>I regard sweeping claims about the nature of "Extropic art" with bemusement.
This seems to imply that I made such a claim. And yet the very core of my
argument was that, since interpretation is observer dependent, such
sweeping claims cannot be made except as statements of intent on the part
of Extropian artists.
> Would anyone speak so broadly about "Extropian writing"?
I'd say exactly the same things about it. In fact, my post was not intended
to be limited to Extropian images.
>Art, like its
>proper subset writing, has no particular purpose beyond expressing ideas. I
>doubt that anyone would seriously assert that Extropian writing must, for
>example, define Extropianism in the public eye, or challenge human limits.
No. Nor would or have I for Extropian Art. I didn't say it must. I said it
could and it does, for _some_ people.
> As our discussions on this list demonstrate, Extropian writings may merely
>aim to amuse, or explain a point clearly, or refer to a useful resource. So,
>too, I'd think, Extropian art.
Of course that may be its aim, but that can go wrong. One has only to think
how often comments on this list which are intended as jokes are taken
seriously and provoke furious debate: and that's from within an informed
audience.
Sarah
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Kathryn Marr
sarah.marr@dial.pipex.com http://dialspace.dial.pipex.com/sarah.marr/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------