XPost: rec.music.bluenote, rec.music.makers.guitar.jazz   
   From: jcmartin@sonic.net   
      
   Mark & Steven Bornfeld wrote:   
      
   > JC Martin wrote:   
   >   
   >> j_nscott@msn.com wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> Hi Steven,   
   >>>   
   >>> Consider this activity: You go to an exhibit, and a work there provokes   
   >>> you to think about our relationship to the universe, and you like the   
   >>> work, and consider it beautiful. Why shouldn't that be considered you   
   >>> being entertained? Is it that "entertainment" connotes activities that   
   >>> are in some way inferior to that activity?   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> When if I consider the work brutal, ugly, frightening and thought   
   >> provoking?  Not all art brings me pleasure.  But all art certainly   
   >> makes me think about my relationship with the universe.   
   >>   
   >> -JC   
   >   
   >   
   >     I think the concept of understanding one's relationship to the   
   > universe is at least as vague a concept as Mr. E.'s use of the word   
   > entertainment--that is, unless you can flesh out exactly how Warhol's   
   > soup cans places you in the universe.   
      
      
   Well, I've had art inpspire me politically and I can assure you it   
   wasn't entertaining in any way.  Mel Gibson's recent movie on the death   
   of Jesus Christ wasn't entertaining to me in the slightest, but it was   
   certainly art.  Pop art like Warhol isn't going to make me think much,   
   but it will make me giggle.  Ya see, I'm not the one here saying art   
   can't be entertainment.  But to say *all* art is entertainment is simply   
   false.   
      
   -JC   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)