[lbo-talk] artsy-fartsy

Miles Jackson cqmv at pdx.edu
Fri May 26 08:09:50 PDT 2006


jthorn65 at sbcglobal.net wrote:


>There must be social recognition and validation but by whom and in what numbers? The fart performance
>will soon be forgotten and no one will in all likelihood do it again. If they did it would be ignored. This is
>what I meant by art must be reproducable and still retain some if not most of its original meaning. If I paint
>portraits in a style reminiscent of Klimt, and it is done skillfully, it would most likely be considered art by the
>person who bought it and by most who viewed it. Certainly it would be derivative and not change peoples
>perceptions of art nor would it influence others after me but it would still be art.
>
>
>
>
In my view, you're making this way too complicated. There is no universal, defining characteristic of art (e.g., "must be reproducable", "original meaning"). At different times and different places, different social standards emerge and are maintained for what makes something art, just as different standards emerge and are maintained about God, family structure, and formal schooling. Figuring out what "art" is in a given society by trying to identify the platonic form "Art" is exactly analogous to making sense of religion in a society by trying to identify the true essence of God. As Marx pointed out time and again, this way of thinking just leads us down the garden path and distracts us from the incredible power of human activity to shape perception and the material world. Back to praxis!

Miles



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list