In response to the post that Gina put up, found here: http://gmarieexistence.blogspot.com/2011/04/one-more-comment-on-dickie.html?showComment=1303216806160#c8786751146794309360, this is what I had to say:
Yea, I can definately see where you are coming from on this point. I definately was not that fond of what Dickie had to say when we went over him in class. I think that he is a classic example of someone trying to sound smarter than they actually are, and most of his point have been brought up in different conversations about other philosophers anyway.
The biggest issue that I have is that he is horribly vague. Obviously art has to be an artifact, its about the only distinguishing factor between human intereaction and nature. When it comes down to it though, I feel that the classifications of what makes art the art that it is requires more defining, despite how difficult that may be. All in all, I feel that Dickie was just a cheap reiteration from our past genius' and he does not get that much praise in my book.
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment