----------------------------Original message----------------------------
Ok, fine. Look at something 5 years after the fact and decide that gee-this
means "______" or that means....absolutley nothing at all...but it looks SO
COOL.....
 
You were correct to stay away from defining an artist, you should also stay
away from defining art though...remember art is only ion the eye of the
beholder....yeah, so I liked "Ishtar" ;) THAT's art...and I thought "Citizen
Kane" sucked...all those low angles made me dizzy...what'd he do, cut a hole
in the floor or something?...
 
alll I'm saying is this (again). Can't something, anything be conceived of as
art WITHOUT being analyzed to death? Can't something that looks great and
tells the/a story well just be considered good, and leave it at that? It
makes it so much more enjoyable....
 
arteest-at-large
scarasm gleefully accepted....
 
**************************************************
It was reported today that Bill Gates is buying 1995, saying "since we can't
deliver Windoze '95 IN 1995, we'll buy the year and let it carry over till we
finish the program." Gates also filed suit today agains god, saying that it
is a monopoly and should be broken up, as Gates says, "like AT&T".
**************************************************