The difference in the two sentences is quite vast: Man as in mankind in the first sentence and man as in reference to an individual on the second. The modifier good is also different for each sentence. Good in the first sentence suggests the goodness of mankind as well as the goodness of an image; the second good refers to the technical process of painting alone.
Is this a trick question? wc ----- Original Message ---- From: Michael Brady <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Thu, August 16, 2012 5:31:05 PM Subject: Re: Can art continue to exist without an aesthetic criteria? On Aug 16, 2012, at 5:56 PM, [email protected] wrote: > Did you ever wonder how some lucky sounds get to become "words", while > other sounds have to remain "sounds-second-class" until a bell rings? Nope. But I pose a counter-question. Do you perceive, acknowlege, observe, etc., any difference in these two utterances: That is a good painting of man. That painting of a man is good. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Michael Brady
