From: Jason Joel Thompson (jasonjthompson@home.com)
Date: Mon Sep 11 2000 - 21:45:36 MDT
----- Original Message -----
From: "Technotranscendence" <neptune@mars.superlink.net>
> On Monday, September 11, 2000 6:22 PM Jason Joel Thompson
> jasonjthompson@home.com wrote:
> >> In other words, there is no viewpoint that is being offered
> >> here by QueenMUSE, just word games and posturing.
> >
> > Aha... art!
>
> Cute, but then you trivialize art.
Yes, that's sort of what I'm doing.
Or rather: showing that art likes to hide in odd places and tends to crawl
away under observation.
If art is only "word games and
> posturing," then it takes no great skill and any charlatan is an artist.
I've often thought that much art is akin to illusion: it is evocative of
something intangible. The realistic approach to a concept or object
involves our approaching it on a functional level, i.e: What does this do?
How can it help me? How can I interact with it? What information does it
provide?
You rarely look at a painting in this manner, unless you are concerned that
the frame might fall on you.
I rarely bother to engage people who attack art as being functionally
useless-- mostly because I agree that they are basically right... except
insofar as that function is to attack/uplift the realm of the mind.
Much of art lives in this realm of the mind, and as such, much of art is
necessarily subjective. It is neither possible nor desirable to create
absolute classifications for what does and does not qualify as art. One
person's art is another's toilet.
I would never say that someone was 'wrong' to call something 'art,' simply
because I do not think that one can be mistaken. In this, all things are
potentially art. (And "not"art)
Art happens somewhere in the space between the object and the mind of the
observer. We do not call something -great- art because -many- people call
it art, but rather that -discerning- people call it art. In fact, it is
anticipated that great art is necessarily challenging and is only
occassionally embraced by the majority.
Actually, I don't really think that "great art" and "art" are really the
same type of animal at all.
Actually, I don't know what art is anymore.
Actually, I thought I knew, but something dribbled out, and that something
was the knowing.
It is anticipated that not all people are equipped with, or desire to be
equipped with, the interface necessary to be impacted by and discerning of,
art. I doubt such an interface confers any practical advantage, except in
briefly barely slightly lightly passing.
For this reason, I suspect many will not/never concern themselves with art
and I can't objectively see any reason why this is a "bad thing."
Conversely, possession of such an interface does allow one to participate
with reality on a different level, with subsequent subjective
blessings/curses.
> Also, there's no reason to talk about Extropian or transhumanist art.
I'm not really sure what "transhuman" art is, frankly.
> Why would emotions run so high if it were only that?
Who knows? We seem to think it's important.
--
::jason.joel.thompson::
::founder::
www.wildghost.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:30:55 MST