It's Monday (yes, yes, I'm Captain Obvious.) On Thursday, Lou and I are headed for a five-day whirlwind road trip to Denver by way of Bozeman. I've got an insane to-do list for the two interim days, and am currently exhausted beyond rational thought.
All of which, when added up, means I don't have a blogalectic post in me today. It simply... isn't there.
So, if you haven't read Masha's post on Art from last Wednesday, or Mr. Pond's synthesis of Masha's and my apparent disagreement, from Friday, I encourage you to do that. I'm loosely of the opinion that my definition of good art is really quite close to Masha's definition of art, and that our disagreement is primarily semantic. Which puts me in some agreement with Mr. Pond.
But I'll save further commentary for next Monday. For now, I'll leave you all—and Mr. Pond and Masha, if they wish to engage it—with this question: If beauty is necessary to good art (or all art, if you prefer Masha's terminology), what, objectively speaking, is beauty?