But I don't want substitutes! I want the words and the associated concepts (particularly vague in the case of 'aesthetic'!) avoided altogether. It is perfectly possible to discuss art - individual works and the general idea - without them. And it would make people *think* - instead of just relying on worn out cliches.
DA On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 2:32 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In a message dated 5/8/08 11:57:45 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > > there should be a ten year moratorium on the use of the word > 'aesthetic'. > > I now propose extending that to include 'beauty' (and its cognates, and > > 'ugly') . > > > I think you'll have even less luck than I will with 'real' and 'reality'. > I > tried to aid my case by offering substitute locutions that I believe can > be > used with no loss in conveying the notion one is entertaining, and with > the > benefit of reducing confusion. Any thoughts of comparably helpful > substitutes for > 'aesthetic(s)', 'beauty', and 'ugly'? They'd be much harder to replace, I > suspect. > > > > > > ************** > Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family > favorites at AOL Food. > > (http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?NCID=aolfod00030000000001) > > -- Derek Allan http://www.home.netspeed.com.au/derek.allan/default.htm
