i know its a long shot but does anyone know the date, place, etc of this speech? would like to reference it for my essay on art criticism i thought the final words on the irrelevance of the artist's intention as it enters into criticism were great, definitely helped me out hes so funny ha wish we had younger professors here in edinburgh, my tutor went to school with cezanne
+charlie murphy “The (In)visibility of Theology in Contemporary Art Criticism.” Paper presented at the Center for Christian Thought Conference, Christian Scholarship in the 21st Century: Prospects and Perils, Biola University, La Mirada, CA, May 19, 2012. Published along with other papers from the conference in book form in 2014 by Eerdmans. (www.biola.edu/directory/people/jonathan_anderson; open.biola.edu/collections/christian-scholarship-in-the-21st-century-prospects-and-perils; www.eerdmans.com/Products/7144/christian-scholarship-in-the-twentyfirst-century.aspx)
If the artists' intents are completely ignored by contemporary art criticism, isn't this essentially removing the human agency behind the artwork itself. Viewed through thsi way art seems hardly to be an expression of anything since the actual authorship, is completely ignored. It seems like analysing a boook for meaning based on completely surface level attributes such as font size, and the dimensions of the book, and analyzing the systemic orocesses of the oublishing industry in a given work rather than like, reading the words in the book. No wonder the critical thinking in our society is completely defunct, thosenthat claim to be our "thought leaders" or "tastemakers" are intentionally stripping the very real voices of the people from the works they are studying. It seems likely that this oractice is not unrelated to how Western art critics engage with "primitive" and "folk" art. These "scholars" determine that they know better than any given artist what that artist was trying to say, and then as a result contemporary artists no longer attempt to attribute meaning to their works, knowing that any effort in this direction will be completely ignored and ridiculed by the critics, and so we have contemporary art that exists as purely wasteful and dysfunctional objects because our art critics are unable to engage with artwork as an authentic human expression and voice because it is nonverbal. A literary critic that only looked at physical attributes and the "process" would be nonsense, and such is contemporary art criticism, it is complete nonsense. And this speakers attempt to add another lens is not actually addressing the elephant in the room of the bizarre nature of our society that refuses to engage with the minds of artists as legitimate voices having distinct messages to comunicate, and that the artists would be able to know what they are talking about.
![[ARTS 315] Working in the Expanded Field, Part 2: Marked Sites - Jon Anderson](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/wt88K7zY6jE/mqdefault.jpg)
i know its a long shot but does anyone know the date, place, etc of this speech? would like to reference it for my essay on art criticism
i thought the final words on the irrelevance of the artist's intention as it enters into criticism were great, definitely helped me out
hes so funny ha wish we had younger professors here in edinburgh, my tutor went to school with cezanne
+charlie murphy “The (In)visibility of Theology in Contemporary Art Criticism.” Paper presented at the Center for Christian Thought Conference, Christian Scholarship in the 21st Century: Prospects and Perils, Biola University, La Mirada, CA, May 19, 2012. Published along with other papers from the conference in book form in 2014 by Eerdmans. (www.biola.edu/directory/people/jonathan_anderson; open.biola.edu/collections/christian-scholarship-in-the-21st-century-prospects-and-perils; www.eerdmans.com/Products/7144/christian-scholarship-in-the-twentyfirst-century.aspx)
OG LOC
lol
oh n the guy who asked that last question sounds like the actor in stepbrothers haha
If the artists' intents are completely ignored by contemporary art criticism, isn't this essentially removing the human agency behind the artwork itself. Viewed through thsi way art seems hardly to be an expression of anything since the actual authorship, is completely ignored. It seems like analysing a boook for meaning based on completely surface level attributes such as font size, and the dimensions of the book, and analyzing the systemic orocesses of the oublishing industry in a given work rather than like, reading the words in the book. No wonder the critical thinking in our society is completely defunct, thosenthat claim to be our "thought leaders" or "tastemakers" are intentionally stripping the very real voices of the people from the works they are studying. It seems likely that this oractice is not unrelated to how Western art critics engage with "primitive" and "folk" art. These "scholars" determine that they know better than any given artist what that artist was trying to say, and then as a result contemporary artists no longer attempt to attribute meaning to their works, knowing that any effort in this direction will be completely ignored and ridiculed by the critics, and so we have contemporary art that exists as purely wasteful and dysfunctional objects because our art critics are unable to engage with artwork as an authentic human expression and voice because it is nonverbal. A literary critic that only looked at physical attributes and the "process" would be nonsense, and such is contemporary art criticism, it is complete nonsense. And this speakers attempt to add another lens is not actually addressing the elephant in the room of the bizarre nature of our society that refuses to engage with the minds of artists as legitimate voices having distinct messages to comunicate, and that the artists would be able to know what they are talking about.
YO ITS OG LOC
Learn how to write a better speech. Saying a lot and saying absolutely nothing at the same time.
This is embarrassing.