From: "Kismet" <kismet-AT-bigpond.net.au>
To: <puptcrit-AT-puptcrit.org>
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 09:18:07 +1000
Subject: Re: [Puptcrit] Art as communication


Im not sure who Mark is but you seem to have stitched together a pretty 
peculiar position mixing quotes from disparate arguments. Although the 
argument has run a full circle and shoulkd be left to another day Im still 
curious as to what you, Malgosia, think art is? If it isnt about 
communication...which yes it can be...and it isnt for its own sake...which 
yes it can be...and it isnt for altering perceptions of environment....which 
it can do without communicating or even having meaning......then what is it 
for? And why cant it spread across a diversity of intent?

Daniel du Kismet
or
D.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "malgosia askanas" <ma-AT-panix.com>
To: <puptcrit-AT-puptcrit.org>
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2007 8:42 AM
Subject: Re: [Puptcrit] Art as communication


> Mark wrote:
>
>>.although yes I agree Art is about Art, (art for arts sake) not
>>about communication so we have come a full circle....any one care to go
>>around again.
>
> Just to clarify (since you said "I agree", as if you were agreeing
> with me): Me, I do *not* think that Art is about Art, and neither do
> I think that Art is about Communication.  (Not sure why one would
> have to swerve from the latter to the former.)  But I am also sensing
> that this discussion may have exhausted itself.
>
> -m
> _______________________________________________
> List address: puptcrit-AT-puptcrit.org
> Admin interface: http://lists.puptcrit.org/mailman/listinfo/puptcrit
> Archives: http://www.driftline.org
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.487 / Virus Database: 269.13.21/1012 - Release Date: 
> 16/09/2007 6:32 PM
>
> 

_______________________________________________
List address: puptcrit-AT-puptcrit.org
Admin interface: http://lists.puptcrit.org/mailman/listinfo/puptcrit
Archives: http://www.driftline.org