Derek always talks down to the list. He is speaking to a group of quite well-informed people here yet he has the habit of referring to some vague group of "people" who are all but thoughtless parrots of art cliches, as indicated below. I wonder why?
WC --- Derek Allan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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
