But, to be fair, perhaps Holkins has only read stupid definitions of "art" (perhaps including my own works on the subject). For example, Mill might be wrong about art, but his attempt to address the matter hardly seems imbecilic. As such, I would not be inclined to call them "stupid" in the usual meaning of the term. However, there are many that are serious attempts to engage a difficult problem in an intelligent manner. Some of them are, in fact, what could be called stupid. Having taught aesthetics for quite some time I have read a multitude of attempts to define art. However, being honest, I must also admit that there is truth in what he says. The reality is that what “is” and “isn’t art” is something we can determine with a slider in our prefrontal cortex.īeing, I suppose, in the intellectual class I naturally take some issue with his remarks. This is sometimes termed anti-intellectualism, usually by intellectuals, when what it is in truth is an opposition to intellect for intellect’s sake. I have always been white trash, and will never cease to be so what that means is that I was raised with an inherent distrust in the Hoity and a base and brutal urge to dismantle the Toity. Generally speaking, when a person constructs a thought-machine of this kind, what they’re actually trying to do is determine what isn’t art. I don’t think I’ve ever read a definition for art that wasn’t stupid. Holkins is not a man who minces words or treads lightly across the interwebs. As a philosophy professor who teaches an aesthetic class every spring semester, I was pleased to see two of my interests merge (like a fireball merging into a pack of gnolls). In his column, Jerry Holkins made some interesting comments about defining art. Like most gamers, I am a regular reader of Penny Arcade.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |