Frances to listers... This subject has generated a lot of topics and threads if not reading books, but they are all at least of interest to me. Let me probe a little on what has been stated in posts so far.
Kate partly wrote in effect... Defining what might be meant by myth is probably an impossible task. Perhaps we could isolate some of the myths particularly pertinent to art and aesthetics, and consider them. Frances replies for effect... In the absence of a strict meaning for myth, and if the "myth of nationhood" is accepted as a viable myth, then that myth may indeed impact on the attitudes of persons or peoples toward the aesthetic objects and artistic works within their sphere of interest. My thought here turns to the possibility that things might be deemed nice merely due to the nation they exist in, to the detriment of the people and the nation; or that there might be a particular national style of art attributed to national groups; or that aesthetes and artists might misguided in being proud to be patriots. Kate partly wrote in effect... Holding the sign to bridge the gap between the myth and the real, wherein the poles of the myth and the real would be held as contradictions, seems of especial interest. Frances replies... Just because the poles of the myth and the real are potentially held to be contradictions does not necessarily mean that this state is bad or always bad, but that it is merely a logical identification or definition of the relation; in the same way that doubt is contradictory of truth. It is possible after all that it could be good for a person to doubt that a thing is true yet believe it, or believe a thing is false yet doubt it. Boris wrote in effect... For me myth is a form of art. What is the difference between art and reality, which we discuss all the time, and myth and reality. Both are using metaphors as their main vehicle. Frances replies... Seeking the differentia between art and nonart like reality, and between myth and reality as nonart, perhaps turns on the issue of defining just exactly what the term and idea of "reality" really means; and how narrow or broad the arena of "art" should be. To vacate art and myth and reality as nothing more than correlative synonyms for each other may be so broad as to make each of them meaningless. Furthermore, to assign myth as being mainly of a metaphor is to call it an icon, rather than a symbol, which would be a philosophic mistake, because myths are clearly arbitrary conventions under the logic of semiotics, in that anything can be conferred with the status of myth, regardless of any formal similarity. There is however a natural indexic factuality and contiguity about the causal origin and limit of myths, in that they are actually made only by human organisms, to the exclusion of all other life forms.
