<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Defining Art: Letter II. Alex Responds</title>
	<atom:link href="/latest-issue/defining-art-a-dialogue-in-letters/defining-art-letter-ii-alex-responds/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://musedialogue.org</link>
	<description>A journal for contemplation and discussion of the arts</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 29 Dec 2013 14:34:48 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bill Hamblett</title>
		<link>https://musedialogue.org/latest-issue/defining-art-a-dialogue-in-letters/defining-art-letter-ii-alex-responds/#comment-2082</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Bill Hamblett]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 13 Oct 2012 18:06:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://musedialogue.org/?page_id=1459#comment-2082</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It seems to me that if you are an artist you are making art and the only person needed to define it.  Unless the artist&#039;s sole aim is to sell the art then it is almost irrelevant that anyone else should have a say in defining it. I find it hard to believe that we are reading something written in the twenty-first centuary I quote &quot;Understanding, appreciating, and enjoying “art” requires a level of education, taste, and higher thinking achievable with a degree of commitment.&quot; this sort of thinking would seem out of date in a regency parlour far less published in what porports to be a serious journal. I suppose these self congratulationary statements have been laid a s a trap to stimuate outrage or debate but if anyone else actually falls into this trap of commenting, beware.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It seems to me that if you are an artist you are making art and the only person needed to define it.  Unless the artist&#8217;s sole aim is to sell the art then it is almost irrelevant that anyone else should have a say in defining it. I find it hard to believe that we are reading something written in the twenty-first centuary I quote &#8220;Understanding, appreciating, and enjoying “art” requires a level of education, taste, and higher thinking achievable with a degree of commitment.&#8221; this sort of thinking would seem out of date in a regency parlour far less published in what porports to be a serious journal. I suppose these self congratulationary statements have been laid a s a trap to stimuate outrage or debate but if anyone else actually falls into this trap of commenting, beware.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
