----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 6:53 PM
Subject: Re: [h-cost] Historical Films
In a message dated 4/25/2006 5:24:49 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sometimes, the entertainment of previous days survives as entertainment
as
well as art, just because it's GOOD.
*****************
Why is it assumed that art is not entertaining? Weird.
Perhaps because everyone has heard of "this wonderful artistic film or book"
(insert film or book of your choice) that turns out to be an absolute
crashing bore, but receives rave reviews because it's "art". (It's late, I
am seriously caffeine deprive, please don't ask me tonight for specific
examples.) I know that Picasso is considered fine art. I still don't like
it. It simply doesn't appeal to me. The Harry Potter books are *not*
considered fine art, but they are entertaining. I happen to enjoy them
thoroughly. I haven't read the DaVinci code, or seen *any* of the films
we've been discussing here. Amusement parks bore me to tears, museums bring
me to tears of joy. To each his own, right?
Dianne
_______________________________________________
h-costume mailing list
h-costume@mail.indra.com
http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
_______________________________________________
h-costume mailing list
h-costume@mail.indra.com
http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
