[Fwd: long Re: CHECK THIS OUT!]

From: Steven Pollack (themissinglink@eznetinc.com)
Date: Mon Feb 15 1999 - 21:10:29 EET

attached mail follows:

Dear Steve, this was a nice little essay you wrote.

I issued some of my thoughts in my last email. Let me adress a couple
more particular to your points.

Firstly, you stated that art is about being one of kind. As a problem to
this definition let me point out that Kohler's storage shelves are full
of one of a kind faucets that didn't pass their marketing muster.

The problem for all of us is that when we try to make definitions out of
something as seemingly subjective as art, there are always exceptions.
To this end, art is an objective body of knowledge, like any other, with
its experts and panels who debate and decide what is and isn't included.
These are quite abstract and can be quite whimsical. When I look to
science I see something of the same. Now this either objectifies art or
subjectifies science. Both accomplishements would be positive in my

Secondly, in regards to definitions, unfortunately and no matter how
cynical it sounds (and I am not a cynic), art is what the experts say it
is. I believe this to be an axiom.

I found this point in your text quite accurate and very important:

It is a tool which knocks down many
barriers to entry and economies of scale. It is an enabling technology
allows the small talented craftsman/artist to become financially viable
as a
small enterprise instead of being forced into the creative department of
monolithic multinational.

best to all

michael rees SCULPTOR 		http://www.sound.net/~zedand00/
1212 w 8th St. Bldg B #2, 	816 753 3020 voice    zedand00@sound.net
KC, Mo 64101			816 753 1542 fax

For more information about the rp-ml, see http://ltk.hut.fi/rp-ml/

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jun 05 2001 - 22:50:58 EEST