Last week I was part of two different conversations - one concerning collaboration (a new buzz word for grant writers) - the other on habit (as a aspect of an artist's studio practice) in both cases there was an attempt by the participants to broaden the terms to be all inclusive -rather than any attempt to narrow the term to the specifics of the context in which they were being addressed. Likewise I find this tendency among students as well - in that they would prefer the most vague usage of a term - rather than gain clarity - perhaps this is due to the use of the internet and WWW where everything is in whole or part indiscriminately linked to everything else -
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 11:55 PM, armando baeza <[email protected]>wrote: > On Dec 11, 2013, at 1:59 PM, [email protected] wrote: > > > In a message dated 12/11/13 4:12:31 PM, [email protected] writes: > > > > > >> I have experience similar feelings in sport watching, and i many > >> other situations, even perhaps elections that hang on to the last count. > >> > > True enough, Mando. You're right to cite political events that often > unfold > > in such a way as to occasion a feeling that I'm inclined say involves at > > least some aspect of "aesthetic". > > > > Other real life events also come close enough to prompt "artists" to go > to > > work. Inevitably when an artist has at the material, they change the > facts . > > CHARIOTS OF FIRE won four Oscars (music, best movie, best screenplay, > best > > costume design). I enjoyed it immensely, but because I'm a track and > field > > buff, I was jarred by the amount of sheer invention in the story. Though > the > > philosopher C.J. Ducasse, a celebrated philosopher of aesthetics seventy > > five years ago, in effect rejected "realistic" "drama" as "art", saying > the > > feeling it occasions is not aesthetic but "vicarious". > > -- [image: Inline image 1] [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type image/png which had a name of image.png]
