Does it make sense to call a WoA fictitious if there's no agreement at all about any details of the fiction?
What's fictitious about a typical Kandinsky? It could be this -- it could be that -- the only thing about which everyone might agree is that it is itself. (just like the long pass) And what's fictitious about that? The qualities and feelings those works provoke would seem to have nothing to do with any specific fiction. Just as with the decorative surface patterns on many carpets and ceramics. ***************************************************************** The sine qua non of a WoA is its fictitiousness, not its aesthetic qualities. Those qualities and the feelings they provoke come from the fictitious work, they don't precede it or inform it. _____________________________________________________________ Click for free information and quotes for interest only loans. http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2211/fc/Ioyw6ijlfrI6wufEvutODdyGiFpFdu kPjlPEs1Yp1UBzSFqK6v3zAg/?count=1234567890
