"Alan Walker" wrote in message
...
Jim: Your debate only makes sense by using semantic illusion.
You have created a
definition of art to fit your argument. Durability is a rather
novel criterion for
defining art. While you might find someone making that
argument in an obscure
reference, durability is not a widely held criterion for
defining art.
I believe all art is ephemeral. Change is the key
constant in our
universe. (Well, along with death and taxes!)

Sorry, Alan, but I don't understand.

I never defined art as being durable -- anywhere. I define art
as a painting, sculpture, symphony (or bonsai, I suppose) that is
aesthetically pleasing. Paintings, sculptures, symphonies (or
bonsai) that are NOT aesthetically pleasing are NOT art.

I must not have been clear. Sorry.

(And ephemeral is as ephemeral does, I suppose. Ol' Mike's
"David" has been around for a while. Rodin's "thinker" will be
around until someone melts it down.)

Jim Lewis - - Tallahassee, FL - The phrase
'sustainable growth' is an oxymoron. - Stephen Viederman