In a message dated 4/3/09 11:28:44 AM, [email protected] writes:
> Mr Asthetik asks: >Could you explain, Mr Miller, why artworks _should_ be > immediately intelligible? > > > Ideas of 'work' and of 'beauty' are indeed theoretical contrivances -- but > beautiful things can be made and enjoyably experienced without them. (just > as birds can fly without a knowledge of aerodynamics). > > My own ideas of 'work' and 'beauty' are rather vaporous as theories go, > since > nothing is theoretically excluded. > I think the question was directed at your use of the word "should",with its overtones of assumption and requirement,indicating a world of duties carefully performed as they "should" be done, of talents used as others would have them used, on and on, without end. What are the assumptions behind your "should"? Artworks "should" be immediately intelligible,understood,there should not be any difficulty discerning their meaning,the maker of the artwork should not put meanings in it which are unexpected,or which need time to unfold. I waited to see if you had any reason for using "should",but as you said, your theories of "work" and "beauty" are vaporous. Incidently I think the word "artwork" is a horrible word. KAte Sullivan ************** Feeling the pinch at the grocery store? Make dinner for $10 or less. (http://food.aol.com/frugal-feasts?ncid=emlcntusfood00000001)
