Quality that makes some art to be valued (spiritually) for centuries makes it real art. Anti-entropic beauty makes it real art. I don't rely on any authority. I don't accept this notion in matters of thinking and logic. Only in science. If you don't know real art, as you say, why are you in the business to create one?
Boris Shoshensky To: [email protected] Subject: Re: "More good things in life are lost by indifferencethan ever were lost by active hostility." (Robert Gordon Menzies) Date: Sat, 15 May 2010 08:13:48 -0700 (PDT) The main trouble I have with your comments is that they are polemical. Nothing backs them up except an appeal to your own authority. Real art? Cocktail conversation. I reply that there's no such thing as real art. Art is always maybe art, maybe not art. A way of questioning. wc ----- Original Message ---- From: Boris Shoshensky <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] Sent: Sat, May 15, 2010 9:30:22 AM Subject: Re: "More good things in life are lost by indifference than ever were lost by active hostility." (Robert Gordon Menzies) Actually it is one of the dialectic laws - transition of quantity into quality, but I have doubts that more people do or care about real art nowadays. Boris Shoshensky ---------- Original Message ---------- From: [email protected] To: [email protected], [email protected] Subject: Re: "More good things in life are lost by indifference than ever were lost by active hostility." (Robert Gordon Menzies) Date: Fri, 14 May 2010 07:45:53 EDT In a message dated 5/14/10 1:33:49 AM, [email protected] writes: > NO, because there are more individual artist doing art, > which improves the odds of "good"work, > > > It doesn't improve the quality of anything else when millions start doing it too. Kate Sullivan
