CLT?

[Paul Mackin]

On Fri, 1 Sep 2000, Otto Sell wrote:

> apropos "last year's theory"...
> 
> I'm currently making my way through John Dewey's *Art As Experience* from
> 1934 and like it. It is a very "beautiful" read. Art Theory that grabbed me
> from the first sentence:
> 
> "By one of the ironic perversities that often attend the course of affairs,
> the existence of the works of art upon which formation of an esthetic theory
> depends has become an obstruction to theory about them."
> 
> The first 33 pages are already heavily underlined.

This is ironic but perhaps ironically ironic. 

Is the thrust of the observation that great works of art are hard to
theorize? That they make us work harder?  If so, why isn't
this a good thing? Or is it the point that it IS a good thing?

The alternative seems like it would be that great art is impossible to
come to grips with. This might be seen as good OR bad. Can
great art be beyond understanding and still be great art? Interesting
ideas, Otto.

			P.