XPost: rec.music.bluenote, rec.music.makers.guitar.jazz   
   From: jcmartin@sonic.net   
      
   j_nscott@msn.com wrote:   
      
   > JC, I'm not "defending" someone, I'm agreeing with one thing someone   
   > wrote because I agree with it. Your scatter-shot use of personal   
   > attacks isn't convincing me of anything, but I am interested in seeing   
   > whatever actual arguments you can come up with supporting your opinion   
   > that not all art is entertainment, if you want. You wrote:   
   >   
   > "Art indeed can be entertainment.  But it doesn't need to entertain to   
   > exist[...]   
   >   
   > What would be some examples of creations that are considered art and   
   > were not created to please anyone's tastes? Or, When should people's   
   > tastes being pleased not be called "art," or not be called   
   > "entertainment"?   
   >   
   > "[...]nor the does human impulse to create art exist solely as a need   
   > to entertain."   
   >   
   > What else does it exist as?   
      
      
   Listen, ya grabbed a dictionary and then mis-used it.  The first   
   definition is *human creativity*.  The second is *skill*.  The third is   
   *any craft or its principles*.  Where in there does it say *all art is   
   entertainment*?  That's just silly.  It's really hard for me to even   
   take that concept seriously since it doesn't reflect the reality that I   
   myself have experience with.  I myself create art not to entertain but   
   for my own personal expression and growth as a human being.  There are   
   many artists I know who don't entertain people as well.  They simply   
   create art.  Now you may not understand why people have that impulse.   
   But that's your hang-up.   
      
   -JC   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)