On 18/03/14 07:01 AM, Julia Pelta Feldman wrote:
> Hi everyone, long time listener, first time caller here. While I certainly
> agree that the question of whether artworks (or any other nonhuman
> entities) have agency can lead to problematic conclusions, I don't think
> that all thinking on the subject can be reduced to "mystification."
> Traditional works of art can and do perform (I'm thinking of Rauschenberg's
> white paintings, for example), act on us, change our lives and the course
> of history. That agency can't always be located in the work's creator or
> viewer. If the paint begins to flake off of a painting, if the glare of a
> Flavin fluorescent momentarily blinds me, are those not actions? And if
> they aren't, what is it we're responding to when we then restore the
> painting or rub our eyes?