Re: RAT (not about) COLUMBINE

[Ezra Buzzington <jonoh1@juno.com>]

On Fri, 23 Apr 1999 09:38:16 -0700 (PDT) Audie McCall
<audiemccall@yahoo.com> writes:
>--- josh@whirl-i-gig.com wrote:
>> the boys are still being teased,
>> even after they took up
>> arms and tried to show everyone in America  how much
>> it hurts.  This was
>> their art, and whether I approve of their actions or
>> not, whether I am
>> horrified by their aesthetics or not, I feel like
>> what they're saying needs
>> to be heard.
>
>A lot of energy gets wasted on definitions of art.  I
>won't bother with that here except to say, if such
>carnage can be considered art, then one has little
>choice other than to toss out the mamby-pampy
>"all-art-is-good-art" pablum so popular these days and
>admit that some art can be wicked, plain and simple.
>
>Then our job as artists becomes to engage bad art with
>good.
>

I have zero desire to enter the Columbine thread. (And like it or not,
that's exactly what it's been reduced to on this and other list serves).
But <this> comment intrigues the hell out of me.
Of course Art can be wicked. It is. It must be. We are all wicked right
along with it. Though most of us dance that dance in the dark and to
empty houses. More's the pity for Art. But I'm confused by your statement
that  "our job as artists becomes to engage bad art with good". Do you
mean "bad" ( and good) in an aesthetic sense, or moral?
Good art is evil,
Jonathan
 
>_________________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>

___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]