From: Gawthrop, Rob (email suppressed)
Date: Fri Jul 23 2010 - 15:35:10 PDT
Gregg/Steven
Art cannot exist automonously, there will always be contexts (and agents).
Don't your "categories" come within aesthetics? i.e. as per Jacques Ranciere's definition:
"In its broad sense, however, aesthetics refers to the distribution of the sensible that determines a mode of articulation between forms of action, production and thought. This general definition extends aesthetics beynd the strict realm of art to include the conceptual coordinates and modes of visibility operative in the political domain." p82 Ranciere J. Politics of Aesthetics, 2006, (Continuum, London)
Rob
On 23/07/2010 21:36, "gregg biermann" <email suppressed> wrote:
Steven,
Isn't the fact that something is considered art at all strong evidence of a context? All of the questions about categories (genre, tradition, medium, style, movement) or aesthetics that are being discussed seem to come from that understanding.
G
Steven Gladstone wrote:
Does Art need Context to be Art?
________________________________
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
Version: 9.0.851 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3023 - Release Date: 07/23/10 02:36:00
________________________________
_______________________________________________
FrameWorks mailing list
email suppressed
http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
_______________________________________________
FrameWorks mailing list
email suppressed
http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks