XPost: rec.music.bluenote, rec.music.makers.guitar.jazz   
   From: bornfeldmung@dentaltwins.com   
      
   j_nscott@msn.com wrote:   
      
   > "I doubt very much that a majority or even a sizeable percentage of   
   > folks making their living as artists today would say that beauty is a   
   > sine qua non for art, or even necessarily important to a given body of   
   > work."   
   >   
   > In your view, what would these people tend to say _is_ important to or   
   > a sine qua non for art?   
      
   	I'd rather let them speak for themselves.  I'm a dentist.  Those   
   artists I've known tell me they wish to provoke thought about their   
   relationship to the universe in some way.  But mostly artists make art   
   because they must.  Since many (perhaps most) are either poor or support   
   their avocation in some other way, their primary motivation seems rarely   
   to be commerce.   
   	But I certainly cannot claim to speak for art.  In the end, it's a   
   mystery to me.   Yeah, chocolate too.   
      
   Steve   
   >   
   > "Of course, you may choose to define beauty as broadly as you wish."   
   >   
   > I don't think I define it overly broadly. How would you define it?   
   >   
   > "Chocolate is usually pleasing, but only occasionally is it art."   
   >   
   > "Art" meaning what?   
   >   
   > Joseph Scott   
   >   
      
      
   --   
   Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS   
   http://www.dentaltwins.com   
   Brooklyn, NY   
   718-258-5001   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)