From: |  | [log in to unmask][log in to unmask]
8701 84 21_Re: Definition of [log in to unmask], 19 Aug 2001 13:08:59 EDT522_- 8/19/01
Pat,
I found your latest post helpful and you brought up important points that
I'd like to further comment on.
Towards the end of the post you make a statement that I basically agree
with:
> I personally think anyone who wants to know
> what art is ought to make an effort to look at
> a lot of art. Those people who do this turn to
> different and more specific kinds of questions,
> like "how do Japanese vases differ from Korean vases?" [...]37_19Aug200113:08:[log in to unmask]
8786 59 21_Re: Definition of art11_Steve [log in to unmask], 19 Aug 2001 17:41:10 +0000651_- ----Original Message Follows----
From: [log in to unmask]
Reply-To: [log in to unmask]
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Definition of art
Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 03:02:55 EDT
cyrus1949,
I think when you've had a chance to see more of art and the art world,
you'll recognize some of the fuzzy points in your definition. You might be
over-estimating, for example, your own importance in the scheme. I mean by
this that we could ask a painter whether he'd rather be "acclaimed" by you
or by the chief curator of the Museum of Modern Art. I think most painters
would pick the curator. [...]43_19Aug200117:41:[log in to unmask]
8846 57 20_Tr: Eliot as liberal17_INGELBIEN [log in to unmask], 19 Aug 2001 20:44:22 +0200402_- The meaning of 'liberal' can change pretty fast indeed. By the 1910s, most
liberals were ready to countenance Home Rule, whereas the Tories
(significantly called 'Unionists' at the time) were screaming bloody murder
whenever the words were pronounced.
I am (re)sending my own puzzled reaction to Eliot's use of the word in his
letter (I've had problems getting through recently): [...]40_19Aug200120:44:[log in to unmask]
8904 29 30_Re: Definition of art (Sylvia)17_INGELBIEN [log in to unmask], 19 Aug 2001 20:56:34 +0200637_- Eliot's seems to have thought rather highly of the '''twit''' - highly
enough to
welcome him to Faber. And there's no telling what Plath's poetry would have
looked like if she hadn't met the '''twit'''.
Yours,
Raphaël
[log in to unmask]
----- Original Message -----
From: <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2001 5:44 AM
Subject: Re: Definition of art (Sylvia)
> Sylvia leaves everyone in the dust. She was Eliot's heir . . . too bad
she
> was married to that twit.
> Did Eliot have an opinon of her?
> Michael40_19Aug200120:56:[log in to unmask]
8934 51 38_OT: De Man (was Re: Definition of art)12_David [log in to unmask], 19 Aug 2001 19:40:38 +0000282_- Hi all,
I'm de-lurking, because if a misstatement gets repeated often enough people
might start to believe it.
While a young man in Belgium (iirc), Paul de Man wrote collaborationist
articles after the Nazis took over there. But he was not a Nazi.
David41_19Aug200119:40:[log in to unmask]
8986 35 21_Re: Definition of [log in to unmask], 19 Aug 2001 20:39:15 EDT1010_- --part1_81.eef3316.28b1b633_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 8/19/01 5:42:13 PM !!!First Boot!!!, [log in to unmask]
writes:
> Maybe it's kind of like the general election, in
> which your vote has a value, but isn't likely to decide the election€5ø,> |
