In reply to: is there a difference between painting and other art forms? posted by benjamin weil on March 20, 1996 at 15:16:12:
1. "just another mean to articulate a cultural
discourse"--this is to presuppose that this articulation
is somehow better, or more important, or more central
to painting than, for example, making, or pleasure, or
2.It suggests that painting's role is communication
first and foremost.
3.Which would further suggest then that Jauss is wrong
and that the voluntary or unforeseen aspect of aesthetic
experience is not very important--rather clarity of
transmitted meaning is important.
4.If the above were accepted as valid, then painting
as a material mode would have no real necessity--other
modes of communication could be substituted for it.
5.Which strikes me as implausible since no video has
ever seemed to me to be "like" painting, no newspaper
article "like" a performance, no star "like" moss,etc.
6.You're putting meaning first, and assigning it the
highest priority--but why? This continues what Nietzsche
pointed out as the unquestioning perpetuation of the
heirarchy which always assigns the intelligible a
position above that of the sensible (i.e. perception.)