In a message dated 4/24/2006 7:43:11 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But I also don't think cultural survival is purely a Darwinian matter of "survival of the fittest." ******************** Depends on that constitutes "fittest" ....but I get your point. Things beloved today will fade into obscurity and stuff the critics panned will be seen as genius....in some cases. But popularity has nothing to do with "art", and the things that do survive do so because they are exceptional in some way....even when they were 1st done....and even as they pass through that period where they are considered "old fashion". For instance, Handel operas were STILL amazing even when they were thought, as they were for centuries, unperformable. Even then selected arias and instrumentals were in the rep. Or for instance...my mother used to think of Maxfield Parish as advertising art....which, y'know, it was....but it sure was a cut above. So things that survive have a certain standing, even in their own day. We've discussed this before. Beauty is indeed in the eye of the beholder, but there are some criteria for "art". _______________________________________________ h-costume mailing list [email protected] http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
