On 19 Apr, 2007, at 6:46 PM, Doug Henwood wrote:
On Apr 19, 2007, at 5:55 PM, ravi wrote:
I get your point, but to continue playing devil's advocate: well, if
aesthetic factors are considered in the critique of objects (and
lifestyles?), isn't there a bit of elitism in that?
Yeah. I see your point. Only the upper classes care about beauty. The
poor are at home in ugliness.
Ouch!
Good try, my friend, but that's not my point at all! You are begging
the question of "beauty". You and I (upper class) have an idea of
beauty, which without blind generalisation, cannot be hoisted on top of
others and then used to make the claim above. Lacking an attendant
theory of aesthetics, expressions of taste are personal opinion, yes?
So you find something ugly. Someone else finds something else ugly. To
think that what I find ugly is objectively ugly is a form of 'elitism'
isn't it?
I seem to have rubbed you the right way ;-). I promise more: coming up,
my thoughts on your interview with Ian Bone [sp?] (any puns involving
"bone-headed" that might afford a catchy title are welcome at my email
address!).
--ravi
P.S: Am I drifting way off-topic? Please express your concern on or
off-list. I can also be bought off with beer or whiskey.
