Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 08:55:47 -0500 (CDT)
From: Timothy A Dayton <tadayton-AT-ksu.edu>
Subject: Re: Reply to Hans E...


> 
> Moreoever as Roger Scruton says marxists approach a work of art and always
> want to talk about something else.  What he is seeking is the autonomy of
> art.  Marxists, feminists, poststructuralists would deny him this.  But
> there is a price to be paid for over riding the autonomy of the aesthetic.
> But perhaps this will crop up again in my next post. 

After having whined about how busy I am, I find myself just having to 
fire off another quick message.  Scruton is right--the problem is he 
thinks there's something wrong with this.  The only fault one can find is 
if marxists are unwilling first of all to address the work of art as a 
work of art (so long as this is the proper context).  Then one begins 
talking about "something else."  I really think Collier's discussion of 
vertical and horizontal planes of explanation is enormously helpful here, 
which entails the notion that the aesthetic as a social practice has 
emergent properties which may not be reduced to prior levels ("something 
else") via vertical analysis--even as the level being dealt with depends 
upon these prior levels for its existence.  This provides a way for 
talking about the "autonomous" aspects of aesthetic practices and the 
"determined" nature of them without illicitly moving from art to another 
level of reality.  

Tim Dayton