On Mar 30, 2008, at 3:37 PM, saul ostrow wrote:
That which is a good, bad or a serviceable
example of a craft or genre is just that - an example that may be
enjoyable
but produces little or no surplus.
Okay, now we're back to "ineffable": art is genre with a surplus,
something challenging, something indescribable, etc.
It's only helpful if you use "art" as an honorific to denote
particularly superior works, not as a term to designate a category of
things. "They're all enjoyable stories, except these few, which are
true literature, true art." "Those are nice pictures, but this is a
impressive work of art." "I like those figurines, but that is real
sculpture."
If most stories are not art, what are they and how are they different
from other forms of discourse? How are pretty painted pictures
different from any other image? Figurines from other 3-d images?
Using "art" as an honorific is not especially enlightening. but using
"art" to mark off categorically different creations is. And that also
allows you to have a gamut from very good, from the paragons of
quality, to very bad, to the worst of the kitschy.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Michael Brady
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
