Re: What is art - ad absurdam

[Rommel John Miller <rjmiller1095@JUNO.COM>]

And yet, no one knows whether or not theirs will become a best seller
or win a pulitzer, but all seem to have the wish well in mind before
their
work is published.  (Cite every (Most?) writer's dream to pen the "great
'American' novel)



On Sun, 3 Sep 2000 00:03:26 -0700 Charles Schermerhorn
<schermie@EARTHLINK.NET> writes:
>David Goen's exposition illustrates my point:  By amplifying as many
>of the
>elements of definition the substance of the object is left on the wall
>or
>table or floor as irrelevant to the importance of the thoughts about
>it.
>
>Neither van Gogh, nor Bach, nor Feininger, nor Sandburg, while
>producing
>their work gave a thought to how it would be defined.  It grew out of
>an
>intrinsic creative instinct unique to those who do.
>
>That it must come to the attention of those who say diminishes the
>effect in
>direct proportion to the amount of verbiage expended on its behalf.
>
>Charles
>
>             ***********************************************
>            BOOK_ARTS-L: The listserv for all the book arts.
>      For subscription information, the Archive, and other related
>            resources and links go to the Book_Arts-L FAQ at:
>                      <http://www.philobiblon.com>
>             ***********************************************

             ***********************************************
            BOOK_ARTS-L: The listserv for all the book arts.
      For subscription information, the Archive, and other related
            resources and links go to the Book_Arts-L FAQ at:
                      <http://www.philobiblon.com>
             ***********************************************