|
|
| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Example from Humanities and Social Sciences |
| Posted by: | Leslie Smith |
| Date/Time: | 2011/10/9 12:42:24 |
|
thanks for this, and her book is worth reading - it is interesting and engaging. That said and meant, I did not understand how any of her insights depended on her piagetian perspective. By this I mean that -?for me - her book ran on twin tracks that never met, one dealing with art, the other with Piaget, such that either was intelligible without the other. For example: Gablik states, and I follow her here: "The thesis I am putting forward for examination is that art has evolved through a sequence of cognitive stages and may be viewed as a series of transformations in modes of thinking; and I shall argue that the dynamics of stylistic change can be explained, at least in part, by patterns of cognitive 'growth'.....I wish to argue for a developmental pattern of growth which can be discerned in the evolution of all knowledge. The assumption that I am making is that art not only relates to the development of knowledge but presupposes it." Then she states later about Wölfflin who "claims that there is an underlying mechanism of development, a self-activating process, operating within artistic phenomena, which is intrinsic to the system itself and not imposed on it from without?its transformation obeys an 'inward necessity' and represents the unfolding of a 'rational psychological process'." OK I understand this too. BUT: in her commentary on the art she selects for discussion, there was nothing that I detected that depended on her many claims such as these. |