This was 15 years, 17 days ago

Perhaps somewhat futilely, I'd like to argue that 'art' and 'artistic' are two entirely different things; art seemingly holds the value of being artistic; being artistic is the myth of art. Contained within this myth of 'artistic-ness' are Romantic and Classical notions of the artist as genius and masterpiece-maker, tapping into near-spiritual and transcendental notions of beauty. Unable to cope with a rift concerning the acceptability -- literally ability-to-accept -- of this notion of 'artistic' connecting with the art-world driven definition of art, now foundation-less in terms of a criterion of merit, art then mythifies itself to the status of being artistic, as artistic art, continues to try to attain nearly religious levels of respect. Foundationlessness is not a reason to disregard the status of art at all; rather, it's liberating to some extent. And the absence of the myth of artistic-ness in art does not, or at least should not 'hollow' out the impact or workings of art -- but art, frightened of its own arbitrarity, continues to maintain the struggle for its own survival by elevating itself to the position of an agent of spirituality, rarity, emancipation, transcendence. Perhaps this is because those who buy art (and therefore finance the discourse) do so for such reasons.

"For dialectical criticism, the contradictions in the criticized theory are not indications of insufficient intellectual rigor on the part of the author, but an indication of an unsolved problem or one that has remained hidden. Dialectical criticism thus stands in a relation of dependency to the criticized theory. That also means, however, that it reaches its limit where such a theory cannot validate its claim to be a theory. All that remains to it is "rejection," as Hegel called it, whereby it also renounces its own claim to being a theory, for it can oppose the nontheory only as opinion."
Peter Bürger, Theory of the Avant-Garde

yes yes yes. and then what? do we sink to our knees and say, that is all, we're clashing on a completely egalitarian basis -- that is of non-importance, opinion, arbitrary standards? my axiom is better than yours because, because, because. your axiom sucks because, because because.

distilled to the core of things does it just become argument, opposition, unreason?

am I being 'unreasonable' by trying to utilize reason at this micro-level, right when the basis of reason breaks down? what is my reason for using reason? what is my core justification for utilizing mathematical systems of logic in my arguments, grammar with my words, coherence in my structure..? I need to read more.

"With my forehead pressed against the window of the monorail, my reverie deepens. If all the concrete buildings and roads spreading off to the distant horizons are made using the limestone quarried from the mountains, then if you crushed all of those buildings and roads and carefully brought this enormous amount of calcium carbonate back to where it came from, with the placement of the final spoonful, the former ridgelines of these mountains would be perfectly restored.

Mines and cities are like the negatives and positives of a photograph."

Naoya Hatakeyama, Lime Works