Why "ought" art to terrify and shock?  What moral imperative?
Nancy



Date sent:      	Tue, 21 Aug 2001 00:23:52 EDT
Send reply to:  	[log in to unmask]
From:           	[log in to unmask]
To:             	[log in to unmask]
Subject:        	Re: Definition of art

In a message dated 01-08-20 16:45:02 EDT, you write:

<< You've raised a very interesting question, here, Michael.  I can't
accept
 the images from Vietnam you mention as art, because I know they are not
 harmless, reflective disquisitions on the nature of human suffering, they
 are authentic pictures of real people dying.  I find that shocking,
 iconic, but not in the least artistic.  However, if I saw an artist's
 depiction of the Buddhist's self-immolation (like seeing a depiction of
 the crucifixion) I would feel that much more distanced from it; I would
 know what it referred to, and reflect on that, but not feel that sense of
 sickness in my stomach. No-one is actually suffering before my eyes.  >>

art ought to terrify and shock.
Michael