Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id UAA13733 (8.6.9/5.3[ref email@example.com] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from firstname.lastname@example.org); Mon, 26 Nov 2001 20:30:13 GMT Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 15:24:46 -0500 Subject: Re: A Question for Wade Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed From: Wade Smith <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <002901c176b0$8db11940$d7a4bed4@default> Message-Id: <A24EF6D6-E2AB-11D5-A09C-003065A0F24C@harvard.edu> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.475) Sender: email@example.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Yes, but a sculpture only has to look aesthetically pleasing;
Well, for sure and begorrah, I don't agree with that.
Lots of things have to look aesthetically (oh, boy, define that
term) pleasing. Wallpaper. Gardens. Cindy Crawford.
A sculpture (art in general) not only has to have an aesthetic
function (and whether pleasingness is part of that is a way open
question), it has to have the utility of engaging the observer's
emotions, although, yeah, that sort of is aesthetic function at
Initially, I came into memetics from the back door of aesthetics
(the only philosophical stance I appreciate), and can still see
At heart also, in my stubborness with sticking with physical
memes, is a stubborness inherent in aesthetics- that there
actually has to be something to look at.
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 - 20:36:10 GMT