Subject: |  | Re: Essays In Criticism |
From: | | [log in to unmask][log in to unmask]
<BR>writes:
<BR>
<BR>
<BR><BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">Maybe it's kind of like the general election, in
which your vote has a value, but isn't likely [...]36_19Aug200120:39:[log in to unmask]
9022 75 21_Re: Definition of art9_Jon [log in to unmask], 20 Aug 2001 21:32:47 +0100599_- I said:
>> Let's say I walk down the street and shoot someone dead. By your
>> definition this is Art.
Michael replied:
> It would, by my definition, only be art if someone, who saw you
accomplish
> the shooting (hopefully of an Amy Lowell scholar), were in some way
changed
> by it on a fundamental level. Thus, the shooting of a Vietnamese soldier
on
> T.V. was art, and so was the act of Buddhist immolation. I can live
(forgive
> the poor taste of that word) with that as a definition. What we are
really
> [...]47_20Aug200121:32:[log in to unmask]
9098 13 21_Re: Definition of [log in to unmask], 20 Aug 2001 18:28:02 EDT523_- I probably shouldn't wander into this without brushing up on Aristotle, Aquinas, and a few dozen others. But hey, if I insisted on doing things like this right, I'd never get around to doing them at all. So I'll pitch in off the cuff.
Art is that which captures the intangible meaning(s) behind thing(s). Depiction becomes art only to the extent that it includes something of the intangible along with the depiction. Art can of course exist entirely without depiction, or with non-representational depiction. [...]32_20Aug200118:28:[log in to unmask] |
Date: | | Tue, 28 Aug 2001 16:44:05 EDT |
Content-Type: | | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
|
|
An observation by Eliot in the essay caught my eye:
"It is the function of a literary review to maintain the autnomy and disinterestedness of literature, and at the same time to exhibit the relations of literature -- not to 'life,' as something contrasted to literature, but to all the other activities, which, together with literature, are the components of life." (From The Function of a Literary Review (1923).
This stikes me as simple, brilliant and true. But a counterpoint comes to mind: is "literature" a part of life for those who do not read it? Which in turn raises a narrower question: does literature play any part in the life of illiterate people? More specifically (to carve out communities with a rich oral tradition), what role, if any, does literature play in the lives of illiterate persons in socities where the large majority of persons are literate?
Is anyone aware of works considering this subject? Any thoughts on the subject?
Tom K
|
|
|
|
|
