The trouble I have with this view is its implied assumption that no two cultures share anything aesthetically material. There is always form and a peculiar sameness to the way humans make form despite the differing symbolic purposes of form. Since human beings share universal genetic traits and have a demonstrable genetic genealogy, it is extremely unlikely that they can compose societies, symbols, forms, etc., that are wholly distinct from one another. The most elemental common thread among humans is a preference for altering natural form. The best example of this is of course the prehistoric, paleolithic cave images. We can share their exlemplification of form even if we have no concrete ideas of their purposes or symbolism.
WC --- Saul Ostrow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Actually all derek seems to be concerned with - is > comparative aesthetics - > what makes the art of the Japanese aesthetically > different from that of > Indonesia - in this there are no implied standards - > just a need to entrench > oneself in other cultures - if that is possible to > do without becoming an > anthropologist or succumbing to the ideological > (taxonomic) prejudices of > one own culture - in that one would have to learn to > appreciate the culture > of the other as they do, not as one imagines that do > - the latter being a > highly romantic notion
