Before this strange thread dissipates into the obfuscatory realms of
"liberal" mistification, I'd like to address what I see as your tendency to
take moderate claims (such as Jackie S's.) and extend them infinitely to
support a rather wild point. That's how you've taken my paraphrase of JS's
statement to move way beyond either my or (I'd suggest) Jackie's intent.
Yes, you can empty JS's position of any moral, social or political
responsibility and serve it up as yet another instance of m***relativity
(thus high predatory capitalism becomes art, in your curious example--but
yet, isn't that how Madison Avenue portrays things these days?
Postmodernism has invaded the boardroom!), but that completely disallows
nuance and shades of meaning and even human agency.
Actually (maybe I'm in a club of one here), this is getting interesting.
Where does the notion of "art for art's sake" (apologies to Oscar Wilde)
slide off into rampant relativity? A serious question, indeed.
Well, John, I'm laying off this one for a bit. But one last questione: Why
is Jackie's statement read by you as "liberalism in the extreme"? Seems an
odd choice of words . . .
A spectre hangs over RAS!
Salut!
David
>On Fri, 18 Dec 1998 06:48:57 -0600, "david karr"
>>Wasn't it Jackie Stewart who, when asked if motor racing was a form of
art,
>>said (and I'm paraphrasing be the way), "I believe any human endeavor,
when
>>taken to the outermost limits of skill, becomes a form of art."
>That is liberalism in the extreme. It can then be argued that rampany
>commercialism, taken to the outermost limits of skill, becomes a form
>of art in itself. The line between commerce and art becomes blurred
>beyond definition.
>>Yes, one
>>could take this too far, but in our own little driving sim universe those
>>words could be seen to apply to what Papyrus is doing with GPL. I think a
>>lot of us would agree.
>Myself included, but it doesn't contradict the original point, which
>is fast being lost in the mists of obfuscation.
>Cheers!
>John
