Subject: | |
From: | |
Date: | Mon, 30 Dec 2002 07:41:02 -0000 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Denis Fodor wrote:
>What is wrong with Sellars's reading of Nozze, at least as Schwartzo
>renders it, is that, right off, sexual harrassment today is considered
>politically incorrect, while the droit de seigneur, in its time, was
>considered politically correct.
and Margaret Mikulska wrote:
>"Droit du seigneur" didn't exist - it was an 18th-century notion,
>symbolizing the power of aristocrats.
Well with this latter at least we are getting somewhere. All along,
what we are really dealing with is the expression of human experience
and emotion in art, and that concepts are eternal however they may vary
in detail from time to time. To look upon great art and see only minutiae
is fine, but it's not the only way to go. The saddest thing about this
debate is the digging of theoretical trenches rather than considering
the wider cultural horizons. Art addresses human issues. Whether we
think this matters or not, why should we deny to others what we might
not personally appreciate?
Anne
[log in to unmask]
|
|
|