We feeble humans are always trying to generalize our own, necessarily narrow scope of personal experience, but does anyone here really think that William is completely atypical of his academic profession?
Note how his response to my assertion about the value of playing with fragments was nothing more than scorn and assertion of professorial authority. Apparently, he did not believe that any other explanation was required, and note how no one (except for myself) expressed any surprise at this -- because William's response is typical for his time and place (the American Univeristy art department) -- where, what Nelson Goodman calls the "time-honored Tingle-Immersion" theory is deemed worthy of scorn and off-hand dismissal - because - let's face it -- it does not appear to be intellectual, and does not need the kind of analytical study for which universities exist. Of course, the irony is that William is as virgin to serious analytical study as a typical Punk-Rocker, and he gets himself off the hook by promoting the grand cause of "meaninglessness". (he reads art theory like others read fan-zines -- just to get the latest buzz words) Which does, perhaps, make him atypical of his profession -- and allows him -- happily and atypically -- to be a good artist. ____________________________________________________________ Click now for prescreened plumbing contractors. http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/BLSrjnxcruPjDzSoYml8b4t9dkeAIZ u0S0CNpqI8GSUMhmsI1SzWEvvkT40/
