I wish I could go!
This is from a posting for a conference called "Philosophy and Conceptual Art" to be held at King's College London on Friday 4th to Saturday 5th of June 2004:
BACKGROUND:
The general public shows ambivalence towards conceptual art.
They enjoy it and find it challenging. But at the same time
many doubt whether any conceptual art really has aesthetic worth.
The main aim of this project is to undertake a philosophical
enquiry into the grounds of this doubt, and whether they are
well-founded. On a broad understanding, 'Conceptual Art' raises interesting questions for philosophers for three principal reasons:
First, it questions the boundaries not only of art, but of the aesthetic.
Second, it is founded on the idea that art not only can, but should, transmit beliefs, judgements, and perceptual experiences with conceptual and cognitive content.
Third, it confronts us with objects that do not obviously encourage a distinctively aesthetic appreciation, a feature that puts a special kind of onus on the perceiver and on the psychology of engaging with objects aesthetically.
I just thought this was interesting given the current discussion going on in this journal. I just wish I had the ducats to go! The list of speakers is almost a who's who of contemporary aesthetics: Margaret Boden, Diarmuid Costello, Gregory Currie, David Davies, Robert Hopkins, Matthew Kieran, Peter Lamarque, Jerrold Levinson, Derek Matravers, Dominic McIver Lopes, Anthony Savile, and Kathleen Stock.
Lamarque was the one who was very encouraging about my Merleau-Ponty and photography paper. Y'all remember: great paper, British Journal of Aesthetics readers, however, could give a rat's ass about Merleau-Ponty... I was impressed by his comments and generousity given the fact that the journal rejected the paper.
BACKGROUND:
The general public shows ambivalence towards conceptual art.
They enjoy it and find it challenging. But at the same time
many doubt whether any conceptual art really has aesthetic worth.
The main aim of this project is to undertake a philosophical
enquiry into the grounds of this doubt, and whether they are
well-founded. On a broad understanding, 'Conceptual Art' raises interesting questions for philosophers for three principal reasons:
First, it questions the boundaries not only of art, but of the aesthetic.
Second, it is founded on the idea that art not only can, but should, transmit beliefs, judgements, and perceptual experiences with conceptual and cognitive content.
Third, it confronts us with objects that do not obviously encourage a distinctively aesthetic appreciation, a feature that puts a special kind of onus on the perceiver and on the psychology of engaging with objects aesthetically.
I just thought this was interesting given the current discussion going on in this journal. I just wish I had the ducats to go! The list of speakers is almost a who's who of contemporary aesthetics: Margaret Boden, Diarmuid Costello, Gregory Currie, David Davies, Robert Hopkins, Matthew Kieran, Peter Lamarque, Jerrold Levinson, Derek Matravers, Dominic McIver Lopes, Anthony Savile, and Kathleen Stock.
Lamarque was the one who was very encouraging about my Merleau-Ponty and photography paper. Y'all remember: great paper, British Journal of Aesthetics readers, however, could give a rat's ass about Merleau-Ponty... I was impressed by his comments and generousity given the fact that the journal rejected the paper.