Re: Extropic art: symbolism, interpretation & association

Sarah Marr (
Sun, 16 Mar 1997 12:46:38 +0000

At 12:51 15/03/97 -0700, Natasha More wrote:
>At 10:41 AM 3/15/97 +0000, Sarah Marr wrote:
>>Kathryn Aegis wrote:
>>>Sarah Marr:
>>>>Art is a discourse, and the creators of Extropic Art act as a voice for
>There are many extropian voices:

Indeed there are. But (again) my point is that not all observers of
Extropian Art will have heard these voices.

>>>>indeed, they may define Extropianism.
>>>I disagree. I have never heard of a philosophy, a movement, or a
>>>religion that has been defined by its artists or by their artwork.
>Extropic Artists act as a voice for their own individual extropic
>creativity. (Extropy has been defined by Max More.)

OK, again. _I_ know Max has defined Extropy, _you_ know Max has defined
Extropy, _everyone on this list_ knows Max has defined Extropy. Potential
observers of Extropic art do not know that. Why should they?

>>If I created art-work
>>showing graphic and cruel vivisection, called myself an Extropian artist
>>and displayed all over Britain
>You would not be an Extropic Artist unless the work was produced to provoke
>an extropic view of such vivisection.

_I_ know that: the observer may not.

>There are many people who make false claims about who they are, from art to
>politics to science.

Perhaps my example was bad as it suggested a deliberate attempt to subvert
Extropianism from a position of knowing its actual tenets.

>>A piece of artwork cannot challenge generic 'assumptions'. It can only
>>challenge the particular assumptions of its audience. Very few people have
>>any assumptions at all about Extropianism,
>This is not accurate.

What isn't? If you mean the very few people, I think it is, regrettably,
and through no fault of anybody. Simply try expressing the number of people
who are aware of Extropianism as a percentage of 5 billion. Then do the
same with Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Michael Jackson, etc.

>>so artwork has the ability to
>>create, rather than challenge, any assumptions about Extropy.
>According to the defection of Extropic Art, the art is extropic. Basic.

I think this agrees with what I'm saying, but I don't really understand the
point you're making here.

>>example: if I paint a series of pictures showing Max wearing flowing robes,
>>in front of a cross,
>I don't think Max would buy it -:)
>>may not see the imagery, but that's my point exactly.)
>And, thus, a reason for words.
>This point is interesting, but doesn't hold because extropianism is not a
>stand-alone. One venue does not have a monopoly on extropian ideas. Nor
>will it. Simultaneously, books are written about extropy, articles about
>extropy and extropians appear in widely read magazines and newspapers, BBC
>and PBS films appear on TV with extropians, films with extropians, poems
>about extropy, plays, conferences, technologies, ways of thinking, and so

I agree with you entirely, and my entire argument is based on the viewing
of Extropian Art by people who have no other source (or few sources) of
information. That's why I'm suprised my original post has provoked such a
large response: it didn't seem such a controversial thing to say.


Sarah Kathryn Marr