Patrick King wrote:
> William, there is no point to any type of art if
it
> poses nothing for individuals who encounter it
to
> consider about their own lives.
And William Ahearn replied:
> Look, Patrick, I really don't have time to be
lectured
> especially since I don't agree or wish to
pursue
> something where I find no value.
Patrick's statement seems to me so unexceptional and basic
that I find myself flummoxed as to how someone with an
interest in art could disagree with it (or find it pedantic).
Turning the statement into a question, what *would* be the
point of art, then, if it did not pose anything for
individuals who encounter it to consider about their own
lives? Is there a potentially good answer to that question?
I'm having a hard time imagining one. Even the most hermetic
and formalistic art gives us aesthetic issues to consider in
relation to our personal mechanisms of response and
assignments of value, which are part of our lives. I don't
see how art could fail to do this even if it tried.
Mark
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 11 Dec 2007 EST