[My apologies to readers. There seems to be a glitch on the site at the moment that is obstructing access to my papers.]
My principal interests are the theory of art and certain major artists and writers whose work strikes me as central to the modern predicament (Goya, Dostoevsky, Laclos...) I believe that the explanations of art offered by modern aesthetics (aka philosophy of art) are fundamentally unsatisfactory largely because they remain shackled to eighteenth and nineteenth-century intellectual and cultural assumptions that have ceased to be relevant.
Much of my writing is indebted to the French thinker André Malraux (1901-1976) who …
[My apologies to readers. There seems to be a glitch on the site at the moment that is obstructing access to my papers.]
My principal interests are the theory of art and certain major artists and writers whose work strikes me as central to the modern predicament (Goya, Dostoevsky, Laclos...) I believe that the explanations of art offered by modern aesthetics (aka philosophy of art) are fundamentally unsatisfactory largely because they remain shackled to eighteenth and nineteenth-century intellectual and cultural assumptions that have ceased to be relevant.
Much of my writing is indebted to the French thinker André Malraux (1901-1976) who is one of the rare figures who offers a theory of art relevant to modern experience. Regrettably, Malraux is widely neglected by contemporary philosophers of art, especially in anglophone countries, where thinking about art is very conservative and still dominated by 18th century figures such as Hume and Kant. One prominent writer in the school of "analytic” aesthetics told me quite seriously that he was "proud" he had never read any Malraux! Most major publishers, not daring to stray beyond thinkers in the traditional mould who figure prominently in reading lists etc, simply follow suit.
[email protected]
