It looks like I got it completely wrong -- and it's believers like myself who dominate this list, with skeptics like Cheerskep and Mando serving as a very vocal minority.
But beyond that simple statement of belief (and William's extended exposition of it) I doubt that our beliefs have much else in common. Unlike Brady, I do not believe that "the crucial, the necessary and sufficient, property of an "artwork" is the truth-conditions to which it is subjected.". I don't care whether something has been offered to us as a documentation or not, unless I need it to be accurate about some detail (like the location of streets on a map) Unlike Francis, I do not believe that good art "must presuppose some semiotic value". I believe that good art exists as distinct, rare, almost miraculous phenomena that presupposes nothing that's capable of being understood. Unlike Boris, I do not believe that "the best of art is .... lifting the level of sophistication of human as biological and spiritual system.". Maybe that's true -- but I just haven't seen any evidence for it. Despite all the good art I think I've seen, my own biological system has been slowly, but relentlessly, deteriorating -- and only God knows what my spiritual system has been up to. Unlike William -- well, actually -- I can't find any of his beliefs on this thread which i would not share -- except for his ongoing belief that brain science will eventually say something non-trivial about good art. ____________________________________________________________ Click to learn about options trading and get the latest information. http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/BLSrjnxUZ1l8u7yGhy6ZWsGCaITybu dhzsxUvy5ykBhFvli3FlUAs0T0AIA/
