Subject: Re: electroacoustics - rap to tap
From: Richard Wentk (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Jul 05 2004 - 11:30:36 EDT
At 11:13 05/07/2004 -0400, you wrote:
>Art is not culturally determined, not relative, not in the eye of the
>beholder. The experience of art is completely subjective, but the art
>object is a physical thing.
No, it's not. Art is about experiences, not objects. You can use objects to
evoke those experiences, but you can use processes and ideas too.
>Some art experiences are subjectively superior to others. But you can't
>substitute one art object for another one, and get the same experience.
>That in turn proves that some art objects are superior -- absolutely, and
>not other things being equal -- to other art objects. Since the experience
>is subjective and is conditioned by cultural influences, it is difficult to
>discern the objective worth of the art object, but it is certainly possible
>given enough time and effort by enough people over a long enough period of
Eh? According to whose values? Do really think if you steal Michelangelo's
David from Florence and ship it round the world on a truck, more than a
tiny percentage of the world's population is going to be thinking 'Wow!
Work of genius!' when they see it?
I think maybe you need to spend some time getting more familiar with the
way other cultures think, work and make art. You seem very stuck in a very
Western kind of a mindset there.
I have no problem with Western artworks being valued by Westerners. But
it's a *big* mistake to assume there's any kind of universality to those
judgements. Even a cursory knowledge of art history should prove how
unrealistic that belief is.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b27 : Sat Dec 22 2007 - 01:46:02 EST