If art is "truth setting itself to work" (as Heidegger tells us), then the many times that one culture has appropriated the sacred text of another would qualify as an examples of civilizations "that take the religious artifacts and practices of others and turn them into art".
So would the Buddhist devotional figures that traveled from India to China to Korea to Japan -- and sacred Hindu temple songs that were adopted by Arab/Persian musicians serving the Mughal court. And so, I speculate, would William Conger's collection of Native American artifacts. Does that collection merely reflect his "egocentric desire to believe itself to be universal" ? Why don't we ask him? ____________________________________________________________ Online Stock Trading - Straightforward pricing. Powerful tools. Click here! http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/BLSrjnxQzTnsgqTRIhU20YWuJyAkXy Hf5G6jPhmCqoaTzmte4tXdYdoN4ly/
