From: Technotranscendence (neptune@mars.superlink.net)
Date: Fri Oct 22 1999 - 20:03:49 MDT
See my "Response to David C. Adams on Rand's View of Romanticism" at
http://mars.superlink.net/neptune/
Anyhow, this might not seem germane to any current topics, though it does
relate to art and esthetics. Not having read Natasha's book (yet!:), I
can't say what exactly the mainstream Extropian or transhumanist position on
art is. Nor does this mean there should be. I mean, not everything has to
be taken up into our professed beliefs...
But I really don't believe that about art. After all, art is typically an
expression of one's deepest beliefs -- the artist's as well as her
audience's, though each might get different things from the same work.
I do fear, as I've mentioned on this list before, that conscious attempts to
create art movements usually backfire. The Objectivist movement's art is a
case in point. Most Objectivist artists are not more than mere
propagandists and ideologues. Personally, I think this is because art for
the artist (and her audience) has to a voyage of discovery -- not just
translating her conscious convictions into some medium. In other words, the
work should be something from which the artist gets something more than she
already knew before. Else, what's the point?
Cheers!
Daniel Ust
http://mars.superlink.net/neptune/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:05:35 MST