>Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 19:46:26 +1200
>To: heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>From: callihan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Steven E. Callihan)
>Subject: Re: Cast impressions
>Reply-to: heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >[...]Again, I must ask what types of 'things' you are refering to.
> >Are they human-made, or natural? The difference, I would think, is
> >crucial. I think it is crucial because of what you said above, "...the
> >artist deals in totalities, creating whole products, not just bits and
> >pieces." My next question is, what is the difference between a natural
> >thing and a human made thing, and if they are different, why are they
> >viewed so?
> The whole product of the artist is much more akin to natural creation. It is not a manufacture, but the end result of a living process. Manufacture is, of course, not
>creation, but, at best, just the replication of a creation (although it is just as likely to be the replication of a replication). The opposition here, and I believe it is an
>opposition, is between cultures and economies.
>
> So, I think we actually have, at least, three "products." Natural products, cultural products, and economic products. An economic product takes the product of
>nature and converts it to a utility. A cultural product is only secondarily a utility. Its primary significance, it seems to me, is something different.
>
What is a thought? (Creative or otherwise)....
Why is art "the end result of a living process" moire than say manufactured germs or computers are?
So computers cannot produce (fractal) art?
If a computer generated a fractal pattern, under the Intentionalist theory you are advocating, this cannot be viewed as art?
Are economical products really that separate from cultural ones?
Ie aren't the very basis of economies cultural (even if 'weak' culture or whatever)?
Just a thought.
Erik Champion
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>To: heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>From: callihan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Steven E. Callihan)
>Subject: Re: Cast impressions
>Reply-to: heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >[...]Again, I must ask what types of 'things' you are refering to.
> >Are they human-made, or natural? The difference, I would think, is
> >crucial. I think it is crucial because of what you said above, "...the
> >artist deals in totalities, creating whole products, not just bits and
> >pieces." My next question is, what is the difference between a natural
> >thing and a human made thing, and if they are different, why are they
> >viewed so?
> The whole product of the artist is much more akin to natural creation. It is not a manufacture, but the end result of a living process. Manufacture is, of course, not
>creation, but, at best, just the replication of a creation (although it is just as likely to be the replication of a replication). The opposition here, and I believe it is an
>opposition, is between cultures and economies.
>
> So, I think we actually have, at least, three "products." Natural products, cultural products, and economic products. An economic product takes the product of
>nature and converts it to a utility. A cultural product is only secondarily a utility. Its primary significance, it seems to me, is something different.
>
What is a thought? (Creative or otherwise)....
Why is art "the end result of a living process" moire than say manufactured germs or computers are?
So computers cannot produce (fractal) art?
If a computer generated a fractal pattern, under the Intentionalist theory you are advocating, this cannot be viewed as art?
Are economical products really that separate from cultural ones?
Ie aren't the very basis of economies cultural (even if 'weak' culture or whatever)?
Just a thought.
Erik Champion
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---