Good and bad are relative concepts, being the poles of an axis of value.
That axis might be personal or public but it is always contingent. It does
not exist as an absolute geometry but is variable, depending on context.
That context is prescribed by other values of equal contingency.
Art is a
Sean,
reading your comments is always so interesting.
You write: Reversing their polarities, what if connectivity comes first
and the elements it connects are secondary? Isn't that what the aesthetic
experience infers?
You have always been very sensitive to the ethics and politics of relating.
gh comments below:
On Jan 4, 2010, at 9:01 AM, John Haber wrote:
Want a moral or two to make sense of this? One is that in the past it
was plausible to set a strategy to avoid complicity. You could set
yourself apart from commerce, or you could embrace it as a storyline
My collaborative
Simon,
I agree with your post, wholeheartedly. But would add an extra
emphasis to your statement and suggest that it might be a bad idea
to deny the contingency of relative axes of value. Sometimes, there
is a tendency to push art into purely aesthetic or purely moral scales
of relation, and I
One thing about Johanna's example, since it bears on complicit. If you
make people lose, it doesn't enrage them; it just makes the beg to buy
in more. You have to make them win.
John
___
empyre forum
empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
