No specific spiritual purpose? Wouldn't a specific spiritual purpose what Kant did not want? And a hazy blurry spiritual purpose also be what he did not want? How would he define spiritual purpose if he used any variant of that concept? Kate Sullivan
-----Original Message----- From: Boris Shoshensky <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Fri, Dec 24, 2010 1:26 am Subject: Re: "Is today's [art?] irrelevant?" It sounds like masturbatory process. Is enabling people to create contexts not enough for purpose? I read Kant differently. He meant absence of utilitarian purpose of applied art in fine art, but spiritual. Boris Shoshensky To: [email protected] Subject: Re: "Is today's [art?] irrelevant?" Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 14:55:00 -0800 (PST) Not at all. We give purpose to our lives. Art inspires purpose but doesn't have it. Art attracts meaning but doesn't have it. The less it has, intrinsically, the better. Since it has no purpose or relevance in itself, it enables people to create contexts. wc ----- Original Message ---- From: Boris Shoshensky <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Thu, December 23, 2010 10:51:26 AM Subject: Re: "Is today's [art?] irrelevant?" It is sad to know that our careers have no purpose or value. Waisted professional lives?! Boris Shoshensky To: [email protected] Subject: Re: "Is today's [art?] irrelevant?" Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 21:07:54 -0800 (PST) If it's art it's irrelevant. Art, as the aesthetic, has no purpose and value. WC ----- Original Message ---- From: joseph berg <[email protected]> To: aesthetics-l <[email protected]> Sent: Wed, December 22, 2010 7:25:01 PM Subject: "Is today's [art?] irrelevant?" Has art become like fiction" a poor relation of its ground-breaking modernist forebears?: http://www.csmonitor.com/Books/chapter-and-verse/2010/0730/Is-today-s-fiction -irrelevant
