"Well, no, it's more, "Jezus, who can take Tolstoy on
art seriously?"
Most collections of 'classic' writings from the
'philosophy of art' (sponge-like category, that one)
include Tolstoy. When the discipline was being
professionalised, and its young Turks thought they
needed something to lash uot at, Tolstoy (along with
the likes of Croce and Clive Bell) became a favourite
whipping boy. Essay after article after review
slagging him off for being such a dumbass, when of
course he never set out to play by the rules of
analytic philosophy. I guess there are different ways
of taking someone seriously.
"Derrida/Lacan/Deleuze/Foucalt vs. uz old
farts who were brought up under the regime of the
"New" (pre-Blair)
Criticism."
This distinction is not one you'll find much in the
philosophy of art, which has, in its relatively brief
and rather undistinguished history as a professional
discipline, tended to orientate itself around various
strains of analytic philosophy. Lately the
Continentals have been making some inroads under the
guise of neo-Pragmatism (wolves in sheep's clothing!).
I hope neurotic numbskulls like Deleuze and Derrida
never get the sort of toehold in the philosophy of art
that they had/have in English and Art history
departments in my part of the world.
(Mind you, I enjoy a beer with Derrida- OK Mr
Tolhurst?)
Scott
X-Apparently-To: [log in to unmask] via
web805.mail.yahoo.com
X-Track: 5: 40
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 05:04:13 +0100
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE
V5.00.2919.6600
Subject: Re: Poetics, Les Murray clarification
From: "Robin Hamilton"
<[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
X-Unsub: To leave, send text 'leave poetryetc' to
[log in to unmask]
Reply-To: [log in to unmask]
Sender: [log in to unmask]
Scott:
> The artists' attitude is exemplified by Robin
> Hamilton's response to my commnets. It's like, go
away
> you dry old philosophical geeks, you're just
> pretentious philistines trespassing in the green
> pastures of art.
Well, no, it's more, "Jezus, who can take Tolstoy on
art seriously?"
One thing which (mildly) fascinates me about
poetryetc2/3/4 (where are we
now?) is the layerings -- generational [Scott the
uppity grad student, me
the burnt-out ex-lecturer], creative vs. critical
[though I'd have seen
Scott as creative rather than critical here], "Under
which [when]
CritTheory banner, Bezonian?"
Derrida/Lacan/Deleuze/Foucalt vs. uz old
farts who were brought up under the regime of the
"New" (pre-Blair)
Criticism. langpo, linepo, typopo ... Etc...
=====
"Why is it not possible for me to doubt that I have never been on the moon? And how
could I try to doubt it? First and foremost, the supposition that perhaps I have
been there would strike me as idle. Nothing would follow from it, nothing be
explained by it. It would not tie in with anything in my life... Philosophical
problems occur when language goes on holiday. We must not separate ideas from life,
we must not be misled by the appearances of sentences: we must investigate the
application of words in individual language-games" - Ludwig Wittgenstein
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites.
http://invites.yahoo.com/
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|