In a message dated 9/26/09 12:48:55 PM, [email protected] writes: > On the tepid recommendation of Cheerskep, I've ordered a copy of > "Philosophies of Arts: An Essay in Differences", and hope to begin discussing it > next week or so. > > I realize that Cheerskep wasn't all that impressed with it -- but then, > what is he impressed with? (other than Shakespeare)" > Ah, Mr. Miller, you would provoke me. It's true that in philosophy there's damn little that impresses me, but there are SOME things. I recommended Kivy because I took his aim to be an examination of the DIFFERENCES between the wildly varied things that are called "art".
Unfortunately, right up front Kivy asserts he'll examine the things that ARE "art". It's my snooty position that it requires an inadequate philosophical mind to adopt that primitive ontology. So, sulking, I abandoned the book very early on. But in fact I did it with some regret because I never did get to the reason I picked the Kivy up in the first place: examining the differences in what we call "art". (In truth I was dragged away to more pressing matters at home and at this computer. I'm still up to here in those assignments, so I've had to endure withdrawal symtoms as I see discussions going on but can't even open the postings. I'm here for this one only because I saw Chris's 'Kivy' subject title and I decided to indulge myself. I'll be interested to see if anything comes of a Kivy reading -- which I'll see "live" or later on the archive.
