That sounds like a rule for content and social propriety. What's cute? I've seen hundreds and hundreds of kitschy, cute crucifixes (my opinion), some of them offered for sale by nuns when I attended Catholic Grammar School. Bad taste in itself has nothing to do with the material facts of reality, which are of course meaningless. wc
----- Original Message ---- From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: [email protected]; [email protected] Sent: Mon, May 3, 2010 8:20:53 PM Subject: Re: "You must learn to choose the truth before aesthetic preferences". (Auden) In a message dated 5/3/10 7:05:37 PM, [email protected] writes: > Does that mean that a work of art should never distort or obscure > reality? > No. It means that the thing itself has within it its own aesthetic and that you shouldn't cram your own taste onto it without considering what the thing is. The practioner of "cute" shouldn't make a Cruxifiction because "cute" doesn't provide adequate resources for such a portrayal. KAte Sullivan
