From: IN%"[email protected]" "Art Criticism Discussion Forum" 19-JUN-1994
09:45:29.67
To: IN%"HRL@xxxxxxxxxxxx" "Howard Lawrence"
CC:
Subj: RE: Lurker speaks on art
Return-path: <[email protected]>
Return-path: [email protected]
Received: from Jnet-DAEMON by ARCH.PSU.EDU (PMDF #12866) id
<01HDQ03I5CNK8ZDUX8@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Sun, 19 Jun 1994 09:45 EDT
Received: From PSUVM(MAILER) by PSUARCH with Jnet id 9026 for HRL@PSUARCH; Sun,
19 Jun 1994 09:45 EST
Received: from PSUVM.PSU.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@PSUVM) by PSUVM.PSU.EDU
(LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 5229; Sun, 19 Jun 1994 09:51:00 -0400
Date: Sun, 19 Jun 1994 09:49:45 EDT
From: Malgosia Askanas <ma@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: Lurker speaks on art
Sender: Art Criticism Discussion Forum <[email protected]>
To: Howard Lawrence <HRL@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: Art Criticism Discussion Forum <[email protected]>
Message-id: <01HDQ03I5CNK8ZDUX8@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
X-To: [email protected]
Teresa wrote:
> WHY must some people insist on one definition for ART?
Let me take a stab at this, mainly in order to see if I'm understanding
William's point (and I do accept William's claim that he doesn't
necessarily insist on a single definition).
My own working definition of art is that art is anything that one
looks at with the intent of looking at art. Thus, art is defined
by a certain type of _engagement_ on the part of the recipient.
There are usually preconditions for this engagement -- the object
should be man-made, perhaps the creator should have made it with a
certain intent, etc. Ray, for example, restricts his preconditions
to just that first one.
Now the question is whether this kind of engagement should ever be
_discouraged_. Can it ever be damaging? Can it adversely affect
the recipient's worldview, his ability to engage with other art,
and so on? I believe that those who call for strictures in this area
believe that the answer is yes -- that there is potential harm in
indiscriminately engaging with things in this art-intentional manner.
One's decision to engage with certain things in this manner is not
a personal choice made in isolation from the surrounding culture.
One is usually guided in this choice by what gets selected,
framed and legitimized by art institutions. Those who fear
the harmful effects of art-intentional engagement hold these
institutions accountable for instances of misguidance, and want
some kind of quality assurance for the guidance process.
- malgosia
09:45:29.67
To: IN%"HRL@xxxxxxxxxxxx" "Howard Lawrence"
CC:
Subj: RE: Lurker speaks on art
Return-path: <[email protected]>
Return-path: [email protected]
Received: from Jnet-DAEMON by ARCH.PSU.EDU (PMDF #12866) id
<01HDQ03I5CNK8ZDUX8@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Sun, 19 Jun 1994 09:45 EDT
Received: From PSUVM(MAILER) by PSUARCH with Jnet id 9026 for HRL@PSUARCH; Sun,
19 Jun 1994 09:45 EST
Received: from PSUVM.PSU.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@PSUVM) by PSUVM.PSU.EDU
(LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 5229; Sun, 19 Jun 1994 09:51:00 -0400
Date: Sun, 19 Jun 1994 09:49:45 EDT
From: Malgosia Askanas <ma@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: Lurker speaks on art
Sender: Art Criticism Discussion Forum <[email protected]>
To: Howard Lawrence <HRL@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: Art Criticism Discussion Forum <[email protected]>
Message-id: <01HDQ03I5CNK8ZDUX8@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
X-To: [email protected]
Teresa wrote:
> WHY must some people insist on one definition for ART?
Let me take a stab at this, mainly in order to see if I'm understanding
William's point (and I do accept William's claim that he doesn't
necessarily insist on a single definition).
My own working definition of art is that art is anything that one
looks at with the intent of looking at art. Thus, art is defined
by a certain type of _engagement_ on the part of the recipient.
There are usually preconditions for this engagement -- the object
should be man-made, perhaps the creator should have made it with a
certain intent, etc. Ray, for example, restricts his preconditions
to just that first one.
Now the question is whether this kind of engagement should ever be
_discouraged_. Can it ever be damaging? Can it adversely affect
the recipient's worldview, his ability to engage with other art,
and so on? I believe that those who call for strictures in this area
believe that the answer is yes -- that there is potential harm in
indiscriminately engaging with things in this art-intentional manner.
One's decision to engage with certain things in this manner is not
a personal choice made in isolation from the surrounding culture.
One is usually guided in this choice by what gets selected,
framed and legitimized by art institutions. Those who fear
the harmful effects of art-intentional engagement hold these
institutions accountable for instances of misguidance, and want
some kind of quality assurance for the guidance process.
- malgosia