On Mon, 11 Sep 2000, Technotranscendence wrote:
>
> I submit anyone who agrees with that equivalence should then quit using the
> term, because if there's no way to tell art from non-art, then what good is
> labeling some stuff art? (Unless such labeling is merely to increase the
> asking price for such stuff.)
>
which begs the question, why would we want to label them anything
at all? people value some objects/designs and not others ... ideally
because of some quality of these objects/designs and not because they are
placed into some category. to emphasize such a category is to say that it
matters in some way. but really, if someone actually purchases some
object/design solely because they think it's "art," then they have too
much money anyway and i can't pretend to sympathize.
-x
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:37:41 MDT