From: Technotranscendence (neptune@mars.superlink.net)
Date: Mon Sep 11 2000 - 17:42:06 MDT
On Monday, September 11, 2000 12:21 PM QueeneMUSE@aol.com wrote:
> > I submit anyone who agrees with that equivalence should then quit using
the
> > term, because if there's no way to tell art from non-art, then what
good is
> > labeling some stuff art? (Unless such labeling is merely to increase
the
> > asking price for such stuff.)
>
> You can submit that, sure. Submission is good for the soul.
> However, for me to try and fit my art concepts into your narrow viewpoint
> finder would be like trying to squeeze a space shuttle into a volkswagon.
Pure ad hominem. Just because someone allows for a wider notion does not
mean that notion is correct. If I were to redefine VW Beetles to include
space shuttles, would that make my view more open minded, progressive,
insert-term-you-like-here? Would it help us in understanding VW Beetles or
space shuttles? Or would it just add to the confusion?
Also, to not define art at all -- even roughly, even with a working
defintion to be revised at a later date -- is the same as _not_ having a
concept of it. In other words, there is no viewpoint that is being offered
here by QueenMUSE, just word games and posturing.
Cheers!
Daniel Ust
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:30:54 MST