Douglas Barbour wrote:
> Usually the latter?
> who also hasnt read the whole thing....
> On 2-Apr-10, at 2:45 PM, Halvard Johnson wrote:
>> These seem like false alternatives to me. One can do both, or
>> something in between.
I can't see how you can avoid doing both: you can't even roll dice
without intending to do so (and use the result in an artwork), nor can
you decide in advance every minute detail of some work you want to
compose--chance will pop certain unexpecteds into your mind.
Ultimately, too, that you are you is the result of chance, and your
choices available by chance--for instance, your by chance happening to
be alive in 2010 rather than in 1322.
Aside from that, I don't understand what readers have to do with
anything. If you choose to make something of words, aren't you
necessarily trying to communicate with someone else? Or, if you're
"merely" constructing an object of beauty, how can it not be for others,
as well as yourself? I suppose it's theoretically possible to be
totally solipsistic, but very difficult and rare. It might also be