>Also, some of Sarah's questions are answered, briefly yet cogently, in the
>Transhumanist and Extropic Art FAQ which can be read at my URL. Here I have
>stated by degrees how art can be considered extropic by the creative author
>as well as the audience.
I didn't raise any specific questions in my post: were you thinking of any
which arise implicitly or by extrapolation?
Also, although the FAQs are very well-written and informative in describing
Transhumanist and Extropian Art, they don't address themselves to the
specific issue raised by my posts. They could be used to allow a
consideration of some of my general points in the more specific area of
these forms of art, but they don't directly confirm or deny my statements.
<snip - description of Extropic art: forms, intentions, rationale...>
>Now, with the above information as the starting point for creative work,
>there is a continuous balance, just as there is in life and with every
>decision that we make, whether *art* or not.
My point being that observers may not have any of that information, and are
therefore free to create their own interpretations which may be entirely at
odds with that of the artist. This is no big news, nor a criticism of art,
nor a call for censorship: merely, an observation yet to be refuted.
Sarah
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Kathryn Marr
sarah.marr@dial.pipex.com http://dialspace.dial.pipex.com/sarah.marr/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------