Discuss?

[David Morris]

Yes.  I agree with the gist of your statement.  And I consider some novels
attempts at art status.  That is why I think Oates' statement is banal at
best.


On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Tyler Wilson <tbsqrd at hotmail.com> wrote:

> Surely, there is much to argue with in the muddle below, and I’m unlikely
> to defend it, but the way I see it:
>
> Art is art. It won’t be pigeon-holed or covered with blanket-statements.
> Wouldn’t be Art if it could be. And I have to wonder about anyone trying
> very hard to pin it down. The thing is, each individual person who sees,
> reads, experiences a creation makes the subjective call as to whether it is
> art (as opposed to a picture, a story, sound, etc.) and it does not exist
> as such until that determination is made in the mind of the “experiencer”.
> “Artists” create things, express things in each her/his own personal way
> and I would hope do not consider (or label, maybe) those creations as
> “art”. That is left to others. In the same way, those experiencing
> something decide whether it is political, according to their own lights
> (and how maybe it will be used or thought of going forward). There is often
> a lot of overlap in things judged to be art and things judged to be
> political, but no direct equation to my mind. It’s very true, and often the
> case, a creator/”artist” may create a thing with political intentions, but
> again, that doesn’t make it art.
> --
> T
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20130206/68279a59/attachment.html>