Is this (below) addressed to me, Nancy? I've noticed that when you don't 
like a post, the person to whom you almost appear to be responding almost 
appears to lose her or his identity. You've read things into my post (I 
think) that aren't there, and you have not answered the question(s) posed. 
I like scholarship, and even (some) scholars. I don't know that being 
scholarly (loosely speaking) is the only or even a necessary criterion to 
answer the question, "What is art?" Is this an offense? I hope that the 
scholars'excuse for existing is not so paper thin that it falls apart at a 
look.

 "Disinterestedness" was once an ideal. I don't believe it was assumed to 
be the washed-and-shined reality, but it was assumed to be worth working 
toward. But now it is not an ideal. Is it fair to say so? Personally, I am 
wary of advocacy scholarship, then or now, ideologically or 
self-interestedly motivated. I think it is the sort of knowledge that 
creates ignorance (it may create other things, also). Sorry if my honest 
belief offends you; I take notice, but I am not going to conclude that it 
is not well founded solely on that account.

 What do you think are the criteria for addressing the question, "What is 
art?" Should "current scholarship" have anything to say about it? Does it 
hurt to ask?

 In the meantime, there seem to be no answers to the original question. Is 
it because current scholarship is not interested in art per se? Everybody 
already knows and if you have to ask you don't deserve a reply?

 Heading for some langourous and incommunicado days laying about on the 
shores of Lake Erie. At least, kids in tow, that's the ideal.
 Later,
 Ken A.

--On Wednesday, August 15, 2001 2:14 PM -0400 Nancy Gish 
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> The question about "scholar" is not whether it means "disinterested" but
> whether that was in fact true at the time--so long ago--that you learned
> it.