From: QueeneMUSE@aol.com
Date: Wed Sep 29 1999 - 08:45:41 MDT
In a message dated 9/28/1999 1:11:16 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
bdelaney@infinitefaculty.org writes:
<<
But wait. Is/are the other "channel[s]" necessarily bad? (And
wouldn't arguing for their badness be misogynistic, "[s]"
notwithstanding?) And does "baseness," or the directly
pleasurable, entail badness -- or non-artistic?
A good point, raising more philosophic worries about Freud than thoughtful
artspeak.
Hedonistic tendencies in artists have been world famous, but as someone else
points out, not limited to artists. Calling people bad in the sense of
moralizing, is the theologian's job anyway, not the artist's.
>>
If science is about giving us direct access to pleasure, might
the success of science mean the elimination of art? Who would
need art with virtual dopamine? (And if "No!", then: Who needs
science, with non-virtual art?) Quaeritur.
>>
Art is not for your pleasure. It is sometimes a cause of pleasure, but hold
no illusions that it is created for your pleasure. Art has many functions,
which is why I have not entered into the layman's debate over art's
"Purpose."
It's like taking apart a squirrel to see how it works. When you put it back
together it isn't functioning quite the same.
We can simplify art, or we could - and we do - pedestalize it. But the
fruits it yields are intangible and rare.
Art is valuable as a tool. Most people do not understand how effective this
tool is, or how it works, but they are nonetheless effected by it.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:05:19 MST