In article <[log in to unmask]>, [log in to unmask] wrote:

>   Once again can't resist playing devils advocate.
>
>   What ever happened to the joyful and liberating sense that one of the
>   functions of art in our time is to transgress rules?  That was a
>   motivating force behind many of the pieces of art now accepted as
>   modern masterpieces (and I do mean "a" motivating force, not
>   necessarily "the" motivating force.)

well, since you are playing the devil's advocate, i guess  i'll have to be
god's advocate :)

if one can feel liberated by breaking the rules, then i, as rulemaker, am
supplying the "artist" with the means to that liberation.  which only goes
to show that i, by virtue of my place in society and culture, can assume a
certain amount of credit for the artist's masterpiece.  it also shows that
(1) i am still the big boss in society since it is the artist who is
forced to react to me, and (2) the artist's reactions, always in response
to me (i, being rulemaker, set the terms)  are ensured to always remain
firmly entrenched within my (and the artist's mutually shared) society.
that is, the artist can run, pout, write on my garage, but he (or she)
can't hide!  and the idea liberation is a sham....

>   Are property rules, written into law, so qualititatively different
>   that violating them (in a pretty modest way) makes graffitti
>   intrinsically beyond the pale?  Has everyone lost all of their taste
>   for a touch of anarchy?

i don't recall ever having a taste for anarchy! <blush>

>
>   And I live and work in NYC, and took the subway every day for many
>   years, and I got tired of grafitti in general, particularly the black
>   scrawls.  I always kind of liked the big puffy lettered signs, though
>   I must admit a sense of relief when the fashion passed.
>
>   We grow old, we grow old, we shall wear the...etc etc.
>
>
>   Eric Siegel
>   [log in to unmask]

kjk (havin' fun)