Quote:
Originally Posted by Gardener
I suppose what is meant is this: If an attribute (in this case being art) applies universally to everything, it loses any way to define itself and thus its own identity. It has no opposites anymore (like nature, for example), so it becomes something that is form- and meaningless. Calling something art would be as meaningless as calling an specific animal organic, so the term art, in a sense, dissolves into nothing.
|
i think this comes from being entrapped in a logic of two - everything vs. nothing, art/nature. while it may help to define something it usually does nothing good to the thing you try to define. art is not an opposite of something, the same as nature. they are completely heterogenous domains of multiple. and every thing in these domains are as well composed of other multiples ad infinitum. to avoid everything/nothing opposition, one just needs to think art as an instance of infinity (infinite possibility of compositions) and difference. its works are disseminated. they can come out anywhere and out of nowhere - in a sense that there is no purely artistic situation - there is no place where you would certainly know - this is where art is born.
even the drive to define art is an result of desire to have , to create an opposition. ''if i know what is art, i will know what is not art.'' yet, if one thinks art as a child infinite and difference, there is no need to define art in any strict sense. what a definition may say about something, whose instances are being born there and here, without any necessity and any dualistic logic? of course you can go to definition through negation - ''art is not this, art is not that...'', but it doesn't bring truth to the one trying to define nor to the thing it tries to define.
it's not about definition.
it's about truth.
living truth.
the truth(s) of subject(s).
there never was nor will ever be any objectivity in and of art. it has nothing to do with encyclopedic (knowledge).
it's a unique number.