>>A theory of art would be an explanation of art in the whole complex of
social relations within which it exists. <<
I guess you are right. A theory, however, might also help you identify REAL art from fake art, perhaps in the same way that a theory of morality might help you identify the good from the bad. I guess I have been jaded enough by the pomo's to think that any systematization misses the point of art or politics or life or anything else. Can I teach someone what is good and bad art? Maybe... if they want to learn and if they care enough about it. Can I teach them how to a great artist? Probably not... and the reason is not just that it's indefinable or mystical or anything of that kind, but that that is what great art is. It escapes categorization and cyberneticization.
Does this mean I don't find sociologies of art/lierature interesting and stimulating? Not at all. I like to read this stuff. Do I think it is true? Maybe half...
>>And just where on the
spectrum do you place the dividing line between<<
What is the dividing line? Is it a criterion? By your own words, the line is going to be somewhat determined--culturally, politically, economically, whatever you want. But then one gets into the question about what is Great Literature, and who makes the decision? Is Dante a great poet--despite and beyond his determination by socio-political factors? Is Dante _greater_ than, say, the Elder Edda? Why? How do we determine it?
chuck m.
www.users.uswest.net/~bautiste