Comments on: What’s it Worth? Works on Paper at Arcadia–the talk

By: libby

libby — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 22:08:22 +0000

It’s hard to escape the personal propensities issue. It’s at the base of all taste. We can argue to our hearts’ content about philosophical underpinnings, but ultimately, it’s all about taste, interests, experience, and context (the times, the culture). But “I know what I like” usually is not satisfying enough for people who like to think about art–but not always.

By: Daniel

Daniel — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 20:04:00 +0000

the catch, of course, is that “what we like” and “what makes us think” is based upon our own philosophical positions, biases, etc, so we might as well be conscious about them. especially since so much art since the 1960′s and even today is based on art questioning itself philosophically. which is, I guess, why Ribas talked about these kinds of issues in the first place. this is not to say that art becomes an intelletualized experience, that would be a huge bummer. I’m just saying that we are all responsible to be self-aware.

By: libby

libby — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 14:01:53 +0000

Hi, Daniel and Christine, I do think that the whole issue of utility is not necessarily fair or particularly universal. But I do think that artists give themselves permission to be non-utile. And how society incorporates that production of non-utile objects, by giving it a story of shamanistic powers or visionary powers or intellectual value, can either work for or against society’s willingness to support art. Those roles can be deemed utile. After all society supports religion with financial gusto, recognizing its utile value. And I don’t see a big separation here. Vision is vision. Our society gives lip service to its support of other views, but the lip and the wallet are often far apart.
As for me, I like to keep things out of the philosophical sphere. Here’s my personal view. If I like looking at it, if it makes me think, I find it useful. So, let’s say the utility is education! Well, let’s talk about how well our society funds education…

By: Daniel Gerwin

Daniel Gerwin — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 02:38:12 +0000

Re: utility (or its supposed absence) in art. Ribas’ brief history of art has big problems. See Arthur Danto’s After The End of Art, chapter 5. Here are a few relevant lines: “[the distinction] between aesthetic and practical considerations has tended to stultify any propensity to ask what practical utility aesthetic experience might have.” (see the Barnes collection for the aesthetics of practical objects) Danto calls Kant’s assertion that aesthetics depends on no possible practical interest “a momentous consequence which has been taken to justify the elimination of…art subsidies from the federal budget as frill”.

By: Christine

Christine — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 16:44:36 +0000

“Art is outside the needs of society. And art objects reflect the freedom of the artist to operate outside the needs of society.”

I love this. And it’s so true that technology changes how freedom is expressed. The art world is going through some fascinating changes right now.

Thanks for your post. I just tweeted it.