On May 9, 2008, at 3:52 AM, Derek Allan wrote:
Can't believe anyone thought it was literature. Except in the sense
of words
on a page. I didn't read it either but I know it wasn't literature.
It's amusing and enlightening to see how others misinterpreted my
quip. When Kate asked whether it was possible for art to be a way of
archiving and I asked whether she had seen the movie, The DaVinci
Code--or book, I was referring to the story's underlying thesis that
DaVinci encoded information in his paintings, not that the story
itself was an archive.
Which demonstrates Cheerskep's point about correctly replicating my
notion in your noggin.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Michael Brady
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
