Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 10:19:39 -0600
From: George Trail <gtrail-AT-UH.EDU>
Subject: Re: PLC: Anyone get Gass?


>> "Art for art's sake" always leads to the same problem, i.e., when
>>  do we know that we've encountered something that deserves the title "art?"
>>
>Maurcie Denis said a painting consists of paint on canvas.
[Which is rather silly because by that token The Last Supper is not a
painting, nor or the Raphaels painted on wood, nor is Diego Rivera a
painter.]
>
>Marcel Duchamp said art is anything an artist signs his name to.
[Mr. Duchamp begs the question by shifting the definitional problematic to
the word "artist."]
>
>Tony Smith said the way to tell great art is that it's kept in art museums.

[Which ignores the acknowleded "great art" that exists in churches,
temples, and private museums
>
>I imagine there are other ideas as well.  It's not really a question that's
>left everyone speechless.
>
>pat sloane

Art is simply that deliberate disposition of materials in time or space
which the power structure is willing to so designate. The "power structure"
is variously composed at various times, but always involves critics of one
sort or another and always thus involves theory of one sort or another.

g




     --- from list phillitcrit-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---