> >Definitions DO NOT LIMIT things.
>
> Should I take this as a self-contradicting definition of "definition", or as
> merely an unintentional an inadequate definition of rhetorical devices?! ;-)
Out of context, the above statement, made by myself, is certainly
contradictory and inadequate. In context I do not believe that was the
case. Agreed, it was not articulated well, but I was pointing out that
when we define something, making ourselves aware of that things limits,
we can then question those limits. In that sense, "Definitions DO NOT
LIMIT things", yet make it possible to transcend the current limits of
things. The refusal to define things more often limits things, because
we are refusing to become consciously aware of the existing limits, and
thus we are unable to question those limits.
I was trying to point out, that even though a person may not consciously
articulate their definition of art, they still have a subconscious
definition of art. The definition exists. It is only a matter of wether
that person wishes to articulate and question it or not. A person
recognizes art by their definition of art, and if a person claims to
have no definition for art, yet is still capable of recognizing art,
then that person is simply unaware of their subconscious definition ...
for art.
With that I'm done with the "definition" thread. I think it is now
fairly agreed that definitions of art have value.
My apologies for making your head spin Tom, though vertigo is one of my
particularly favorite sensations.
Explore and play!
-- Gregory Houston Triberian Institute of Emotive Education vertigo@triberian.com http://www.triberian.com 816.561.1524