Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 12:39:01 -0500 (EST)
From: George Free <aw570-AT-freenet.toronto.on.ca>
Subject: Re: ...becoming...


On Thu, 20 Feb 1997, Ariosto Raggo wrote:
[snip]
 What i like the most about Lyotard is that he
> teaches us about how to refine our appreciation of the arts, how to
> become sensitive to subtle nuances of events(in _Peregrination_ he calls
> this "the face to face with nothigness".) but this admiration is just
> perception or aesthesis and this doesn't, as I have suggested, have just
> to do with the prestige of modern and avant-garde streams but can
> involve other posibble historical events such as Leonardo and his keen
> perception of nature and reality. What I mean will become evident in a
> juxtaposition of what Lyotard writes about Cezanne in _Peregrination_ 
> and what Enst Gombrich writes about the Italian Renaissance notion of
> _sfumato_ in _Histoire De L'art_. Lyotard writes . . .
> 
	Thank you for your discussion of Lyotard and Gombrich. I found it 
quite fascinating. Regarding the reference to the modern avant-garde and 
Leonardo etc. Don't you think that we can see a lot in the work of the 
masters of the past *because* of the accomplishments of the modern 
avant-garde? And, secondly, don't the works of the past masters have greater 
prestige than the contemporary avant-garde which is frequently disparaged 
by the (false) defenders of tradition?

	G.F wrote:
>          What I don't like about Lyotard (and Deleuze as well) is that
> > they tend to give priority to the philosophical tradition over and above
> > the tradition of practice (in this case artisitic) to which they refer.
> > Thats not to say that I reject their work--I find it very stimiluating at
> > times--but to point out that it is very important not to get lost in this
> > world of philosophical self-reference and to stay connected with our own
> > experience of life and work(s).
> 
A.R. wrote:
> yes, this would be true unless perhaps they are themselves suggesting
> that somehow their writing is itself a valid artistic activity. I hope
> above I have said enough that the question is precisely to persevere in
> the midst of reality which is itself a sort of art education, a
> preparation to receive 'forms' of life.
> 
	"persevere in the midst of reality"--I like that, and agree that
such "perseverance" is an aesthetic practice. However, I'm wary when art
critics and philsophers see themselves as artists (a la Heidegger and
Nietzsche). I think criticism and philosophy is secondary to artistic
practice (and any other practice for that matter). It constitutes a
reflection--which can only occur when withdrawn from life--on the
principles implicit in a practice which can never be grasped theoretically
as such (ie. as practice). Philosophers would do well to recognise this
fact--though such recognition involves a certain lowering of their
traditional status. However, in this way they would truly *serve* the arts
rather than usurping privilege for themselves. 

> G. F. wrote
>  In this connection, I think it is
> > important that we do not simply adopt their literary-philosophical lingo,
> > but try to fashion our own words out of our own need and response to our
> > life and times.
> 
A. R. wrote:
> but this assumes a radical discontinuity with the past and a sort of
> tabula rasa approach.
> 
	Critics and philosophers always refer to each other. Their
analyzes frequently involve not a confrontation with the object they claim
to analyze but with the thoughts and ideas of their critical-philosopher
colleagues. I would like to see a critical discourse that is closer to the
arts, that is concerned not with the professional problems of the
philosophers, but in providing reflection on and support for the practice
of art. Perhaps, Lyotard and other heterodox philosophers are contributing
to this through their attack on philosophical/academic tradition--I guess
I'm saying they don't go quite as far as I would like them too. 

cheers,
George




     --- from list avant-garde-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---