> "Art without meaning is nonsense.
>
> "Art with meaning obfuscates that meaning and is propaganda."
>
> Discuss.
>
> I'll start by saying it all depends on what the meaning of "meaning" is,
> since if it doesn't include "description", or isn't satisfied with that
> alone, then the dilemma doesn't seem to be describing art, exactly, and if
> it does then the second leg of the dilemma seems to fall down.
>
> Simple description is fundamental but simple art; higher art utilizes
> lesser descriptions in the course of and in the construction of a greater
> description, eg Camus' _The Plague_, with its voluminous sequence of
> descriptions of more-or-less tangled events fleshing out his description
> of a greater event, and capped with his ultimate and overall description,
> "These people were just the same as ever".
>
> Again, Hume considered that if you have an important argument you should
> just make it, as such, but also considered it important to treat important
> and incontrovertible subjects as often and in as many ways as possible,
> and also that undecidable subjects lent themselves readily to dialogue at
> least ("Pamphilus to Hermippus", introducing his unfinished classic
> _Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion_).
>
> Nonetheless, the dilemma has a smack of plausibility about it.
>
> --
>
> The best piece of logic I ever heard, Mr Larynx; the very best,
> I assure you.
>
> < _Nightmare Abbey_