In a message dated 9/17/12 3:35:09 PM, [email protected] writes:
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 11:44 PM, joseph berg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 11:07 PM, joseph berg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Couldn't aesthetic stasis = an aesthetic that has stood the test of > >> time, i.e., a classic? > > > Again, Joseph, if you don't describe the notion behind the terms you use -- in this case, what you have in mind with 'aesthetic stasis' -- you're unlikely to foster a pertinent or useful discussion. William can seem cranky, but you have to admit that when he's given a clear and apt topic, he goes at it with energy, commitment, and, often, a valuably germane background. I think his message of why the renaissance seemed the opposite of static to him was very good. Whenever anyone is reduced to saying, "No, no -- that's not what I meant," chances are that person is the one at fault, and not his responder.
