As you people work out the search functions, none of which I had heard of before and didn't realize existed, I am wondering what past advice of mine Miller is looking for. I'm full of good advice, naturally, even when it isn't respectable. For instance, I am toying with the idea that the role of art and aesthetics in our democratic culture is doomed to mediocracy and vulgarity. Art and the ideas of beauty really belong to an aristocratic, if not despotic, culture. The leveling forces of democracy drag down standards of excellence, rarity, intellectual refinement to conform to the broad and mostly utilitarian, pragmatic, and sensationalized tastes of a commercial, expedient, sentimental mob. Even the great Rousseau said that art only flourished after the tilt of a culture into decline, decadence, luxury and self-absorption.
Only the throughly rich can indulge the arts freely and demand the highest quality. A democratic people want the common good and its patriotic symbols, not the gated privileges of class and wealth. How can there be an art criticism, vested with an aesthetic position, that does not recognize the simple fact that art is for the few, the monied, the aristocratic, the despotic? It's a fantastic paradox to have art in a democratic society that is not mere propaganda for mythic virtues, but symbolizes the very values abhorred by democracy. Yet we do have art. It's most outstanding feature may be an enormous sense of self-doubt -- the doubt that anything can be art -- while also exemplifying values that can only flourish in a greatly unequal, and possibly decadent, society. In other words, people like me make art for people who are against the values of democracy. We give them beauty with guilt and apologies to the common man. Our art tears itself apart in trying to reconcile this Faulknerian paradox. So far the reconciliation has been attempted through irony but irony is a little thing, smirking wit, and is absent from the great art of history. wc ----- Original Message ---- From: Chris Miller <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Fri, February 26, 2010 7:53:49 AM Subject: REFINE SEARCH FUNCTIONALITY The search function works fine if you can provide it with a rarely used string (like "philosphies of arts"). But sometimes, when looking for a specific post in the archives, all you can remember is a range of dates, the name of the poster, and a commonly used word found in the subject line. (for example: I was trying to find the post where William was offering me advice on writing art criticism) That's when you need some kind of refined search functionality. Today, when you click on the "Refine Search" button, you get sent sent to an FAQ page that tells you: "searches can be limited to a particular email field such as from, date, subject or message" Which is exactly what is needed!!!! (and what we used to have) Unfortunately, that FAQ page is for list adminisistrators, not the list users --- so it suggests how an administrator might write the code for a "Refine Search" page for any of the listservs in the "Mail Archive" network. Can Kate be persuaded to write the code for such a page? Our archive also needs a link to an information page that gives the purpose of our list and tells subscribers how to un-subscribe. (one poor fellow just contacted me asking how he could un-subscribe) And while contemplating such improvements --- we might also try to make our list more visible on Google where a search for "aesthetics listserv" ought to point to our home page. ____________________________________________________________ Small Business Tools Reduce your business expense. Click here to find products for your small business. http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/c?cp=u1EeV-U9qILZhE-AhNrOLAAAJz6c l_zTaptgNR5c8Mer1v9kAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARMQAAAAA=
