DM>This may seem paradoxical in light of our earlier discussion about what
DM>constitues art --- I argued that an important criterion for a work of art
DM>is that it communicate something. So why wouldn't I care if no one's on
DM>the receiving end of this communication?
DM>Well, I've never been of two minds about it: if a tree falls in the forest,
DM>and no one's there to here it, it certainly does still make a sound. And
DM>likewise, a beautiful thing is no less beautiful if one person sees than if
DM>a million see it.
Well, both literally and figuratively, a tree falling in the forest does
*not* make a sound if noones there to here it. (Oh, god, no! Not this
old debate! Isn't it solved YET?)
You see, "sound" is the way the brain interprets moving air impacting
the eardrum. If a tree falls in the forest, it displaces some air, but
if the air doesn't hit anybody's eardrum and be interpreted by the
brain, *there is no sound*.
Similarly, you can't say that a work which *communicates* something has
done its job just as well whether one person or a million see it.
Obviously, if your aim is to tell people something, you will want them
to see it.
But that's not the same as being beautiful. It all depends on whether
you just want to create something beautiful, or something insightful and
meaningful that everyone really should think about. (I'm not saying one
is better or more "art" then the other - I think they both qualify
equally well.)
Joe
* SLMR 2.1a * This is the Uncertainty Principle.. no, wait - Heisenberg