Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
From: ohgs@chatham.demon.co.uk (Oliver Sparrow)
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!yeshua.marcam.com!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!demon!chatham.demon.co.uk!ohgs
Subject: Re: art definition
References: <Cxqy4I.7A2@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Organization: Royal Institute of International Affairs
Reply-To: ohgs@chatham.demon.co.uk
X-Newsreader: Demon Internet Simple News v1.27
Lines: 24
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 1994 17:06:33 +0000
Message-ID: <782413593snz@chatham.demon.co.uk>
Sender: usenet@demon.co.uk

The belief that a further 750 unformatted lines stand between one and  the 
punchline does not encourage a deep read. The best way of thinking about 
what is or is not art is to see the concept as essentially historical: we 
define as art that which has survived long enough and which has embedded 
itself into the context from which art is generated sufficiently to have 
influence on what follows. Decoration, by contrast, is that which is both 
artefactual and pretty. The K complexity of accredited art is higher than
the complexity of craft, in part from the complexity of the origins from which 
it sprang and in part because of the complexity of the framework whiuch its 
existence has modified. Decoration arises from a commoditised craft mechanism 
and adds nothing to what follows.

Beyond that, of course, there is nothing to seperate "art" from "kitsch" from 
"decoration" from "scribble" from rats' droppings save that we find it useful 
to draw judgemental lines about which we differ and upon which we are able to 
mount no objective linguistic structure. In parallel, there is an "art" market, 
which has proven poorly parallel to the working through of informed judgement 
over the decades as to what constitutes art. Finally, there are the experts and 
the practitioners, who are the very embodiment of fallibility.

_________________________________________________

  Oliver Sparrow
  ohgs@chatham.demon.co.uk
