[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. 
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy 
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: