home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: misc.writing
- Path: sparky!uunet!pipex!warwick!doc.ic.ac.uk!syma!mapd1
- From: mapd1@syma.sussex.ac.uk (Nigel Ling)
- Subject: Re: support for the arts in the US
- Message-ID: <1992Dec14.131015.17669@syma.sussex.ac.uk>
- Organization: University of Sussex
- References: <1g5p0cINNjf4@agate.berkeley.edu> <1992Dec10.141204.13258@syma.sussex.ac.uk> <1gbvpuINNq0e@agate.berkeley.edu>
- Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 13:10:15 GMT
- Lines: 35
-
- In article <1gbvpuINNq0e@agate.berkeley.edu> curtis@cs.berkeley.edu (Curtis Yarvin) writes:
- >In article <1992Dec10.141204.13258@syma.sussex.ac.uk> mapd1@syma.sussex.ac.uk (Nigel Ling) writes:
- >>
- >>Well, excuse me for saying so, but this is *not* what literature is.
- >>Literature is art, not necessarily what the majority prefer to read.
- >
- >Oh? And who are you to decide which is which?
-
- Well, I'll tell you I am: I am someone who reads literature, who happens
- to think it has great value, and who is entitled to express an opinion
- just as you are.
-
- >
- >But even were it possible to define what is literature and what
- >is crap, fund the former and burn the latter, we could not
- >agree. We have a fundamental moral conflict, which cannot be
- >resolved by argument.
-
- There cannot be a precise definition but there is no doubt in my
- mind that there is writing which is literature and there is writing
- which is not. However, I said nothing about burning anything. There
- is nothing `wrong' with popular writing; but there is something
- wrong when literary work cannot get published because it doesn't
- sell as well as pulp.
-
- >
- >I believe that art is only valuable insofar as it makes people
- >happy.(*)
-
- Maybe that's a fair comment. But not everybody is made happy by
- the same things. And something is not art just because it makes
- one happy.
-
- Nigel
-
-