From: Technotranscendence (neptune@mars.superlink.net)
Date: Sat May 25 2002 - 11:00:44 MDT
On Monday, May 20, 2002 11:45 PM Natasha Vita-More natasha@natasha.cc
wrote:
> Oh dear. I just read Olga's post.
>
> Technotranscendence, while I sympathize with your efforts, do you need
to
> argue the relevance of art to anyone who has little value for "art" --
a
> highly necessary and influential thinking application of the brain's
> functions?
I see three reasons to discuss this matter with Olga. One is to share
ideas and reactions -- we (her and I) can both learn from the exchange.
Two is to get others thinking about the idea. Three is to better
understand my position. By articulating my ideas, I get to see if
they're really sound. (This kind of relates to the first reason, though
it is more internal and can be done even with people who will bring
nothing of value to a discussion.)
> Art stands on its own value depicting human effort and ability to
"imitate,
> supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature."
As van Gogh put it: "Art is man added to nature..."
> All disciplines, at
> their highest value, become art.
An interesting idea and one that goes along with my view of stylizing
one's life -- one tries to make parts of art, as much as possible,
expression's of one's self. (I mean style of dress, interior design,
the setup of your work environment.)
Later!
Dan
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:21 MST