Justin,

Your dissertation was, I'm afraid, a complete denial of human understanding,
human nature and clearly illustrates the dangers of relativism and drunken
subjectivism. Your thesis regarding objectivity (and your erroneous
conclusions) describe your apparent misunderstanding of human nature and the
workings of the mind. Yours was not so much a contribution to the art
debate as it was an attempt to argue that no one knows what he/she is
talking about, so we should all just shut up.

Let me take issue with the many falsehoods you presented:

---------------
"Classically trained" is completely superfluous, arbitrary, and and
therefore meaningless.
---------------

Absolutely wrong. If you understand the basic common process, syllabus and
elements of classical training (in any number of arts), you can clearly see
what is meant by "classically trained" and know that it is neither
superfluous nor meaningless. That you don't understand this is lamentable,
but is not evidence of non-existence.
---------------


The idea of "classical art," i contend, is a falsehood. This is based
solely on the relative and subjective nature of art, and it's
interpretation. Objective determinations, such as "this is art" and "this
is not" cannot then truly exsist. Personally, i believe that there is no
such thing as a true objectivity, but you can personally email me for a
debate on that, i'd love to entertain mentally stimulating conversation.
----------------

Your ridiculous argument that there is no such thing as objectivity leaves
us without any means to classify or define anything. Definitions and
classifications are important tools for us, our perception and our
functioning intellect. We humans *have* to define and classify, lest every
new thing we encounter is a complete surprise and then occupies its own,
unique place in our perception, exclusive of any other things that are
similar in nature. This is not how humans function and it is ridiculous to
suggest that it is or should be.
-----------------

snip
i
feel the real question people should be asking, is never asked "What do i
think, and does what other people say matter to me enough to forsake my
own independent thought, and its value or worth?"
-----------------

Opinion does not exist in a vacuum. What you describe as "the" way to
classify things is utter anarchy and denies the fact that we calssify things
based on pertinent information. If I think that the sky is pink, because in
my mind blue is the same as pink, I have opted out of common human
perception and societal structures. Mine would be a worthless idea and have
no contribution to our world.

Like everying else, art is classified by its widely agreed upon features.
Like everything else, there is room for individual interpretation, but there
are core concepts and features that make art "art." Your sad attempt to
suggest that everything is an arbitrary, worthless determination is naive
and denies this simple fact.

Art is communication and all art pulls to some degree from the pool of
features and elements that we have determined (and that thousands of years
of human history supports) to be characteristic of art. That you don't
understand this is, again, lamentable, but simply not evidence to the
contrary.
----------------

People read things and
believe them. they think that because a man has a phd in say, art history,
his opinion matters more. does it? because one man says that something is
a classic, is it? or maybe more people are needed? 10? 100? 1,000? The
Nazi's (used only as an example, i hope we can steer clear of debate about
WWII) all got together. many millions saying the same thing? were they
right? My opinion is that they were not. I therefore ask, who is to say
who's opinion is right or wrong?
----------------

Here you have used a contemptable ploy to support what you cannot support
any other way, I guess. This is inflamatory and irrelevant.
----------------

Well, the interpretation of what is and is not art is still left
specifically unaddressed, so i will now, based upon things i have
mentioned, attempt to address it. The short answer is "no one is right, no
one is wrong." Spineless?
----------------

Absolutley. Not just spineless, but erroneous and specious.
----------------

this is where i feel the debate goes astray. people are having difficulty
drawing a distinction between low and high art, and whether or not these
distinctions therefore attatch work. this is another area where people
step on toes.
----------------

Your again ridiculous, arbitrary classifications (not listed above for the
sake of brevity) ignore what we humans have already arrived at by way of
classifying art. The aim is not the determining factor. Rather the
quality - the degree to which the work communicates within the already
established artistic language norms and its resultant success with viewers
(how it communicates directly to each or groups of viewers/listeners).
Again, you have completely disregarded how humans appreciate art and how art
is meaningful to humans.

You have constructed a thesis based on your own lack of understanding and
have used it as an (empty) illustration of how things should be or how you
believe they are. In this process you have denied what has come before you
and ignored what is clearly evident to most intelligent people.

Your attempt to deny the value of societal structures, concrete and
conceptualized ideals, logical arbitrary classification and the depth of
history upon which we have built these valuable elements of our lives is
both naive and dangerous. There are further implications and dangers
inherent in your thesis that are not appropriate for this forum, but there
nonetheless.

Keep an open mind.

Justin Diaz
-------------------

Justin, you have opened your mind so wide that your brain has fallen out. A
lesson to us all. Further, I note that you preface every opinion of yours
by saying "i feel that..." I should think you should do much more
"thinking" and much less "feeling" in your personal examinations of what
"is" in human society.

In the end, we are left with the very real and very valuable, widely
acknowledged characteristics of art and intelligent people can understand
that inventing our own, individual, "languages" for art is in no way
valuable as it would then have no social or widespread value. I am thankful
that we don't live in the anarchist and non-cohesive world you have
suggested here.

Kind regards,
Andy Rutledge
zone 8, Texas

************************************************** ******************************
++++Sponsored, in part, by Lisa Kanis++++
************************************************** ******************************
-- The IBC HOME PAGE & FAQ: http://www.internetbonsaiclub.org/ --
+++++ Questions? Help? e-mail +++++