In my last posting I said this, and, upon reflection, I think it's a blunder:
> The twentieth century expansion of the use of the term "the art of" has > often seemed to me to be blurring together efforts that should be kept > separate. > What I had in mind was a condemnation of using 'art' in such expressions as "The art of negotiation/war/selling/making friends," etc. The question arises: How come I don't rebel against the loose use of "art" when it's applied to such diverse entities as certain poetry, dance, sculpture, "visual art", drama, etc? For me, the explanation is that each of those genres affords me an experience, a special feeling, that I call an "aesthetic experience". What justification do I have for calling all such diverse ecstasies "aesthetic experiences"? This forum has evaded examining "the nature of" aesthetic experiences. Saul: Do you see this wide-range scope-of-use of "art" to be an instance of 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"? If not, why not?
