On Jun 3, 2012, at 12:43 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> "I think anything done super-well is art. And it could be a great meal, or
> it could be a great meeting."
>
> I don't mean I disagree with his judgment about the kinds of things that
> can "BE" "art". I disagree with the mind that apparently sees no
difference
> between merely CALLING something "art", and asserting a chimerical ontic
> existence-status.
I don't draw the line at onticity, but I do draw it at evaluation. I believe
things are called or categorized based on essential properties (as they ar
perceived), not on degree of refinement, perfection, or such, i.e., not on the
accidental judgment of viewers.
Moreover, it would seem that he applies his term without regard to any kind of
generic or specific distinctions,
AND, his standard is a tad colloquial ("done super-well").
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Michael Brady
