From: The Low Golden Willow (phoenix@ugcs.caltech.edu)
Date: Sun Mar 16 1997 - 15:14:26 MST
On Mar 15, 12:51pm, "Natasha V. More (fka Nancie Clark)" wrote:
} At 10:41 AM 3/15/97 +0000, Sarah Marr wrote:
} >If I created art-work
} >showing graphic and cruel vivisection, called myself an Extropian artist
} >and displayed all over Britain
}
} You would not be an Extropic Artist unless the work was produced to provoke
} an extropic view of such vivisection.
} There are many people who make false claims about who they are, from art to
} politics to science.
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.
} >A piece of artwork cannot challenge generic 'assumptions'. It can only
} >challenge the particular assumptions of its audience. Very few people have
} >any assumptions at all about Extropianism,
} This is not accurate.
Sarah made three statements; which isn't accurate? I know very few
people who have even heard of Extropianism. If I give a short
description they assume it's a fringe group of nuts. I tried that
experiment once.
I still doubt the mass viability of Extropianism in a world with a
tenuous grasp of the Enlightenment.
Merry part,
-xx- Damien R. Sullivan X-) <*> http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~phoenix
"I AM THAT I AM"; "A is A". Is Yahweh the first Objectivist?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:44:16 MST