Cheerskep wrote:

> This, of course, will not carry much weight within a sophisticated but
varied forum. WAITING FOR GODOT does not give me an a.e.. But I believe it
does give an a.e. to some people whom I otherwise respect.

"Was it a good O for you?"
"Alas, no. I'm still waiting for a good O."

BTW, why "otherwise"?

> Let's momentarily assume my friend and I arrive at a mutual agreement of
sorts about what constitues an "a.e." -- the way we might about what is an
orgasm, or the special transported delight occasioned by hearing certain
Mozart or Beethoven.

You're kidding, right? You and a friend discuss what constitutes an orgasm?
You are really really REALLY overanalyzing things!

> Given that agreement, it would be silly for my friend to tell me that I am
wrong, I DO get an a.e. from GODOT, or for me to tell him he does NOT get an
a.e. from GODOT.

I take it that you do not like Waiting for Godot, or at least you do not have
a high opinion of it. Does that lack of a high opinion mean a lack of an AE?
Are AEs always high and moving, transported delights, and flights of euphoric
reach? What is the nature of your reaction to a play of stupefying mediocrity,
of mechanical clumsiness, of wretched dialogue and staging? Is that not an AE,
too?

> Given all this, the best we can ever hope for in a search to justify the use
of the word 'art' (as an activity, or collection, etc) would be to allow the
usage of a new term, "me-art". An analogy would be a "me-meaning" -- as when
people might say, "Let me tell you what 'the good life' means to me." "You may
think me peculiar, but, for me, there are many moments in the movie EVITA that
I'd call art -- well, okay, art for me, any way. Definitely me-art."

I disagree with this. It sounds like you are making "art" synonymous with
"aesthetic experience," which then makes any discussion of the AE of a WoA a
tautology or a circular argument: If the work does not produce an AE, it is
not a WoA; if the work has no A, then it will not produce an AE.



| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Michael Brady

Reply via email to