See my "Response to David C. Adams on Rand's View of Romanticism" at http://mars.superlink.net/neptune/
Anyhow, this might not seem germane to any current topics, though it does relate to art and esthetics. Not having read Natasha's book (yet!:), I can't say what exactly the mainstream Extropian or transhumanist position on art is. Nor does this mean there should be. I mean, not everything has to be taken up into our professed beliefs...
But I really don't believe that about art. After all, art is typically an expression of one's deepest beliefs -- the artist's as well as her audience's, though each might get different things from the same work.
I do fear, as I've mentioned on this list before, that conscious attempts to create art movements usually backfire. The Objectivist movement's art is a case in point. Most Objectivist artists are not more than mere propagandists and ideologues. Personally, I think this is because art for the artist (and her audience) has to a voyage of discovery -- not just translating her conscious convictions into some medium. In other words, the work should be something from which the artist gets something more than she already knew before. Else, what's the point?
Cheers!
Daniel Ust
http://mars.superlink.net/neptune/