First, there aren't a lot of active listers on aesthetics-l. Second, most people are like Lane, especially when they don't really know each other except in the abstraction of email. Various studies show that people tend to be more empathic and sympathetic to those who they actually have met or know personally (ask any salesperson). Third, your looking around for simple ways to characterize the listers reveals that you are a chief exemplar of the "Lane" syndrome because you want to advertise your superior, judgmental position vis-a-vis the listers and masking that as a question is a precise imitation of Lane posing for others.
Also, re your posting on public sculpture, I mean the quoting of the article, it's deeply annoying to have tabloid bluster fronted here as serious criticism. The audience for that silly article is not the this list but folks who are Luddites and need their daily doses of pandering affirmation. There are good reasons to examine and critique public sculpture and these would include the sources of funding, the selection process, the mixing of aesthetics with corporate message, and other concerns that go beyond the nature of the artwork itself in particular cases. On other words, this is a very worthy subject that entices serious inquiry. But to approach it on the ridiculous level that you propose is a waste of time and an insult to both art and its publics. WC ----- Original Message ---- From: joseph berg <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Mon, April 12, 2010 7:15:32 PM Subject: "Lane seems to represent those who analyze books and tear them apart so much that anything beautiful in them is destroyed." Aren't a lot of people at aesthetic-l like Lane?: (After clicking on link below, scroll down page and click on "Answer for Study Question 2") http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/franny/study.html#explanation2
