Charles Miller wrote:
> Carrol Cox <cbcox at mail.ilstu.edu>:
>
> >>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.
NO on both counts. A theory of art must distinguish art from non-art, because bad art cannot be bad art unless it is first of all art period! "The salt shaker is empty" is not bad poetry -- it is something else altogether. Or is it? Would it be poetry if I published a book entitled, Selected Poems by Carrol Cox, and the first page was as follows:
================================================
So?
The salt shaker is
empty
=================================================
A theory of art, I'm assuming, would include a theory of poetry. Hence it would be able to tell us why both "It Takes a Heap o' Living" was (?) a poem and why the following was also a poem (though as theory it could tell us nothing about which "poem" was bad, which good. That would be another endeavor altogether.
I'd rather flunk my Wasserman test,
Than read a poem by Eddie Guest.
Dorothy Parker
Unless "Heap o' living" *is* a poem, Parker's delightful couplet is sheer nonsense.
Carrol
P.S. I'm not sure what good if any a theory of morality would be. Probably, like a theory of art, it would first tell us what "entities," if any, are subject to moral judgment. One can make a beginning. Deciding on whether to wear a green or blue shirt or on whether to get an abortion would not subject to moral judgment. Crossing a picket line would be.