Re: art not music


Subject: Re: art not music
From: miriam clinton (iriXx) (iriXx@iriXx.org)
Date: Sun Mar 06 2005 - 03:51:49 EST


err bleh yes, thats the context i meant....

why need to see forest when each tree looks interesting of its own accord...

thanks Kevin....

mC~

Kevin Austin wrote:

> I think this may be a linguistic confusion, as Miriam is proposing a
> collective noun (audience) and then qualifying with a singular
> circumstance (individual).
>
> Perhaps the way to write this was:
> " ... is not the perception each individual in the audience individual?"
>
> Is not every drop of rain that falls into a puddle individual? And
> then we create the 'collective noun' of rain fall(ing).
>
> This could be a matter of not seeing the trees for the forest.
>
> Best
>
> Kevin
>
>
>
> At 14:44 -0800 2005/03/01, Eliot Handelman wrote:
>
>> Miriam wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>> is not the audience's perception individual?
>>>
>>
>> Clearly not completely if Hit Song Sciience does work, to resume the
>> other thread. Also, since we do tend to get agreement that "bach is
>> good" something in the music must be facilitating perceptions about
>> which we at least have a sense that what we're hearing is something
>> that others can hear too.
>>
>>
>> -- eliot
>
>
>
>

-- 
99% of aliens prefer Earth
--Eminem

www.iriXx.org www.copyleftmedia.org.uk

-- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.6.2 - Release Date: 4/03/2005



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b27 : Sat Dec 22 2007 - 01:46:07 EST