On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 10:26 AM, Arlo Bensinger <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > [John] > Art also, is not always beauty and likewise beauty is not always art. > > [Arlo] > Again, this statement kinda stings of this same separation. How can "art" > not be "beauty" from a ZMM gaze? A gargoyle is meant to be ugly. If the artist attempts to make something ugly which turns out beautiful, then he's a failure. How can something "beautiful" not be "art" from within the ZMM view? When a rose blooms, it displays beauty, but it is only "art" in the eyes of a creationist. John the art critic > It seems to me the only sustainable way to make that case is to retreat > back to the separation of "romantic" from "classic", of "surface appeal" > from "underlying form". And why do this? Isn't the view from ZMM so much > better? > > > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ > Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
