Do I disagree with the statement that "if there is a truth [in Art] it is entirely subjective"?
Depends, as our President would say. Depends on how you define "subjective" (and "objective"), and on what "entirely" means. Depends on whether you are experiencing the Art in question as a creator, as an isolated contemplator, or as a group participant. Depends on etc. & etc.
I unfortunately do not have the time right now to give your post either the attention or the response it merits (I still have guests here). And when I do have time to respond, I think it would probably be best to do so via PM; much as I enjoy wrangling over words, I suspect it bores most of the other threadsters here. <g>
I do want to dispel one misconception publicly, however, and that is that I consider Chuzz's refusal to adopt my approach " evidence that he is less a lover and admirer and appreciator, even worshipper, of art than are you."
Quite the contrary! I would not have started "picking on" Chuzz in the first place, if I had not believed that he was at least as much, if not more than "a lover and admirer, and appreciator, even worshipper of Art" than I. But I felt he was, so to speak, doing himself violence by denying full validity to his own God! And doing so because his God could not be proved to exist "objectively"! I wanted to tell him, hey, it's okay to worship! <g>
Go back to the Great Books discussion, if you want to see where my own misconception (if it is such) originated...
Joan |
