In a message dated 9/28/1999 1:11:16 PM Pacific Daylight Time, bdelaney@infinitefaculty.org writes:
<<
But wait. Is/are the other "channel[s]" necessarily bad? (And wouldn't arguing for their badness be misogynistic, "[s]" notwithstanding?) And does "baseness," or the directly pleasurable, entail badness -- or non-artistic?
A good point, raising more philosophic worries about Freud than thoughtful artspeak.
Hedonistic tendencies in artists have been world famous, but as someone else points out, not limited to artists. Calling people bad in the sense of moralizing, is the theologian's job anyway, not the artist's.
>>
If science is about giving us direct access to pleasure, might
the success of science mean the elimination of art? Who would
need art with virtual dopamine? (And if "No!", then: Who needs
science, with non-virtual art?) Quaeritur.
>>
Art is not for your pleasure. It is sometimes a cause of pleasure, but hold no illusions that it is created for your pleasure. Art has many functions, which is why I have not entered into the layman's debate over art's "Purpose."
It's like taking apart a squirrel to see how it works. When you put it back together it isn't functioning quite the same.
We can simplify art, or we could - and we do - pedestalize it. But the fruits it yields are intangible and rare.
Art is valuable as a tool. Most people do not understand how effective this tool is, or how it works, but they are nonetheless effected by it.