Before I respond to your question, which I do intend to respond to, I would like to address a point you made in the body of your blog post.
"I think that we have all taken issue with Scruton mainly because there is some internal sense in all of us that photography is art, and given his argument it, which really has no holes in it, photography is not art."
You do a good job illustrating why Edward's objection was invalid, and I do admit that most of my objections when I first read Scruton were wholly due to this presupposition of photography. However, I do believe that there are holes in Scruton's argument, wholes that can be traced back to a single problem. His definition of ideal photography is too narrow. He defines this in a manner that will suit the rest of his following argument. It is the equivalent of crafting your own maze and then solving it.
Your question: Is there any way in which that presentation can somehow turn into a representation? (Since this is what is needed to call something an art form, because representation shows artistic intention)
No, I do not think there is. A presentation is a representation or it is not, there is not way to turn one into the other. I could be unclear as to what you meant by presentation, but it would seem to me that all representations are presentations, though not all presentations are representations.
Question: In relation to Part 7, must we perceive a danger to ourselves in order to truly experience fear?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment