[lit-ideas] To what extent must we appreciate a work of art "on its own terms"?
- From: Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 15:53:32 EST
To a Popperian extent. Allow me to explain:
In a message dated 2/27/2009 3:44:19 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx writes (words to the effect):
He starts on a negative note:
>There are many senses ['scenarios'. JLS]
>and point of views from which
>a work of art can NOT set its own standard
>(including the almost logical one that, if it could,
>there would be no independent standards - everything
>would achieve the standard it set itself, in a trivial sense).
The exception that proves the rule:
>There may nevertheless be *one sense* [scenario. JLS]
>in which we *should* _try_ *to* appreciate a WOArt on its own terms.
I'm confused. It's like saying, 'pigs can't fly', but there is a scenario
where we should try to appreciate a flying pig.
I thought you preferred 'must' to should.
If you are happy with drop the scare quotes, do. I usually never [seriously]
answer quizzes that scare me.
Cheers,
JL
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
steps!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1218822736x1201267884/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Fwww.freecreditreport.com%2Fpm%2Fdefault.aspx%3Fsc%3D668072%26hmpgID
%3D62%26bcd%3DfebemailfooterNO62)
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
