From: Sarah Marr (sarah.marr@dial.pipex.com)
Date: Mon Mar 17 1997 - 04:45:17 MST
At 18:16 16/03/97 -0700, Natasha More wrote:
>At 02:14 PM 3/16/97 -0800, The Low Golden Willow wrote:
>
>>But she would be considered an Extropian artist by the populace, unless
>>a counter-campaign managed to discredit her. Many people make false
>>claims because sometimes making false claims works.
>
>Anyone who becomes so famous that they are recognized by the populace would
>indicate that populace knew what extropy means.
Not at all. They may know what Extropy means only through the
representations of the artist. Or, more likely, the may know of both artist
and other Extropians, but be more influenced by the artist.
>If the populace knows what
>extropy means, then its authenticity would also be recognized.
The populace would believe the authenticity of that which they believe,
which is not necessarily that which _you_ would wish them to believe.
>Con-artists (no pun intended -:) are masters at what they do in all trades.
>It's unfortunate, but, "shit happens."
>
>>Sarah made three statements; which isn't accurate?
>
>Sorry, I should have been more specific. Artwork can challenge the
>suppositions of group or class of people...
<snip>
I didn't think I'd implied the opposite. In fact I have explicitly made the
same point already. However, as I've said, artists only challenge the
suppositions of the observers of their work. If no suppositions exist, then
they are created, rather than challenged.
Sarah
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Kathryn Marr
sarah.marr@dial.pipex.com http://dialspace.dial.pipex.com/sarah.marr/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:44:16 MST