chris,
i agree whitehead's perspective is that of a philosophical
scientist who thinks art, and NOT that of an "art thinker".
but i think it's indispensable anyway, and it does help us see the place for
art in the larger cosmos.
what book do you reccomend, exposing an "art thinker's"
view, to complemment my readings on the topic, which tend to be either
scientifically philosophical or simply art
criticism?
now i'm jealous of your cat...
best, ana
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Jones" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, January 22, 2010 5:27 AM
Subject: Re: Image and text
> On Wed, 2003-01-01 at 10:42 -0200, Ana Olinto wrote:
>> i don't know if you've read whitehead's "the concept of nature". it's
>> a
>> modern, 20th century's philosophical-scientific view of space, time
>> and
>> matter.
>
> Deleuze uses Whitehead also. My problem with Whitehead is he uses
> transitive sets to introduce the idea of time or duration. The grammar
> of sets, both transitive and intransitive don't seem to work, here. It
> maybe because I have studied mathematics before jumping the fence to
> creative arts but I get the feeling we need to be able to talk about
> what art is on our own terms, rather then trying to rope in the
> authority of science or phil of science.
>
> Derrida needs a slap on the wrist for claiming that mathematics is a
> language and most especially in a discussion of Hegel and writing. He is
> simply wrong, here, and I get the impression quite a lot of readers have
> been misled. But then this is a general problem with continental
> philosophy, esp since 1918.
>
> Anyways, that's my suspicion, and am very willing to admit I may be
> wrong, so am happy to read otherwise. My cat is jealous of my computer,
> must go... chris jones
|