Cheerskep drives home his point again.....like those circus people who pound nails up their noses. It's an illusion. If he were to become dictator he's insist on solipsism as a constitutional ammendment. We always pretend to objectify our thoughts. We can't do otherwise. We can't. We just pretend that we can. We pretend everything through our consciousness. That's what brains do. We can't get past that. So we go on make-believing everything. The argument he makes is clinical and thoroughly moot. It makes no difference to anything we say or do. We pretend that there's art and we pretend that there's illustration. We catagorize in order to pretend an order to our consciousness. We can't think in any other way...unless we want to wallow in separate self-delusional narcissism and solipsism. And that's madness.
WC --- On Thu, 9/11/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: "What IS xxx?" "IS xxx a yyy?" > To: [email protected] > Date: Thursday, September 11, 2008, 9:14 AM > Chris, encourage us -- tell us you don't miss > Sendak's point. It's not the > 'mere' that pains him -- it's the > 'illustrator', the fact that he considers > himself not an 'artist'. Sendak deludedly > believes there "exist" two > distinct > "real", ontic categories of visual creators -- > artists and illusrators -- and > he > himself classifies illustrators as "mere". > > But I'll accept there's little chance that > you'll get MY point. > > ***** > The question "What is xxx?" is a necessary > platform for loads of eloquent > theorists -- all of whom are deluded by the assumption that > external-to-the-mind > "categories" exist, and that every object either > IS or ISN'T a member of a > given alleged category no matter what any mind thinks. > Expressed in Platonic > terms, this error assumes that each object either has or > has not (or > "participates in") the required categorizing > "quality" -- of "artness", > "conceptual > artness", "abstract artness", etc. > > Many listers pay lip-service to this argument -- > "Well, of course, everyone > knows that, that's a dead horse" etc -- and in the > next breath use the word > 'art' in a way that betrays that they DO believe > each object either IS or > ISN'T > "art", and either HAS or HAS NOT a never-defined > (chimerical) quality/essence, > "artness". > > (This delusion is prototypically exhibited in a story this > week about Maurice > Sendak, in which he took seriously the muddled question, > "Is XXX an artist or > merely an illustrator?") > > > > I don't see any fuzzy thinking from Sendak here -- > because there's two > > verifiable facts here: > > > > 1. He often gets called "a mere illustrator" > (and I just called him one > > myself) > > > > 2. "a mere ANYTHING" is a derogatory term - > regardless of what it means to > > those who use it. > > > > You wouldn't want to be called a mere story > teller, or mere retired > > publisher, > > or mere nominalist -- would you ? > > > > > > ***************** > > "It is not that Mr. Sendak is angry that people > question Rockwell's talent; > > rather, he fears that he has not risen above the > 'mere illustrator' label > > himself." Despite the ambiguous phrasing, his > regret is about what he feels > > he > > "IS", rather than being simply tagged with a > vacuous label. He believes he > > belongs > > to the category of "mere illustrators". > Again we see the perniciousness of > > the not-thought-through, deluded belief in actual > "real", "ontic" > > categories. > > > > > ************** > Psssst...Have you heard the news? There's a new fashion > blog, > plus the latest fall trends and hair styles at > StyleList.com. > > (http://www.stylelist.com/trends?ncid=aolsty00050000000014)
