces at gamera.cofa.unsw.edu.au] On Behalf Of Christiane Robbins [cpr at mindspring.com]
> Sent: January 13, 2010 2:15 PM
> To: soft_skinned_space
> Subject: Re: [-empyre-] self and others
> 
> Indeed, its been an energetic few weeks on empire. As such, it hasn’t
> been easy to keep track of all of the issues on the table. However,
> it seems that we always keep landing on this flea ridden canard –
> “what is art ?”
> 
> Most specifically to this list - how do we think of it and what forms
> does it – can it take”? The domain of art practice seems to be
> broadly accepted as a given. There are references upon references to
> “great works of art” and that we should be concerned with these
> significant works ( primarily "masterworks" of the 19th/20thc). A
> pivotal question is left begging- what guarantees these works of art
> their centrality – as an ontological constant - within this discussion?
> 
> Without question, it is simultaneously dynamic, provocative,
> insightful and, at times, frustrating when what art is … and isn’t …
> are bandied about, professed and sanctioned by experts from
> disciplines from sociology, law, computer science, literature, etc.
> Within these posts there often seems to be an offer of a bifurcated,
> inherently contradictory notion of contemporary art practice(s). Art
> has been positioned ( and beautifully articulated ) as an endeavor
> which seems ensconced in this utopian, self-referential, romantic,
> nostalgic, mournful exercise of self-expression. I think it was
> Lyotard who said sometime ago that there was an element of “sorrow in
> the Zeitgeist.” In the positioning of such a sense of loss, I see a
> jettison of the framework and substantiation of the late-20thc
> capitalist directive of the “professionalism of the field” – of an art
> practice that streams itself as a “career path” within capitalistic
> economies and systems – such as the academy.
> 
> I, too, find making art pure pleasure - incredibly so at times! Much
> to my chagrin, I also realize that pleasure can sustain one only so
> much .
> 
> So please forgive, and humor, my own naiveté to ask you all this
> question, how then does one negotiate and then reconcile these
> seemingly disparate tracks - pleasure and "professionalism" ? This
> may ring particularly relevant in revisiting notions of complicity –
> as its been parried about during the past few weeks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Jan 13, 2010, at 6:36 AM, Johanna Drucker wrote:
> 
> > Nice turn to these exchanges. I also really appreciated Gabriela's
> > point and the follow-up by others.
> >
> > If we think of art as the act of form giving, we recognize that forms
> > partake of symbolic systems. As social creatures we
> > 'interpellate' (hideous theory word) shared symbolic systems (signs,
> > stories, genres, dance moves, rules of the game etc.). But of course
> > collectively and individually, we shift those symbol systems (for
> > better and worse--think of personal choice and fashion trends).
> >
> > I've fallen from my pure structuralist beliefs. I no longer think we
> > are only 'subjects.' Individualism may be a founding mythology of
> > western culture, absorbed in the most opportunistic ways into
> > contemporary consumer culture, but I think it has grounding. You are
> > not me, even though, to recap all the polit-theo-talk in Pogo's terms,
> > "We have met the enemy and he is us." A great deal of cult studs
> > analysis comes to that.
> >
> > Life is short. One of the pressing questions is what does one want to
> > spend time on? The term "therapy" seems to carry a dismissive tone. I
> > find making art pure pleasure, but it is the pleasure of bringing
> > something into being, an act of making-as-knowing, that intensifies
> > awareness. I'm an awareness junky.
> >
> > Johanna
> > _______________________________________________
> > empyre forum
> > empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> > http://www.subtle.net/empyre
> 
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre

_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/196390707/direct/01/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://mail.cofa.unsw.edu.au/pipermail/empyre/attachments/20100113/6805f742/attachment.html 