In a message dated 7/9/08 10:57:48 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> "But...but...but" we stutter, "Derek, that's what we > need, a clue. What is the clue, please?" > Derek wanders off alone. Looking back, he yells, > "I'm sick of these personal attacks!". Cheerskep > moves closer and whispers, "IS?" > I think all you guys are fighting Derek on the wrong ground, and he is winning. Every one of you wields key terms with only the fuzziest notions, and then just condemn Derek from a righteous height. Sure, his notion of "equal footing" is also fuzzy, but why not try to find if there's anything about it you might agree with if you grappled with his arguments rather than his person? For example, you all refuse to find any merit whatever in his assertion that the aesthetic creations of societies formerly excluded by "western societies" from "aesthetic" consideration are now granted aesthetic merit in a way they were not in centuries past. I assert there is something interesting and defendible in his observation. As an approach to seeing the other guy's point try this: Suppose all "African art" were still excluded from museums and other indicators of esteem by aesthetic powers that be. Wouldn't it be somewhat reasonable to say that "African art" is NOT being given equal consideration? Don't make your first response a dismissal of his point because it doesn't address every single question you might summon up based on your notion of "equal footing". First concede there is something of an insight there. That none of you will grant Derek's observation an iota of acceptance puts me in the quite unaccustomed position of feeling Derek is being more reasonable -- less personally prejudiced -- than the rest of you. Can you honestly say African art was always treated in the west on "equal footing" with, say, European art? If any listers say they have no idea at all what Derek can possibly mean, I won't believe him. I anticipate that some listers will now say, well, yes, there's some truth to it, but it's trivial/obvious/unelaborated etc. However that at least will be a step in the right direction -- a concession that you agree with some element of what he's saying. And therefore a step in the direction of honesty, and not a determination to condemn everything he's saying solely because you find his stonewalling irrationality annoying in other arguments. It simply is not the case that very single thing he says is totally without worth, but I sense some of you closed-mindedly address him that way. ************** Get the scoop on last night's hottest shows and the live music scene in your area - Check out TourTracker.com! (http://www.tourtracker.com?NCID=aolmus00050000000112)
