Re: RARA-AVIS: Re: willie or not

Date: 14 Dec 2006

John Carey's recent What Good Are the Arts? looked at all of the theories about why the arts in general, and literature in particular, are alleged to be good for you (ie, it turns you into a good person -- what about the Nazis?). Along the way, he cited a slew of scientific studies that debunked the theory that the effect of the high arts
(insert your example here) on consumers was any different, much less better, than that of the low arts (insert your example here). The
"insert example here" is more than a joke; although there may be a consensus at any given time (which may or may not carry over to a later time) on what constitutes art, it is just a consensus of opinions of a bunch of individuals, individuals with the socal position and/or power to impose their opinions on their "lessers." Underlying all of this, backing up MrT, response to art is entirely subjective and it's impossible to know exactly what someone else is getting from "art," no matter how high or low, much less that one person's response is more legitimate than another's, no matter how many more big words one of them may have to rationalize his or her opinion.


This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 14 Dec 2006 EST