Re: Betreft: Re: Steg's wonderful .sig (and a question)

"L. Gerholz" wrote:

> > How do you justify that for which the very idea of "justification"
> > makes no sense?  Does it makes sense to "justify" the Mona Lisa,
> > or the Sistine Chapel? After the fact, maybe (in this line of thinking:
> > because they make money for the Louvre/Vatican) -- but not
> > when the artists involved were first thinking about the idea.
>
> Careful about using examples like the Sistine Chapel in this argument.
> That, AFAIK, was done on a commission from the Church. What was the
> Church's justification? They didn't need one, they had the money.
>
> Just so no one takes me wrong here, I'm not saying anything about the
> Church, I'm trying to say something about the argument of needing
> "justification" for art. People who insist on bringing up this tired old
> saw never seem to bring it up when a work was commissioned. The idea
> that money is a worthy justification but an artist's own pleasure
> *can't* be is what really irritates me.
Oh, *I* wasn't saying that -- I was just giving an example of
what some people *might* say.  There are people out there
who reduce everything to monetary values, an idea which I
of course reject, nonreductionist that I am.

======================================
Tom Wier <artabanos@...>
ICQ#: 4315704   AIM: Deuterotom
Website: <http://www.angelfire.com/tx/eclectorium/>
"Cogito ergo sum, sed credo ergo ero."

Non cuicumque datum est habere nasum.
It is not given to just anyone to have a nose.
        -- Martial
======================================