>>2991901sure. at its most basic "art" in itself is an epistemological operation concerned with creating non-linguistic/non-logocentric forms of representation. The word--"art"--is simply the place-holding name or moniker that provides the entry-point of this initial activity into the (linguistic) realm of general intelligibility. In this way it involves two simultaneous functions: the emergence of a discrete "work" or "object or "piece" of art, a tangible thing; and the determination of whether or not this specific thing is (or isn't) art. Thus by simple virtue of the fact that it is capable of being recognized as such, "art" (as realized in a specific, objective instance or example) necessarily presupposes (posits as its own precondition) the particular epistemological parameters which only came into existence with their concrete embodiment in the artwork or -object itself. (Note here the a posteriori character of "art" as a concept.) Obviously this is a tautology in linguistic terms--but in linguistic terms only...
>>2991907that's great but the last thing I wanna come to /p/ to do is teach.. Also this isn't reasoning per se, I'm talking from experience of how artwork is made, sold and written about.
