----- Original Message ----- From: Steve Kurtz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sorry, Ray. Your response is all evaluations (value judgements) of > good/bad/, ugly/beautiful, worthy/unworthy, valuable/worthless. The > standards you use in evaluation may be vastly different than the > billion+ in China, the billion+ in the Indian subcontinent, the hundreds > of millions in Africa, S.America, and obviously the hundreds of millions > in N.America. Life is all about evaluations Steve and comparisons. I certainly do believe that people in other lands have different and just as valid observations, intellectual systems, systems of dialogue based upon differing language structures and see a different Universe than my own. That was my point about the relativity of styles in Art. The issue is consensus which is what you must get if you are to convince people to stop mucking up the place with their stories about their off spring. > Culture does matter, but each culture is responsible for its own > creations. Each can & does change over time. There are NO known > external, objective, universal absolutes ( please refute if you can) > other than death and the tendency of life forms to seek to thrive, > replicate, and expand niches. I wish it were so about each culture's responsibility. Unfortunately chavinism and provenciality is all too common amongst cultures that either 1. are proselytizers or 2. who are uncomfortable with the change brought by dialogue and outside information. Absolutes? The learning process. Percieve, Analyze, Dialogue and Reflect. Every culture has it in one way or another. We all also walk on two legs if we aren't damaged. Other than that, you have to learn and earn your stripes in every culture. I suspect the same is true for carrots as well. But I'm not one so who knows? You absolutes are too simple, we all have more incommon than that. Truths are absolute but time and space limited while facts are relative to the process of use. What do you want? I'm a practical man. > Meanwhile, we still agree on some things aesthetic.( I call it taste) > It's just that I don't care that much about historical standards or the > taste of others. Many great artists (all genres) were laughing stocks > during their lifetimes. So much for objective standards; they were > creating new works that were appreciated IN FUTURE! Rear view mirrors > don't help much in those cases. What you call historical standards I call language. I already answered the story about why serious art is often misunderstood. It is as simple as misunderstanding a Spaniard's passion as hostility. Or a NJ Indian as obsequious and devious (they see themselves as polite). Art is about telling the truth in the present and consciousness tends to run behind the present as does critical judgment. That makes it hard to tell unless you are willing to enter the world of the creation and try it out. Which most critics and audience are unwilling and unable to do due to the relative unsophistication of today's European American parental audiences. The kids are smarter than we realize, especially those hip-hop folks who have been playing with counterpoint, cross-cultural fusion and microtonality. But they aren't particularly literate and that is why they aren't very testable and they don't take critics seriously enough to talk to them. They get stage fright easily around the convinced adults. Go to bed Steve. Your buddy, Ray
