"You're all here to understand conflict. We have a lot of instinct relating to conflict, used since before the dawn of our species to help us flee or fight. From the personal to the tribe, some people can smell it coming, from the silence of efforts to coexist being abandoned, to no more jockeying for position. We learn to hear the approach of a fight as mutually stifled wills shift our realities. Some use this chance to prepare to give something up, or to flee long before conflict arrives, and some arrange - learn the weak points of coworkers, friends, lovers, perhaps seek outside aid. Some of you want to learn the approach of conflict to avert it - often this is worse, as the moment of conflict is a sign that the old reality is no longer justified." -- Isa wrinkled her brow, absentmindedly looked up the profile of her professor.
To chew on:( Collapse )
Han von Meegeren: an interesting "forger" of the Dutch masters, who painted original paintings in their style, attributed to them in the hopes that once they had received acclaim, he would reveal his authorship and achieve fame. My thoughts: his personal ethics were worthy of condemnation, but he was also a great artist and the works he made were not less worthy of their acclaim by the fraud. Were the conversations and insights made by trying to combine the claimed artists' perspective with the specifics of the work invalid? To what extent is appreciation for authenticity as part of the character of a work overrated or a failing? Should we now appreciate his art under his own name?