Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id BAA11579 (8.6.9/5.3[ref email@example.com] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from firstname.lastname@example.org); Mon, 26 Nov 2001 01:18:11 GMT Subject: Re: A Question for Wade Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 20:13:09 -0500 x-sender: email@example.com x-mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0v3, Claritas Est Veritas From: "Wade T.Smith" <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: "Memetics Discussion List" <email@example.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Message-ID: <20011126011308.AAA5202@firstname.lastname@example.org> Sender: email@example.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
Hi Joe Dees -
>Science is less memetic than art, for it is dependent upon empirical
>properties for its functioning; it must possess that which art may do
>without - utility.
There is a utility to art that is paramount- it must be understood on
some level. That there are empirical properties to art is obviously
evident. That there are processes that must be followed, since all
plastic arts involve the manipulation of physical materials, and
literature and music the manipulation of words and sounds, is also
evident, as Aristotle remarked, so long ago.
To say that art can do without utility is, well, biased, if not straight
Science and art are joined at the hip.
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Nov 26 2001 - 01:35:38 GMT