If Shaw cites rareness as the chief feature of art, I cite commonness as the chief feature of art. No one can prove it one way or the other. But one thing is certain. The ultimate rareness would be incommunicable and therefore unrecognized for to communicate is to make common and recognize.
Shaw's theory is an appeal to sentiment. Like a Hallmark card. WC --- On Thu, 12/18/08, armando baeza <[email protected]> wrote: > From: armando baeza <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Reading Shaw : Chapter 2 > To: [email protected] > Cc: "armando baeza" <[email protected]> > Date: Thursday, December 18, 2008, 5:13 PM > I would guess that he meant both. uniqueness is not easy. > mando > On Dec 18, 2008, at 2:26 PM, [email protected] wrote: > > > In a message dated 12/18/08 4:59:34 PM, > [email protected] > > writes: > > > > > >> Theodore Shaw tried to avoid this issue by > presenting "rareness" > >> as the > >> ultimate purpose of creativity in all the arts-- > but if we wish to > >> distinguish rareness from rarity, we will be > disappointed with his > >> effort. > >> > > In fact Shaw said it DEFINED art. > > > > Notice the apparent ambiguity of "rareness" > above. Is it intended as a > > "quality/property" of the WORK, or, as Shaw > sometimes seems to > > intend, is he using > > the word as the name of the sui generis FEELING he > claims is > > occasioned in > > contemplators of the work? > > > > In any case, Chris, are you going to display > Shaw's effort, or do > > we just let > > Shaw slip quietly into our past? > > > > > > > > ************** > > One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL > Mail, > > Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now. > (http://www.aol.com/?optin=new- > > dp& > > icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000025)
