Come on Arlo, let's be jolly good pragmatists here! You're not saying that Patrck Doorly should have strictly referred to "painter", "sculptor", "photographer", "dancer", "musician" etc,. individually throughout his book when discussing the fine arts? He's nearly retired and can only type with his left big toe now! Oxford got rid of their typing boys many years ago now (2008, I believe!) Isn't it all about the context which terminology you think fit to use???
You're a hard man to please sometimes. ;-) Best wishes, Ant P.S. You're probably right anyway... http://robertpirsig.org/Doorly.htm ---------------------------------------- [Ant said May 15th 2014] Finally, regarding the recent notion of "Artists" (invented by Kant & friends) is that Patrick replaces the latter term with the more accurate (and always in lower case!) term "fine artists". [Arlo replied harshly] I can see this, but I prefer simply "painter", "sculptor", "photographer", "dancer", "musician", etc. Umbrella categories are fine and all, but to me it makes more sense to describe the activity directly whenever possible. [Ant] I think [Patrick's book] is work of art in itself! [Arlo] It very much is. . 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/md/archives.html
