From: word_chemist@hotmail.com   
      
   "Bayle"  wrote in message   
   news:1143555433.850060.58470@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...   
      
   > I agree, if I read you right, that it is an evasion of the life value   
   > of art, an escape into the formal. Which is not good for art in the   
   > long run, no matter how elegant and interesting at the abstract level.   
   > Even if it is rule bound in its own way.   
   >   
      
   What I mean about Duchamp is that he's *the* fetish artist of the postmodern   
   drones because of: 'The creative act is not performed by the artist alone;   
   the spectator brings the work in contact with the external world by   
   deciphering and interpreting its inner qualifications and thus adds his   
   contribution to the creative act.'   
      
   From which modest proposal things soon degenerated via many byways into the   
   enforced aesthetic atheism, infantilism, moronism, minorityism, nihilism and   
   dyslexia we know so well from the contemporary scene. I mean, if the   
   postmodernists really believe their obiter dicta, how the hell have they got   
   the cheek to 'teach'?   
      
   Here's my obiter dicta: When Marxism gets into aesthetics, you can hear the   
   long plopping march of shit art in crescendo.   
      
   ROBBIE   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)