I've been reading the comments to my drabble and going 'yes! desolate! sad! sniffles! woohoo!'
And then I realised that in any other context, making people even a little bit miserable would be generally considered not of the good.
Reactions to art are evidence the art is good even if said reaction is an emotional state or a set of thoughts that would usually be avoided.
So then I thought, if Ethan's events are considered art, then they make a whole different sense. I mean look at the depths of reaction they evoke! That's *art* that is, all deep and meaningful.
But I've had this thought before. Art changes the viewer and the artist. Ethan just does this a little more directly.
And then I realised that in any other context, making people even a little bit miserable would be generally considered not of the good.
Reactions to art are evidence the art is good even if said reaction is an emotional state or a set of thoughts that would usually be avoided.
So then I thought, if Ethan's events are considered art, then they make a whole different sense. I mean look at the depths of reaction they evoke! That's *art* that is, all deep and meaningful.
But I've had this thought before. Art changes the viewer and the artist. Ethan just does this a little more directly.
no subject
Date: 2004-08-30 10:10 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-08-30 04:56 pm (UTC)as long as its only metaphor bleeding and not 'aargh my eyes!' bleeding it's all good :)
*stores hug for later*
*sends one in return*
no subject
Date: 2004-08-31 01:03 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-08-30 10:13 am (UTC)Very good point. And yay :)
no subject
Date: 2004-08-30 04:57 pm (UTC)