>the collective art of an individual reflects
>the individual's condition, and the collective art of an organization,
>nation, or society, reflects the condition of that society.
The same holds true (perhaps even more so) of the individual's temperature,
pulse, drink of choice, favorite books, and so forth. The putative
definition of art also holds at least as true of an organization's
membership, balance sheet, foreign policy, and the like. All of these
attributes reflect their sources' conditions.
I do not dispute that art says *something*; I disputed that it says what the
artist thinks it does. Now, per Gregory's comments, I will also dispute that
it necessarily communicates "conditions" any better than a variety of
alternative measures. I like art--a lot. I do not, however, accord it
privileged status as a source of truth.
T.0. Morrow