Posts by Paul Litterick
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I would only be surprised if any of the vicious insinuations made against me were to be supported by a single fact.
-
Giovanni, I am perturbed that, rather than argue against my views, you seek to portray me as an outsider, although I have presented respectable academic opinions that support my argument. It is a rather nasty way to conduct a discussion.
Nastier still, though, is Sacha's attempt to portray me as a colonialist, imperialist running dog, and to imply that I am a racist. Being told that I have failed "to fit other people's understanding inside your own model" is galling, since all along I have argued that the institution of art is not a model which can be applied historically to other cultures. I am quite surprised that is so scandalous to suggest that art is a construct, when talking to people who would argue that most institutions are constructs.
-
My department is not a monolith. It is comprised of individuals with their own views.
-
Sacha, you have nothing of interest to say about this subject. All you can do is splutter abuse. Try reading a book or two - it might do you some good.
Giovanni, you have flounced from this thread twice. I hope you have come back with some evidence this time.
-
My use of the word 'monolithic' was sarcastic: Giovanni had used it earlier, in earnest. I am not entirely convinced by Shiner's argument: I think he underestimates the developments of the Renaissance, which he discounts because artists were still largely dependent on patronage. His point is that the notion of 'art for art's sake' emerges in the Enlightenment and the separation of art from craft practices. That is the art practice we have today and which has been adopted world-wide: artists work freely, selling their works through dealers, works which are bought by public museums and private collectors.
-
When the university has a specialised department of Taonga Studies (or more accurately, Toi studies), let's revisit your argument.
Why should that happen? Is it to make you feel better? I only ask because it seems you have some particular hang-ups of an anti-intellectual, colonial cringe kind, that you demand be assuaged by reforming culture to fit your rather narrow definition. At the same time, you continue insisting that you are the multiculturalist, although you assume that all cultures fit your romantic notions of everybody making art and living together in perfect harmony. Funny thing is, I doubt you could find anybody who studies these cultures in any depth who would agree with you. In fact, they would probably say that you were the colonialist, imposing your rather quaint notions of art on peoples who manifestly do not act according to your arcadian fantasies.
All societies do not have practices that perform similar functions. Ain't reality a bitch.
-
I find the cake strange and charming.
-
Why not just call objects and practices by the names their owners have given them? We have become accustomed to using the word 'taogna' which I think covers a more complex notion than 'treasure' or any other word in English. Using the original terms avoids the danger of applying our cultural norms to objects and practices that probably were not made according to those norms.
Calling things 'art' when they were not made as works of art is an unwitting form of cultural appropriation and it dilutes the term 'art' into something meaningless. The impulse to create beautiful things (cited by Rob) is not necessarily the same as the impulse to create art. Swords can be beautiful, but their primary purpose is not to display their beauty but to kill people. An ugly sword could be just as effective for killing purposes. Equally, art does not need to be beautiful: much contemporary art is consciously anti-beauty in its conception, but still remains art.
Dinner was delicious, but not a work of art - despite being made by an artist.
-
I am off to dinner with a conceptual artist, so there will be no fighting tonight. Could my forthcoming silence be interpreted as an artistic act? Do I get extra points (thereby falling further behind) for being absent? Would jewelry made by an artist and exhibited in an art gallery be considered art?
-
But lots of practices are done to make people look beautiful - hairdressing, fashion design, makeup, 'male grooming' - without our needing to call them art. Granted, moko is more permanent, but then so is cosmetic surgery.